Demos Greenhouse http://www.demos.co.uk/blog en-us Copyright 2008 Sat, 17 May 2008 22:27:10 -0100 Latest blogposts from http://www.demos.co.uk/ - the thinktank for everyday democracy Sat, 17 May 2008 22:27:10 -0100 Podcast: Talking Cures http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/podcasttalkingcures http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/podcasttalkingcures the politics of public behaviour, privacy, and radicalisation, to name just a few. Stay tuned.

First though, Duncan caught up with Jack and Faizal, to talk about their new pamphlet The Talking Cure, which was launched on Wednesday.

Here, Jack and Faizal explain why the future of the NHS will not just be secured by structural or organisational reforms from the top. We need to also think about the developing relationship between doctor and patient. As the pamphlet argues, 'in the noise of healthcare reform, the small conversations that matter most have been drowned out.'






There are five ways to listen to our podcasts.

1. Subscribe via iTunes
2. By subscribing via feedburner
3. Listening via the Internet Archive
4. Downloading the file (12 mb)
5. Listening below on the embedded player (you need quicktime)]]> Thu, 15 May 2008 15:05:44 -0100 peter.bradwell@demos.co.uk ( Peter Bradwell ) Hold on to your asteroids... http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/holdontoyourasteroids http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/holdontoyourasteroids Microsoft unveiled Worldwide Telescope this week. Its a 'telescope for the masses' -  letting anyone with the internet see images from the world's most powerful instruments. Some say it could be 'like the human genome project' in scope. It is exciting to see science opened up in new ways. Like most people, I don't know my black hole from my red dwarf, so it might seem unlikely that 'the masses' will be making any startling discoveries any time soon. But pro-am astronomers have made some striking contributions to the field in the past. And other open public platforms like Innocentive for solving science's challenges are becoming more common.

I would have downloaded it and taken a look if it hadn't required more memory than my dinky little computer could manage. So I looked at Google Sky instead. Apparently its less interactive but it still made me feel like Captain Kirk.

-]]> Thu, 15 May 2008 09:56:09 -0100 kirsten.bound@demos.co.uk ( Kirsten Bound ) Managing protest... http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/managingprotest http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/managingprotest Governance of Britain Draft Bill and accompanying White Paper. It's worth keeping an eye also on how the Bill develops as it passes through Parliament.

One of the headlines is a possible repeal of the requirement that protesters seek permission int the vicinity of Parliament.

These requirements are just silly constraint on free speech. Hopefully the White Paper and Draft Bill signal the end of the need to ask for permission before demonstrating. Which is good news. But it is probably too early to get too excited; the Bill has yet to be discussed in Parliament and it wouldn't be too surprising to see alternative provisions creep back in.

We wrote a response for the Managing Protest Around Parliament consultation. One of the points we make is that not only should protest be possible, but encouraged as part of a lively democratic culture. If you'd like to have a read you can download a pdf copy here.]]> Wed, 14 May 2008 09:25:05 -0100 peter.bradwell@demos.co.uk ( Peter Bradwell ) The Politics of Public Behaviour http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/thepoliticsofpublicbehaviour http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/thepoliticsofpublicbehaviour The Politics of Public Behaviour. It looks at the public consequences of private decisions. The aim was to ask where and when government should involve itself in people’s personal decision-making, from parenting to carbon emissions, diet, exercise, pensions savings, gambling and organ donorship. It seems on all this issues and more the public/private boundary is becoming blurred.

Have a read here anyway – there is an extended Demos essay as an introduction and conclusion, as well as essays from:
  • Andy Burnham MP: ‘The Common Good’
  • Andrew Lansley MP: ‘Realising Choice’
  • Chris Huhne MP: ‘A Liberal Approach’

You might find the comparisons between the three interesting.

I’ve also written a couple of articles elsewhere:
  • See here for a raging discussion about what freedom means
  • And here for some thoughts on why, where and when governments might attach terms and conditions to state benefits
]]> Fri, 09 May 2008 16:00:34 -0100 duncan.oleary@demos.co.uk ( Duncan O'Leary ) Political Science http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/politicalscience http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/politicalscience A couple of thoughts struck me this morning as I listened to the debate on the today programme (7.35) about the (re)re-classification of cannabis:

  1. The ‘battle between science and politics’: science is there to serve politics, not replace it. In other words, scientific judgements about the safety or otherwise of cannabis do not trump the importance of political judgements. These require other kinds of evidence (which I’ll come on to) and which concern bigger issues like what kind of society we want to live in. i.e. issues of freedom of choice, issues of who is selling drugs to whom, where and with what effect. That doesn’t give you the answer, but it tells you that ‘science’ doesn’t have it, even if it can and should contribute to it.

  2. Second, the government is making an interesting distinction between the message that is sent out, and what people actually hear. Evan Davis on the Today programme couldn’t see or accept this distinction: surely the evidence is the message, he argued. But the government’s response is that the message is what people hear, not what you tell them. Social science, not just laboratory testing..
 

Of course there is electoral politics and all the rest involved here (and a U-turn by the way), but I think there are some interesting arguments going on nonetheless.

]]> Wed, 07 May 2008 11:08:32 -0100 duncan.oleary@demos.co.uk ( Duncan O'Leary ) Old habits die hard? http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/oldhabitsdiehard http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/oldhabitsdiehard Guardian article in 2002 , to scrap all of the tax reliefs and credits introduced by Labour since 1997. Thanks a lot John, this really isn’t on message – we’re not the ‘nasty party’ anymore, remember? Clearly flustered, Cameron tried to shrug this off as a mere ‘sketch’ written years ago, drowned out by today’s clarion call to ‘share the proceeds of growth’. Fair enough perhaps, after all, we’ve all said some things we didn’t mean before, in the heat of carefully drafting an article for newspaper publication. But just how important are the political pasts of our elected politicians?

The example of the New Labour project illustrates better than any other the extent to which a party, and in particular its senior membership, can change. It would be ludicrous to claim Peter Mandelson’s political instincts are still those of a radical communist, simply because of transitory affiliations in his youth, as much as it would be to denounce Blunkett, or even Blair, for the ‘socialism’ they espoused in earlier times. People change. Labour changed. But has David Cameron and his party really changed? A case can certainly be made for a cautious ‘yes’. As New Labour was fundamentally about accepting the new economic landscape entrenched in the 1980s, so Cameron has made clear that he seeks to adjust the Conservative Party to the post-1997 social settlement. There is nice symmetry to this narrative of political ‘paradigm shifts’; a sign of deep, structural change which might just convince us of Cameron’s sincerity. The question is, how deep have the changes been under Cameron?

To start with, much of Cameron’s strategy to illuminate the Conservative social conscience has been based around simply pushing social issues to the fore – saying lots about society’s ills in a tone sympathetic to the disadvantaged automatically makes you look nicer, regardless of a lack of clear policy. When we do gain a flavour of Conservative social policy, it is often couched in language Tories both ‘new’ and ‘old’ could feel very comfortable with – their ‘Responsibility’ agenda being the case in point. More importantly however, Cameron’s job is made much easier by the fact that the underlying economic consensus in this country is much more in tune with traditional Tory principles than ‘old Labour’ instincts; free markets, private enterprise and low taxes are the order of the day (I accept that the last is slightly more contentious). Save for the odd groan of disgruntlement or defection to UKIP, Cameron has faced nothing like the convulsions experienced in the Labour Party between 1979 and the mid-1990s, from the SDP split, to mass expulsions and fundamental disputes about  the nature of capitalism. New Labour emerged at the end of a long and arduous process, as a root-and-branch response to a country and world which had changed drastically over the previous two decades. By contrast, the Conservatives main challenge, it seems, is simply to convince us of a new emphasis on ‘soft’ social issues, even if they don’t really convince themselves.  I must state, in no way do I regard social policy as mere ‘window dressing’, and the Conservatives should be lauded for any progress they make towards accepting and building a more just society. However, I remain suspicious of their intentions, a) because they still have much to prove on this front and b) because I doubt that the kind of instincts displayed by Cameron in his 2002 article have deserted him, or indeed much of his party, entirely.

Had Labour been elected in 1997 only to tax the rich till the pips squeak and nationalise the top twenty-five companies, the party would have been thrown swiftly from office, never to return. By contrast, given the underlying economic consensus in Britain, I think the next Conservative government could have considerably more room for manoeuvre, and the opportunity to revert to some old habits on social and economic policy, particularly if Labour leave office deeply discredited.  

I still think Will Hutton was broadly right when he suggested in last Sunday’s Observer that the pendulum has not yet swung in favour of the Conservatives. But we would do well to remember that our era was very much forged during the Thatcher years.


Tom Barker, tombarker86@hotmail.co.uk]]> Thu, 01 May 2008 17:31:24 -0100 Culture and learning urgent news http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/cultureandlearningurgentnews http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/cultureandlearningurgentnews
Responses that did not get through can still be sent  to

cultural_learning@demos.co.uk; or to
rachel@cloreduffield.org.uk

With many apologies for this inconvenience.]]> Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:15:08 -0100 john.holden@demos.co.uk ( John Holden ) Demos 3.0 http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/demos30 http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/demos30 0207 367 4200). If it's a media enquiry get in touch with Will on 0207 367 6325]]> Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:05:39 -0100 charlie[dot]edwards@demos[dot]co[dot]uk ( Charlie Edwards ) Extreme Measures http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/extrememeasures http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/extrememeasures here. 
The article outlines some of the dangers of locking up people for incitement to terrorism - as happened last week with Abu Izzedeen and five others. Not that I agree one iota with anything they said of course.  But by putting these men in prison we risk legitimising their ideas in the eyes of their believers. The now outlawed al-Muhajiroon, of which all six were members, used say that it was only when they were persecuted by authorities they felt on the right path.

The ill-founded, Manichean rubbish spewed by this lot (at least the little we've been able to see) was poorly thought out, even by violent jihadist standards. They should be derided and held in contempt. By jailing them we risk adding to the glamour and mystique, which all violent radical movements depend on.

]]> Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:10:19 -0100 jamie.bartlett@demos.co.uk ( Jamie Bartlett ) Think again http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/thinkagain http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/thinkagain Lots of talk of U-turns in the news today. Yesterday’s news on the 10p tax rate, Jim Knight insisting there will be ‘no U-turn’ over teachers pay. Which begs the question, would politics be better or worse without U-turns? Leaving aside these specific examples, I think U-turns (and U-turners) can be underrated.

When we make a decision we tend to suffer from cognitive biases that make us surer and surer that our decision was the right one– partly because we look for information that confirms our judgements rather than challenges them. For example, once you place a bet, you become more and more convinced that your horse is going to win. When you buy something you weren’t sure about in the shop, you’ve convinced yourself it was the right thing to do by the time you get home.

We seem to be disposed to like consistency rather than dissonance - which Both Blair and Thatcher made a virtue of as leaders. But that can get in the way of rectifying things that are going wrong. Yes mistakes are bad. Yes caving in to pressure is bad. But some U-turns show real leadership: if you get it wrong, it’s weak, not strong to ignore that.

 
]]> Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:31:52 -0100 duncan.oleary@demos.co.uk ( Duncan O'Leary ) Stop press: 'The public love the armed forces' http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/stoppressthepubliclovethearmedforces http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/stoppressthepubliclovethearmedforces  
What soon became apparent to the media and the MoD was the public was all too ready to come out and support 'our boys and girls' - something the newly recruited Director General of Marketing and Communication at the MoD Nick Gurr agrees with. In this week's PR Magazine he says 'the public love the armed forces and regard them very highly - that comes through in our polling...'

What the public don't understand is the role of the MoD, what the procurement strategy is and what the armed forces need, how each service manages their equipment budget, and why projects seem to be delayed, equipment fails to turn up to theatres of operation or goes missing en route.  These are the issues that Nick will have to focus on - and in doing so will have to navigate a department that is in the throes of a budget crisis, low morale and a set of decisions that will prove unpopular whatever is decided. Best of luck.]]> Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:23:11 -0100 charlie[dot]edwards@demos[dot]co[dot]uk ( Charlie Edwards ) Complements and sweet talk http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/e28098complementse28099andsweettalk http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/e28098complementse28099andsweettalk Dr. Edzard Ernst, a prominent professor of alternative medicine, is interviewed in today’s Independent talking about his new book, Trick or Treatment. From what I gather, it gives alternative medicine a bit of kicking, demonstrating its ineffectiveness when subjected to randomised controlled trials.

Two interesting points strike me about the article.

The first is that whilst Dr. Ernst is very critical about the complementary medicine industry, he doesn’t shy away from criticising mainstream medicine too. In fact he singles out mainstream medicine’s lack of interaction as a large factor driving people to alternative medicine;

"Mainstream medicine is pretty awful, too. Doctors lack empathy and time. There is plenty of evidence that people using alternative medicine don't even expect effective treatment – they are just looking for a therapeutic relationship. They are not getting it from their GP, so they look for it elsewhere."

This relationship is often overlooked in policy conversations and healthcare debates, even though as Dr.Ernst highlights it’s at the heart of good healthcare. Our upcoming report, The Talking Cure (formally Healthy Conversations), examines precisely this issue, looking at the importance of the relationship between health professionals and patients. You can find out more here.

The second point of interest is Dr.Ernst’s findings that complementary therapies can have a strong placebo effect. For example, the interview sites four wheelchair users getting up and walking under the influence of a healer (or so they thought, it was actually an actor/voice recording).
This got me thinking about what we consider to be legitimate effects. Why isn’t a placebo benefit considered a legitimate product of the alternative treatment? We know that placebos work in some circumstances. Yet the essence of a placebo is that you don’t know it’s a placebo. Inherent in this is some form of deception, whether it’s by a doctor or an alternative therapist.  If the narrative of complementary medicine allows people to heal, is not valid? Does it not serve its purpose, if its purpose is to be a necessary disguise for a placebo?
 
If I understand the views of philosophers such as Richard Rorty correctly (and I may well not have), a ‘pragmatic’ philosophical approach argues that a belief is a device for understanding the world, to be shed when no longer useful. Science is not therefore a mirror of a true nature but a language through which to understand the world. If that’s the case how do we manage issues like alternative therapy, which science tells us is false, but still appears to benefit people?
]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:10:37 -0100 faizal.farook@demos.co.uk ( Faizal Farook ) Like school, but not http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/likeschoolbutnot http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/likeschoolbutnot 'iTunes U' - an area of iTunes that lets Universities in the US share audio and video from their lectures, talks and events. You can subscribe to courses, listen to one-off debates, and hear some of the leading thinkers in a range of fields dispensing their vast wisdom. Thinking about this in the context of sites like the splendid School of Everything, it's another alternative way to learn, and to share knowledge.

I particularly enjoyed this - an introductory but quite in-depth and engaging talk about the relationship between democracy and the market by Yale president Richard C. Levin. Having listened to this, I am still not convinced by flat world talk. And I am hopefully about to make my journey in to work 600% more interesting (but, you might say, 20% less useful than when I got by on Cyndi Lauper and the Metro) by getting stuck in to this course about Existentialism in Literature and Film from Berkeley's Professor Hubert Dreyfuss. I was thinking about following this up with a sort-of distance learning law course from New York Law School.  It's great for the geek with spare travel time.

I am no advocate of the way iTunes distributes music and video necessarily, and I am technically a year late to the party (it opened for the UK in May last year), but it just seems like a really excellent and incredibly exciting resource of ideas, organized in a really accessible way. I am not clear about the terms of access and distribution (whether I can just send this on to friends in ways I couldn't legally with the music from iTunes), but nearly all of it seems to be free, and in mp3 format.

It would be great to see a similar place for UK universities to distribute their archives. Is there one available? It would be interesting to know why not and what the different constraints are here in the UK.]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:04:05 -0100 peter.bradwell@demos.co.uk ( Peter Bradwell ) Why politicians should always do their homework... http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/whypoliticiansshouldalwaysdotheirhomework http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/whypoliticiansshouldalwaysdotheirhomework Stonewall.  The three main candidates, along with Sian Berry of the Green Party and Left List candidate Lindsay German gave short presentations and fielded questions ranging from corruption, buses, the Pride festival, the rights of older LGBT people, extremism, Section 28, and providing better transport for disabled people in London.

The candidates’ responses were pretty mixed. In particular, Ken Livingstone was able to give knowledgeable and at times very persuasive arguments where other candidates seemed flummoxed – I wondered if this had more to do with considered and comprehensive briefing, or personal ability and experience. After all, look at any interview advice and you will be told to ‘do your homework’ – anticipate questions, research and prepare, but try not to make the whole thing look hopelessly over rehearsed. Was this the key, or were the audience won over by something else? It got me thinking about the much wider argument on the extent to which personal charisma and personality count in politics, compared to quality policies, and indeed a quality team of advisers. I can’t help but think that a great deal of the media coverage has focused on personalities not policies in this instance. Indeed, most of the conversations I’ve heard about Ken v. Boris haven’t been about transport, culture or crime, they’ve been about Johnsons’ bumbling Etonian style, or Livingstones’ public image as an outspoken leftist. Furthermore, it will be interesting to see how this debate unfolds not only in the race for Mayor, but in the U.S. presidential elections and in the face of increasing speculation about Gordon Browns’ ability to lead Labour to victory in the next election. Does a strong personality always make a strong leader, and do we have to like someone to admire their leadership skills? How do we draw the line between comprehensive assessment of a candidates ability and gossip-column bitching about their personal traits? 

There’s also a presentational issue here. There are a whole number of factors that influence how we vote, from economic climate to a good bit of advertising. But can thorough research and clever speechwriting win votes, or even turn around opinions? In my view, yes they can. Ken Livingstone received by far the longest and heartiest applause for his overture on Saturday, and whilst his recognisability and popularity amongst the audience was undoubtedly a big factor, credit has to be given for a well crafted and well delivered speech. Firstly, he understood the audience and focused on issues relevant to them, not forgetting to drop in some of his wider key manifesto aims. Secondly, he drew attention to his own past successes and practical measures for the future. Thirdly, he got the audience on his side by quoting some pretty shameful gaffes of his main opponent – call it political nous or call it political pantomime, a tactful bit of opportunism can go a long way. And finally he remembered to end with on a high, with messages of pride, aspiration and togetherness. Add in confident delivery, a few hard facts for the policy buffs and a few laughs and you have the makings of a convincing presentation. If the elections of the future are to be fought on televised debates, aspiring MPs should take note.

You can learn more about all the candidates for the London Assembly and the Mayor of London here.

nicola.hughes@demos.co.uk]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:44:35 -0100 WANTED! - Citizen Scientists http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/wantedcitizenscientists http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/wantedcitizenscientists Way, way up in northern Norway, reminiscent of a scene from His Dark Materials, scientists are currently busy hiding seeds in a giant underground fridge. In the much warmer fields of Southern France, they have a more vibrant approach to biodiversity. Here, farmers are breeding and growing wheat. Their new varieties of wheat are in fact very old indeed. They hark back to a time when farmers wanted bread that was good to eat rather than easy to make on an industrial scale. The farmers here argue that their new/old wheat is tastier and less likely to lead to gluten intolerance. Thanks to an organisation called Reseau Semences Paysanne, a small group of scientists have been attracted from Paris to take a look at these multicultural fields. Veronique Chable and Isabelle Goldringer from INRA are now working with the farmers to share and advance their collective knowledge about biodiversity, the genetics of seeds, and the future of farming. The INRA researchers and their farmer colleagues have become what we call "Citizen Scientists."

As part of our project on Science, Technology and Civil Society (STACS), we want to contact and profile a number of these citizen scientists. As we described in The Public Value of Science, these are scientists who are engaged in activities that in some way address issues of social or environmental concern. While this might describe much scientific research in the long run, we're looking for the people who are innovating, doing things in new ways, hooking up with green NGOs or patient groups, getting funding from unusual places, that sort of thing. They may be collaborating with scientists in sub-Saharan Africa or sociologists in Salzburg, they may be working with patients to target rare genetic disorders or exploring the ethics of their own research on stem cells, or they may even be whistleblowers, unhappy with their company's R & D decisions.

So, if you know one or if you are one, please send me your nominations for citizen scientists, by email or blog comment. Our report will be out towards the end of the year and our hope is that we can teach European science some lessons and make it easier for other scientists to break moulds.

]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:41:11 -0100 jack.stilgoe@demos.co.uk ( Jack Stilgoe )