UK Treasury enlists Tony Blair Institute for AI rollout in public services

When a major Western government decides to modernize public services with artificial intelligence, a key question arises: who does it call as advisors? The British Treasury gave a very telling answer—and it pleased far from everyone.

On Wednesday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury James Murray held a closed meeting attended by the AI Director from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), the Chairman of IBM's Board of Directors, senior executives from Faculty AI, now part of Accenture, and Dex Hunter-Torrichelli—a former communications advisor at Google, Facebook, and Elon Musk's SpaceX. The subject of the meeting was the strategy for deploying artificial intelligence systems in British government structures.

The Tony Blair Institute has long positioned itself as one of the main ideologues of digital transformation in public administration. The organization, founded by the former Prime Minister, consistently promotes the idea that AI can radically increase the efficiency of the public sector—from healthcare to tax administration. The Institute publishes large-scale reports, holds conferences, and builds bridges between governments and technology businesses around the world. However, this very dual role—simultaneously as an independent analytical center and an intermediary for the private sector—provokes sharp criticism.

The reaction from civil society proved predictably harsh. Activists advocating for digital equality and transparency in technology policy compared the situation to "inviting foxes to advise on the future of the henhouse." Behind this vivid metaphor lies a systemic problem: when commercial companies interested in selling AI solutions to the state simultaneously shape the strategy for their purchase and implementation, a conflict of interest becomes practically inevitable. Faculty AI, for example, already has a history of major contracts with the British government—the company has worked with the Home Office and other departments, and its merger with the global consulting giant Accenture only strengthened its position in the government procurement market.

The problem extends far beyond a single meeting. The United Kingdom, like many other countries, stands before a strategic choice: build its own state AI competencies or rely on the expertise of the private sector. The first path requires massive investments in personnel, infrastructure, and research. The second is faster and cheaper at the start, but creates long-term dependence on commercial suppliers whose priorities do not always align with the public interest. The presence at the negotiating table of former senior executives from the world's largest technology corporations—from Meta to SpaceX—unmistakably indicates which way the balance is tipping.

For a Russian observer, this situation is of particular interest. Russia is following a similar path of digitizing government services, and the question of the role of private technology companies in this process is equally pressing. The experience of the United Kingdom—both positive and negative—will inevitably become a case for study. The key lesson is simple: transparency in decision-making processes and a clear distinction between consultants and beneficiaries of government contracts is not a bureaucratic formality, but a fundamental condition for citizens' trust in a digital state.

It is also worth noting the broader context. In recent years, the Blair Institute has transformed into one of the most influential non-state centers shaping the technology agenda for governments in dozens of countries. Its recommendations on implementing AI in public administration sound ambitious: automation of routine processes, predictive analytics for resource allocation, personalization of government services. It all sounds attractive on paper. But the devil, as always, is in the details—and above all in who exactly will design, build, and maintain these systems while gaining access to the data of millions of citizens.

The British government has not yet commented on the criticism. But the very fact that a meeting at this level prompted an immediate and sharp public reaction says a lot. The era when technological solutions for government were decided behind closed doors without public oversight is coming to an end. The question is only whether the institutions of democratic oversight will manage to adapt to the speed at which AI is penetrating government administration—or whether decisions will be made before society has time to comprehend them.