Curb the secret tests
HOW would you feel about being the subject of a Government experiment without being told about it? Pretty miffed, I’d guess.
Thankfully, you might think, we live in a modern, open democracy where such trickery would never happen. Incredibly, though, this is exactly what’s going on.
As we report on pages 36 and 41, many of us have been unwitting participants in more than 150 experiments by a little-known outfit nicknamed ‘the nudge unit’.
This somewhat jovial moniker hides its more sinister sounding real name: the Behavioural Insights Team. Based close to the heart of government, the team’s clearly stated job is to use so- called ‘nudge theory’ to try to help improve our choices and behaviour.
The widely lauded theory is based on the premise that, rather than spend millions on l egislation and regulation, you can better citizens’ lives by making indirect suggestions and hidden tweaks to i nfluence people’s decision-making and behaviour.
I’d challenge anyone who just read ‘improve our choices’ and ‘better citizens’ lives’ not to feel deeply uncomfortable about its aims.
And don’t think I have chosen such phrases just to try to hammer home my own personal prejudices. Owain Service, one of the unit’s top bosses, couldn’t be any clearer. ‘We are in favour of encouraging or enabling people to make better decisions for themselves,’ he says.
Which begs the question: who on earth is the nudge unit to decide what is ‘better’ or in our i nterests? An even more worrying poser might be: who is overseeing the nudge unit to determine what is actually meant by ‘better’? The answer is no one. There is no overseeing board or committee to monitor the unit’s progress or mode of operation. Even its claims of having identified £300 million in Government savings are hard to pin down.
This fearful lack of accountability was raised by a House of Lords select committee last year amid calls for greater clarity about its work and methods. Yet nothing has changed.
The nudge unit’s defence is that its work is aimed at making society fairer to the benefit of all.
For example, a text message ‘ nudge’ that convinces tardy taxpayers to pay what they owe means more money for the Government to spend elsewhere.
No one would argue that tax- dodgers should be allowed to carry on breaking the law — but is it right to do it via state- sponsored manipulation?
I’d argue that keeping people in the dark about covert Government operations is far more worrying.
To be fair, the nudge unit could help itself by doing much more to explain its work or publicise its actions more widely.
Some nudge theory supporters argue that this takes away its power, but I’m not so sure. Backers also claim that a nudge doesn’t really count as an intrusion on people’s civil liberties.
But it’s hard to shake off the impression that the unit’s raison d’etre is about influencing our subconscious to push us towards making what the unit thinks are better decisions.
At its most simple, what the nudge team seems to struggle with is an ordinary individual’s natural instinct against this ‘ someone else knows best’ notion.
Or that it’s entirely reasonable for the public to feel unsettled at being secretly manipulated.
Yet I’d call the public’s reaction a perfectly normal one.
Perhaps managing director Mr Service’s claim that individuals must take responsibility for their decisions, even if we’ve been nudged into it, captures it best. In other words, any choice we’ve made that has been influenced by its work has nothing to do with them. It’s the most alarming piece of Orwellian newspeak I’ve heard in years.
Letter to George
Our story last week about the mis-selling case involving richard and rita Kauffman sparked a massive outflow of sympathy.
The couple, who are in their late 60s, are set to lose their home after being convinced by an adviser to run up huge debts against their home to invest in a toxic product.
When it fell apart, the Kauffmans were left horribly out of pocket and unable to pay off their mortgage.
Though the couple plan to appeal against UK Asset resolution — the body in c harge of st ar t i ng proceedings to repossess their home — their chances of staying on for many more months look remote.
In one last-ditch attempt to save their home, Mrs Kauffman has written a letter to the Chancellor, George Osborne, i n the hope that he will offer them some sort of lifeline.
The Treasury is not famed for being in touch with its more human side, but if there was ever a chance to show that it is really, then now is the time.
Trouble ahead?
I’VE written here before about banks who are keen to offer to lend me more money.
recently, I’ve pointed the finger at High Street banks and building societies offering me ever bigger personal loans and credit cards — despite my never having asked to borrow a penny. Now, it is the turn of Barclaycard. It is offering what’s called a ‘ money transfer’ — a trick that lets me shift any unused balance f r om my c ard’s credit limit into my current account. I can then spend the cash on whatever I want, according to Barclaycard’s marketing blurb. The cash comes interestfree for almost a year, but there’s a 1.99 pc arrangement fee to pay, so it’s not quite the bonanza it seems.
Talk about encouraging customers to run up debts!
These types of deal were last in fashion in the run-up to the financial crash, when lenders were happy to offer loans to just about anyone.
I also remember that after the crash, so- called banking experts regularly popped up to say the glut of cheap money wasn’t always their fault — that greedy customers were to blame, too.
Well, if a debt crisis leads Britain to hit the rocks again, there’s no question where the blame will lie.
JAMES CONEY is away.