Demos http://www.demos.co.uk/ en-us Copyright 2008 Fri, 09 May 2008 19:58:11 -0100 Latest items from http://www.demos.co.uk/ - the thinktank for everyday democracy Fri, 09 May 2008 19:58:11 -0100 The Politics of Public Behaviour http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11774 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11774 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 ) Surely the health problems cased by cannabis use... http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11773 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11773 Buy Fair Trade Weed, I say.]]> Fri, 09 May 2008 11:24:11 -0100 Surely the health problems cased by cannabis use... http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11772 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11772 Fri, 09 May 2008 11:22:58 -0100 Our surveillance society goes online | Technology | The Guardian http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11770 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11770 Our surveillance society goes online | Technology | The Guardian]]> Fri, 09 May 2008 07:35:06 -0100 Richard Bartle: Gamers have won the battle against the censors | Technology | guardian.co.uk http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11763 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11763 Richard Bartle: Gamers have won the battle against the censors | Technology | guardian.co.uk]]> Thu, 08 May 2008 08:58:07 -0100 "There is a compelling case for us to act... http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11761 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11761 "There is a compelling case for us to act now, rather than risk the future health of young people."
- Jacqui Smith

This is interesting as the 'compelling case' to act doesn't seem to come from medical advice, nor does it seemingly come from a serious effort to think of smarter way to discourage young people from taking drugs. For a start, the numbers on young people's use of cannabis seem to have been going down since the first reclassification.

So if it is about understanding how the message will be received, one can only assume the ears they are talking to aren't the ears of 'young people'. The idea that government will be 'sending a message' about  any drug's acceptability through the classification scheme, especially to 'young people' is...quaint? In that case, I definitely wouldn't file it under 'smart communication'.]]> Wed, 07 May 2008 18:37:38 -0100 The Politics of Public Behaviour http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11760 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11760
This pamphlet presents three perspectives from different political traditions. Andy Burnham MP, Andrew Lansley MP and Chris Huhne MP offer contrasting views on the public implications of private decisions, and what they mean for the relationships between people and government. The pamphlet concludes with a framework with which to negotiate the politics of public behaviour.]]> Wed, 07 May 2008 18:15:26 -0100 duncan.oleary@demos.co.uk ( Duncan O'Leary ) Besson-Mosco : d'accord sur rien http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11759 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11759 Besson-Mosco : d'accord sur rien]]> Wed, 07 May 2008 17:24:16 -0100 Good Condition http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11758 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11758 Good Condition]]> Wed, 07 May 2008 17:02:19 -0100 The Cultural Age http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11756 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11756 Speakers TBC

A second seminar on culture, integration and education, hosted by Demos in partnership with the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).

Culture is a space in which values are expressed and interpreted. It can provide a safe space and mechanism to confront difference, but it can also be a space in which values are contested.  Online and in the streets, we encounter a more diverse range of cultures than ever before. This is the 'cultural age' - how can we approach and accommodate it?

The second seminar on the cultural age will address how cultural practitioners and academic thinkers can work with policy-makers to meet the challenges that arise in an intercultural world. It will involve speaker presentations and a debate on how to make the best of the opportunities for integration that the cultural age has to offer.

This event is by invitation only. If you would like to attend the event, please contact seminars@demos.co.uk.]]> Wed, 07 May 2008 16:42:50 -0100 The Cultural Age http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11755 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11755 Paul Roberts - (Chair) Creative and Cultural Education Board
Linda Woodhead - Director, AHRC/ESRC Religion and Society Programme
Angharad Wynne-Jones - Director, London International Festival of Theatre

The first of two seminars on culture, integration and education hosted by Demos in partnership with the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).

Culture is a space in which values are expressed and interpreted. It can provide a safe space and mechanism to confront difference, but it can also be a space in which values are contested.  Online and in the streets, we encounter a more diverse range of cultures than ever before. This is the 'cultural age' - how can we approach and accommodate it?

This first seminar explores the relationship between the cultural age and education. It will ask how cultural practitioners, institutions, policy-makers and the education sector work together to provide young people with the skills they need to interpret the new and different cultures that they increasingly encounter.

This event is by invitation only. If you would like to attend the event, please contact seminars@demos.co.uk.]]> Wed, 07 May 2008 15:52:13 -0100 UK Confidential http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11754 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11754 Peter Bazalgette, former Chairman of Endemol UK
Catherine Fieschi, Director, Demos
Perri 6, Professor of Social Policy – Nottingham Trent University
Zoe Williams, Guardian columnist

Launch of a new Demos pamphlet exploring the underlying challenges of privacy in an open and networked society.

Social transformation, increasing surveillance and rapid technological innovation are redrawing the boundaries between the personal and the public. In an attempt to rediscover the social value of privacy, Demos' UK Confidential collection argues that we need to collectively negotiate a new settlement between the individual and society; the public and the state; and the consumer and business.

Please RSVP to Michael Harvey at michael.harvey@demos.co.uk or call 0207 367 4200. Please note that spaces are limited.]]> Wed, 07 May 2008 15:49:11 -0100 Political Science http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11750 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11750 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/items/11737 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11737 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 The language of integration http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11735 http://www.demos.co.uk/items/11735 The language of integration]]> Thu, 01 May 2008 15:03:05 -0100