A side note on this - not mostly on Sewell, but on government-commissioned "independent" reports/"Commissions". The process *is* tricky and it is not (and should not!) be a purely "objective" or "non-political" process. (1/7?) https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1381174285352501249

These aren't academic exercises/research papers – point is to change something (specific policies, the policy framework, the “narrative.”). That’s political. There’s no point in writing a report which is politically unacceptable to those who commissioned it/dead on arrival (2/7)

Equally there’s no point in producing something which could have been written by civil servant.

Works well when you have a Chair who has their own clear ideas/framework and is well enough plugged in politically to gauge whether the conclusions will fly. (3/7)

Also needed: a Commission that is diverse enough both to avoid groupthink and to be credible with external stakeholders.Knowing how to use the civil service is crucial; Commission members have day jobs so much of the groundwork and writing has to be done by a secretariat. (4/7)

That *doesn’t* need to compromise independence if the ground rules are clear (the secretariat is responsible to the Commission not their home Department) and the Commission trusts them (5/7).

The (oft-cited) example of this working well is the Pension Commission (Adair Turner, the late great John Hills, Jeannie Drake) supported by a brilliant analytical team at DWP. As ever @instituteforgov have a good summary of what went right: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/pension_reform.pdf (6/7)

Suffice to say the PC had everything Sewell didn’t. We don’t know exactly what went wrong here, but the (abysmal) quality of the report speaks for itself. Let’s hope some of the Commissioners take the opportunity to salvage their reputations by speaking out. (7/7 End)