Changing the government’s tone won’t cost anything, but it could make a big difference

“Always try to be nice and never fail to be polite.”

Four years ago I wrote a blog about kindness in public policy. That article focused on the interpersonal processes of policymaking within government. It was partly a commentary by Dominic Cummings, who called for “freaks” to join him in government, built a reputation for being, let’s call it, unkind, and then split with Boris Johnson before helping to bring down the prime minister he had served until recently.

I want to return to this topic today, as a new government takes office in less than ideal circumstances. The new administration is unlikely to be able to “spend money” in a way that will immediately transform our public services. Nevertheless, there are a number of things that government can do cheaply (or that might even save money) by changing its tone and choosing to be kind.

The government makes hundreds or thousands of decisions every day as part of its normal operations. Many of these decisions have little or no financial impact – but they change the musical tone of the country and the way it is lived.

This matters – in our relationships with our allies and in shaping our position in the world. For example, Liz Truss’s decision, when she was Prime Minister, to be evasive about whether French President Macron was friend or foe – showing a lack of respect and no small amount of madness for one of our closest allies. Or the decision of the current Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, to make it clear that if someone were the subject of an international arrest warrant and came to the UK, they would be arrested, signals to the wider world that the UK is honouring its obligations under international law – something that could not be taken for granted for much of the last few years.

It also matters at a micro level. Refugees from some countries have almost a 100% chance of having their asylum claims accepted, yet still have to wait months or years for a decision. Tolerating a small false positive rate – and accepting all or most of these people immediately, or at least much more quickly – would send a signal that the UK is a friendly and welcoming place, clear the backlog of cases and save taxpayers money.

In the criminal justice system we still imprison people for crimes of economic desperation – such as not paying council tax or even not paying a TV licence. Of course people should pay their taxes – but sending them to prison because they can’t find £165 is cruel and unusual, incredibly expensive and has bad consequences, including repeated (and expensive) further imprisonment. Surely requiring people who commit such offences to do community service would be both more charitable and cheaper.

Nowhere is this more true than in the benefits system. The government has said it will not remove the two-child benefit cap, even though it believes it is barbaric, but there are other things it can do.

Under the Coalition government, we ran two experiments with the Department for Work and Pensions. One focused on adding a more personal, less institutional approach to encouraging jobseekers to apply – and we saw their engagement with careers fairs more than double.

The second, larger study involved tens of thousands of jobseekers to change their experience of JobCentre Plus – to make it more forward-looking, more supportive and yes, more benevolent. Qualitatively, people appreciated the new process, treating them more like human beings and less focused on imposing sanctions. Quantitatively, these changes also led to a significant increase in the rate at which people actually got work and stopped claiming benefits. Once again, the more benevolent approach was also the smarter, more cost-effective approach.

I’m sure there are dozens of other areas where the government has the choice to be nice in its tone or in its actions, in a way that helps lift the country and makes it feel like a nicer, more positive place to live for everyone. As we’ve seen before, they don’t have to cost money or encourage bad behavior. What’s not to love about that?

Michael Sanders is Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Experimental Government Team at the Policy Institute at King’s College London.