Sadiq Khan focuses on victims but offenders also need to be high on the agenda

Georgia Hussey offers her views on the latest Fabian pamphlet launch.

Speaking at the launch of the Fabian Society’s ‘Punishment and Reform’ report, Sadiq Khan emphasised the need to put victims at the heart of the justice system. Khan has stressed the need to reshape the way victims are involved in the justice process, calling for a “significant shift in attitudes to and treatment of victims”.

Victim support is an area the Government appear to be falling behind on; discussing his victim support package in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Ken Clarke’s mention of victims of terrorism sparked criticism from Sadiq Khan. The Shadow Justice Secretary said that “after more than a year of delay, victims of overseas terrorism are still waiting for the compensation promised by this Government”.

But dealing with offenders should be key in any criminal justice policy, and the report, which hopes to inform the conclusions of the Labour Party’s policy review, showed a heavy focus on preventing people becoming offenders and re-offenders.

Barry Mizen’s presence at the launch steered the debate away from Khan’s focus on victims. Mizen, whose son was murdered in 2008, brought first-hand experience of how victims are involved in the justice system. However, as Mary Riddell, the chair of the debate, pointed out, Barry Mizen is not the ‘typical’ passive victim. He and his wife Margaret set up the Jimmy Mizen Foundation after their son’s death, which has helped many young people take on a positive role in their community. This kind of approach, he said, helps them become “responsible citizens in their communities”. As he writes in his chapter of the pamphlet, “getting justice for Jimmy was not just about punishment for his killer, it was about finding and exposing the truth of what happened to our son. What can we do to ensure young people don’t resort to violence against each other?”. His presence steered the discussion towards prevention, and supporting young people who might otherwise become offenders.

Adding another important voice to the ‘Punishment and Reform’ report was Baroness Jean Corston, who focused on female offenders in her contribution to the pamphlet. She noted that only 3.2% of women in prison are considered a ‘danger to the public’, but over 75% exhibit some kind of psychological disturbance. With an overwhelming majority of offenders being male, women are often overlooked in criminal justice policy. But these figures clearly show that many of the women in prison are “troubled rather than troublesome”. Any new criminal justice policy should incorporate ways to tackle this issue, and Cortson stresses the importance of giving those women an alternative to offending and reoffending. Early diversion into the mental health system instead of the prison system is key, and crucial support from women’s centres will help them get support, qualifications and skills that aren’t otherwise available to them.

Sadiq Khan’s call for a change in how the criminal justice system treats victims is a clear way to improve the system for the people in it, at little cost. However the debate must always centre on the offenders and on prevention. Greater support for victims cannot encroach on a commitment to eradicating a need for victim support; we need to work towards a society where there are no victims. Getting people more involved in their community, whether in a women’s centre or on youth projects, is a proven way to prevent people becoming offenders. Barry Mizen wrote that “trying to foster more civility and humanity in all aspects of life – from schools, to the streets, to prisons – is the only way to counter the incivility and violence”. This aim should not be forgotten.

Georgia Hussey is an intern at the Fabian Society.

The Squeezed Middle: How To Build A Fairer Economy

In this member post, Jeevun Sandher – a member of the Young Fabian Renewing and Reforming our Economy Policy Commission - reflects on how Labour can build a fairer economy.

Most of us have a vague idea of what the “squeezed middle” is. However, a precise definition seems to elude many in the Labour movement. Understanding precisely who this group is and designing economic policy to promote their interests is the key to building a fairer economy.

To define the “squeezed middle” we could do much worse than to look at the work of the Resolution Foundation, an organisation working to improve the lives of people with low-to-middle incomes. For them, this group constitute about 11 million working adults who tend to earn less than the median income but are above the bottom ten percent in the income distribution.

In short, they are people who are neither too rich nor too poor. They are too wealthy to get substantial state support, but too poor to flourish in an open market economy. Increasing amounts of them are unable to buy homes, and struggle with household bills. More than half have less than one month’s income in savings and face comparatively higher rates of inflation (due to the basket of goods that they buy).

However, the real tragedy for the squeezed middle is that while the economy grew by 11 % between 2003 and 2008, the median wage remained static. At the same time, those on higher wages saw their pay packets increase and executive pay rose exponentially. The squeezed middle saw their living standards reduce at a time when the economy grew and productivity rose, giving the lie to the neo-liberal idea that people are paid their “marginal product” – that the wage chosen by the market is a fair wage.

This problem runs straight to the heart of Labour’s “fairness” strategy. By and large, these are people who work hard, do the right thing, but still struggle to stay afloat in an increasingly precarious economic climate. Meanwhile, CEO’s saw their pay rise dramatically in the decade before the financial crisis and bankers continue to take home multi-million pound bonuses.

The challenge for Labour at the next election is to construct a vision that rewards hard work and shapes a free and fair economy. There is no silver bullet, however. What is needed is a raft of policies to build an economy in which all gain when there is growth.

To begin with, those in the squeezed middle tend to be those with low-to-medium level skills. Any economic strategy must be focused first on investment in education, in order to build up human capital. Given the increasing returns to education we have seen in the past 30 years, this is just common sense.

However, it is important to note that this does not merely mean reducing tuition fees. As a recent IFS study has pointed out, those with similar A-level grades tend to go to university in the same proportion but it is much less likely that the poorest students will get the top A-level grades. Earlier intervention is key (e.g. Sure Start, the pupil premium etc.) to promoting social mobility and building people’s skills.

But this should just be the beginning. For too long Labour has accepted the Thatcherite free market consensus as gospel, and only aimed to tweak it at the edges to help those on low to middle incomes with measures such as tax credits and lower basic tax rates.

It is time to consider and undertake more radical measures. We must design policies which create better corporate governance structures as well as more accountability and transparency surrounding pay in the private sector. Only then can we ensure that all people will share in the proceeds of growth and be paid a fair wage. Hopefully, with these goals in mind we can create a compelling economic vision that helps us win the next election.

Jeevun Sandher is a member of the Young Fabian Reforming and Renewing our Economy Policy Commission.

Inside conference

Liverpool is lovely. The Labour Party should be planning another conference in Liverpool again, very soon. Everywhere people have been talking more about how welcoming, friendly and revitalising the city has been. It has even provided ample opportunities for delegates and members to escape politics for a little cultural respite.

That’s not to say that the mood amongst the crowd isn’t febrile. We’re only half way through this year’s conference but it is clear that people are chomping the bit to discuss and debate the issues. This afternoon’s speech from Ed Miliband therefore has a high conference threshold to reach.

The pre-briefing points to a leader’s speech of big themes and populist rhetoric, which should play fairly well to the TV masses. But Miliband will no doubt find a more challenging audience in the conference hall.

Just take the debate at this morning’s Young Fabian fringe. Politicians should not discount the appetite for discussing our “squeezed youth” agenda and the challenges facing the next generation, it is obviously huge when an 8am fringe leads to an almost full room.

And, importantly, people are not content with just listening, they want proper dialogue.

I’m not sure what Andy Slaughter or John Woodcock were expecting but they were soon faced with a full on and vibrant debate covering the full gamut of issues our Next Generation policy development group has been looking at.

What is clear is that Labour’s policy development process needs to be geared towards continual engagement with people on these issues, consciously reassessing whether their thinking answers the concerns and hopes of the people we hope policies will affect. As John Woodcock put it, moving beyond “cut and paste policy”.

Maybe that’s not where the leadership is just now but there’s a feeling they need to show they are on that journey. Despite the need for the big picture, which Miliband’s senior advisor Lord Wood made a cogent argument for at our Institute for Government event before conference, we know that the public also wants to be convinced that we can deliver. They also want to see a credible route for the high aspirations we are espousing. On everything – from our response to the Big Society, our ideas about mobilising communities and creating a living, breathing industrial base that can lead us to growth – people want to know how we might get there and what it will mean for them in practice.

That points to more incrementalist policies in some areas and more action from Labour-led local government.

Finally there is a sense that Government cannot do it all; while state-led policy is a necessity, the state needs to find its groove as a mobilising force for business, communities and ordinary people want to lead better lives for themselves and their families.

Vincenzo Rampulla is Officer without Portfolio for the Young Fabians.

Building Stronger Communities – responding to the Big Society

In this member post, Timothy Stacey – a member of the Young Fabian Building Stronger Communities Policy Commission – shares his reflections on the Commission’s first meeting.

Last week saw the first in a series of meetings between Young Fabians, Labour MPs and community professionals as part of the Building Stronger Communities Policy Commission, chaired by Richard Angell and with guest speaker Anas Sarwar MP. A key concern was how Labour can responsed to the Big Society.

Sarwar opened the debate by asking if it was wise to shape Labour’s attempt to build stronger communities as an afterthought to the Big Society. There was the usual suggestion that the Big Society was a cover for economic cuts. Angell added that in fact Labour is historically the party of grassroots organising. This is absolutely correct. But I worry that Labour is getting caught in a cycle of reiterating this fact as opposed to reinventing what it means.

It is also worth noting, as far as political point scoring is concerned, that the coalition is failing to be grassroots. It seems like small news that the coalition rejected Citizens UK in favour of Locality for its contract to train 5000 community organisers. But the strategic differences between the bids make the decision philosophically damning. Whereas Citizens UK look to build policy from the people, Locality offer to turn communities into an integrated third sector whereby the people take control of whatever the government decides it cannot afford to.

Grassroots organising partly means having the humility to connect with traditional grassroots groups and ask them what they want. In recent times Labour has drawn a line between itself and its union support base (despite being elected with union support, Labour leader Ed Miliband failed to stand by them during the pensions strike). But it also means connecting with new kinds of groups in the face of shifting social circumstances. Many people are not in a job long enough to see a union as representative of their long-term interests.

This would mean building real connections with groups like Citizens UK. The government’s rejection of its community organising contracts bid makes it a good time to get involved with Citizens UK. Many in the organisation are angry and looking for alternative means of support. They feel they have been shunned due to their independent manner of operation. But others are happy to have maintained this independence.

Often, it is seen as problematic that Citizens UK will only align itself with an external body if issues of the people are addressed. I see it as a good thing; as well as keeping Labour in line with what local communities want, Citizens UK can provide an active support base. Organisations like Citizens UK will also save taxpayers’ money in the long run because projects are often internally funded by participants.

In policy terms, this would require community organisations themselves to formulate policies as the government acts as an enforcer and provider. The living wage campaign is a good example of where government can support. The most sure-fire and exciting way to get people’s votes is not to guess at policies that will inspire them but to act as actual representatives, the messenger between their own ideas and government. It is for this reason that Ed Miliband has himself said that Labour should be more like Citizens UK.

Apart from all the long-term sociological factors, one of the reasons the BNP are so good at building a community support base is that they actually act like a community organisation: holding rallies; lunches and dances; listening to and articulating (albeit often very bigoted!) ideas. We politicos so often forget how important it is to engage people socially before we can gain privilege to their deepest insights.

There were two other areas not discussed in last week’s meeting.

The first, ironically given the Commission is being run by the Young Fabians, is that any policy that wants to rebuild communities needs to involve young people. A joint report released in June between ResPublica and Action for Children entitled Children and the Big Society had some exciting ideas on this note.

One project was simply getting to know the names of the children five houses to your right and five houses to your left. Similarly, it is hugely important to young people to get to know the officers patrolling their streets. The strategies used in projects like PREVENT, whereby officers enter youth clubs and chat to young people about their troubles and aspirations, get young people learning officers’ names for the right reasons. The police become heroes rather than enemies.

The Young Fabians is a wonderful way of getting young people involved in politics. But it could go further. Why not actually get young people from communities involved in these roundtables? Each of us involved could interview people from our community (and many of us work in education already) and ask them for ideas.

The second area we missed was the increasing importance of religious groups in community development. Over the last ten years this has often meant simply trying to outsource centrally defined services to religious groups. Instead the groups themselves could have a say in the services that are provided.

Working with religious groups saves money in the long run because religious groups are great fundraisers for their own projects. They also feel massively unrepresented at the moment so finding a way to actively engage them in policy formulation is extremely important.

Research by the Institute for Community Cohesion (ICOCO) suggests we are always thinking too small. We keep thinking of this or that policy idea but never think about the big picture of how to reactivate communities from the grassroots. Partly this is because we need to relearn how to be grassroots. Partly it is because we do not want to. Labour has become more conservative in how it formulates policy and in how it elects its representatives.

At last week’s Policy Commission, I was really enthusiastic to see how problems were being approached holistically with respect to, for example, housing, crime, and equality. But one of my chief worries is that in a roundtable about building stronger communities the talk so often turned to central policy and to how to create better networks between departments.

Most of those working on communities cohesion projects require government support (finance, resources, expertise) for local decisions. This is a difficult balance to strike.

Timothy Stacey is a member of the Young Fabian Building Stronger Communities Policy Commission.

• You can find out more about the Young Fabian 2011 Policy Commission work by clicking here.

The policy challenges of coalition politics

In this member post, Young Fabian member Larry Smith looks at how the Government is adapting policy to meet the challenges of political action.

The nature of Coalition politics and the relationship between the ruling parties has had a major impact on policymaking over the course of the last year. Flagship pieces of legislation such as NHS reform have had their character fundamentally altered as Liberal Democrat members seeking tangible political ‘wins’ clash with Tory MPs fighting for authority within the government. Andrew Lansley’s initial plan to reduce costs by encouraging the NHS regulator, Monitor, to promote competition was diluted in the face of opposition among the Lib Dem grassroots, as was the scope for private providers to cherrypick patients. Conversely, Tory demands for their party to ‘hold the line’ have seen them awarded certain microconcessions: in spite of GP concerns, a large number of community and mental health services are set to go out to competitive tender by next September, albeit to qualified providers.

This battle for the upper hand can be expected to affect the direction of other pieces of legislation as both parties look to prevent their supporters from becoming disaffected with the Coalition’s overall trajectory.

Alongside this, more traditional political imperatives have distorted the development of policy, most obviously the desire of individual ministers to boost their reputations. This can be seen in other major parts of the Coalition’s agenda, most notably its reform of student funding. A controversial cap on tuition fees was advocated strongly by Lib Dem minister Vince Cable, who had been criticised for endorsing the Coalition and failing to persuade his colleagues to back a graduate tax. But the £9,000 limit was also driven through by Cable’s Tory subordinate David Willetts, a One Nation moderniser anxious not to lose his reputation as a champion of social mobility. The result of the policy – universities at the bottom end of the system charging students the maximum price for entry, with the Government in turn forced to cut higher education funding to provide undergraduates with loans was not what either man intended. But it was a consequence of them attempting to defer short-term political pain in order to maintain their positions within their respective parties and in Westminster at large.

At the same time, there is an extent to which institutions of government have helped the Coalition transcend political pressures and work out coherent responses to policy challenges.

The Cabinet in particular has served a useful purpose in encouraging ministers to consider issues on their own merits, allowing them to take a clear-headed approach to problems such as Libya. The debate over whether or not to intervene militarily was heated but noticeable for its lucidity, with leading figures discussing action without recourse to the impact it might have on them politically. And importantly, it resulted in the Coalition taking a clear and decisive stand against Cnl Gaddafi’s mistreatment of civilians.

Just days after ministers agreed on an approach, the UK was playing a key role in securing a UN resolution and in planning operations to ensure the city of Benghazi did not witness mass slaughter. The Cabinet has not always fulfilled such a positive role: it was largely irrelevant during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq and did not help the last Labour Government react consistently to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. But its status as a forum for dialogue between the two parties, coupled with the Prime Minister’s willingness to act as a ‘chairman of the board’ may have helped enhance its position as a policymaking body in the eyes of senior ministers.

If Coalition Government is teaching us anything it is that policies still depend on politics to get from paper to the outside world. Flexibility, a clear focus on core policy objectives, political buy-in (especially from your own colleagues) and room for negotiation have all become pre-requisites – key lessons for Labour moving forward.

Larry Smith is a member of the Young Fabians.

Making better policy

If I asked you to name the most successful policies of the last 20 years which ones would make your list?

Building schools for the future?

Smoking Ban?

Devolution?

Certainly a characteristic of the thirteen years of the last Labour Government was the numerous eye-catching initiatives coming out of Government. But not all of them could be described as successes.

So what makes ‘good’, i.e. successful, policy? Many can talk about evidence-based policy and the  different theoretical models for policy making. Yet none of this talks about making successful policy, which is obviously more valuable.

Earlier this year the Institute for Government published research with members of the UK Political Studies Association into what they thought the most successful policy interventions since 1980 were. It offers a fascinating insight into what policy makers think successful policy looks like.

The minimum wage came out head and shoulders above other policies spanning the 30 years in question. Although respondents had different criteria for success; social impact, successful implementation and economic impact were identified as the three main criteria against which to judge policies. Unfortunately for politicians, media approval was seen as a poor example of success.

And that is the challenge facing a party looking to get into power. If the political challenge for the Left is to rejuvenate its relationship with the electorate then that has got to be on the basis of good policy. Crucially if not every good political idea makes for good policy then the question remains: how do we make better policy?

If Labour is to create a viable programme for Government by 2015 then the onus is on getting into good policy-making habits now.

This is where the Institute for Government’s work into making policy better should be explored. They organised a number of policy reunions to identify what challenges and barriers to successful policy making exist in Government. The result is seven building blocks of good policy that are worth reflecting on:

1. Clarity on goals
2. Open idea generation and robust use of evidence
3. Rigorous policy design
4. Responsive external engagement
5. Thorough appraisal of options
6. Clarity on role of central government and accountabilities
7. Mechanisms for feedback and evaluation

Though much of this seems obvious, the implications for the way Government and political parties look to generate policy are sizable. For instance the report argues for a more open policy making process which engages outsiders and experts earlier and more directly. The contrasts are easy to make.

More importantly it points to a non-silver bullet approach to policy-making. The report and the Institute’s blogs on policy-making are necessary reading for those interested in coming up with something more than just eye catching ideas.

And for Young Fabians looking to add and influence the policy making arena there are useful ideas here that need to digested, especially if we want our ideas to have a chance to become reality.

Vincenzo Rampulla is Officer Without Portfolio on the Young Fabian Executive.

• The Young Fabians and the Institute for Government event on Making Better Policy: The Challenges of Opposition takes place on the 15 September in London. More details can be found here.
• The event will be webcast live from 6pm on the Young Fabians website: here

Blueprint for a New Economy

In this Guest Post, Bren Albiston, a member of the Young Fabian Renewing and Reforming Our Economy Policy Commission, explores the ways in which we can change the way the country does business.

We have a big decision to make as to what future we want for this country.

Do we want to continue ever further down the road of an economic system that rewards rent-seeking more than productivity? Do we want to sustain an unfair system that generates friction between the Square Mile and the rest of the economy?

No. We can, and need to, improve this sorry state of affairs.

We have to grow our economy at more than 3% a year until 2035 in order to make up the losses incurred from the double-whammy of the credit crunch and recession. If we fail, we will lose something in the order of £4 trillion of productivity* . The task may seem insurmountable, but we must work to secure as much of that 4 trillion as we can.

Our capitalism is broken. This has been made clear by years of recession and static growth. We continue to pay the price of other people’s hubris; those who thought they could predict the unpredictable.

Despite this, we are still over-reliant on a financial system that is too cautious to invest. At the same time, the government is scaling back the public sector, our most potent means of inducing social mobility. We must reinvent the way we do business and the way that we create and encourage growth, not just because we need to recover economically, but because we need to recover socially as well.

Britain should not be afraid of taking the lead in reform. There are many ways in which the nation could change the way it does business. The establishment of a properly funded and empowered ‘Green’ investment bank is one option. As Will Hutton suggests, we should explore the benefits of a ‘Knowledge Bank’, a ‘Life Sciences Bank’ and perhaps a ‘National Infrastructure Bank’.

Through these institutions, we can invest in the technologies and expertise required to rebuild our economy. A new lending infrastructure will incentivise innovation, while benefiting traditional funding streams at the same time.

The new system would channel funds to those areas that are thought to be risky bets by orthodox lenders. However, it would need the backing of the state to succeed. It alone can provide the security and effective strategic direction needed, alongside a highly autonomous set of investment apparatus to keep its influence in check.

Fairness and just desserts should be the foundation stones of our new capitalism. In many ways, small business does more for this country than big business. At present, we neglect the small- and medium-sized businesses and leave them exposed to the predatory practices of our largest firms.

These giants operate largely unchallenged by both smaller competitors and government watchdogs. A study in 2005 revealed that the more competing firms were matched in terms of performance and productivity, the more they tended to register new patents** . We need a competition framework that actively promotes competition rather than protecting incumbent corporations.

Unfortunately, the balance between today’s consumers and tomorrow’s is too heavily in favour of the former. In consequence, there is little room for innovation and even less for emerging companies to replace those which are uncompetitive. We need an infrastructure capable of sustaining new corporate growth and innovation.

Britain is, in many respects, a world-leader in high technology and services. Yet as our manufacturing sector continues to decline, we remain over-reliant on financial institutions as the engines of growth. As the state retreats from its key role in encouraging social mobility, we are faced with a huge task: we need to reconstruct our capitalism to benefit society, and we need new institutions to help us do that.

• You can learn more about what the ‘Renewing and Reforming Our Economy’ Policy Commission has been doing by clicking here.

* H.M Treasury (2009) Pre-Budget Report: Securing the Recovery: Growth and Opportunity, HMSO. See Also: Will Hutton (2010) Them and Us. Little, Brown.

** Phillippe Aghion, Richard Blundell, Rachel Griffith, Peter Howitt and Susan Prantl (2005) ‘The Effects of Entry on incumbent Innovation and Productivity’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP5323.

Labour and the World: The Rational and the Romantic

Yesterday evening the Young Fabians hosted a round table as part of our Labour in the World Policy Commissions with Labour MEP for London Mary Honeyball. The meeting got a little stuck on the tactics of how Labour talks about Europe, rather than the political direction for Europe. Specifically, the question discussed was: how do pro Europeans make the case for EU membership in a net contributing EU member state?

There seems to be two approaches: the rational and the romantic.

Of the large net contributors to the EU budget, the French and Germans seem to fall on the romantic side, they hold a deep routed historical and ideological commitment to the European project following the aftermath of WW2. However the significant CAP and Structural Funds they share between them bend towards the rational. The Italians have the EU to thank for ridding them of the Lira, another rational argument. But what has Britain got to shout about? And will it be rational facts or romantic ideals that will work to make case for EU membership in any potential future vote on the matter?

During our period in government, departments successively made the case for Britain’s EU membership rationally and dispassionately, dealing with hard-headed facts. We spoke about trade, jobs, market access and a single set of market rules all meaning British companies and jobs are better off with Britain in, even if we pay more to the budget than we get back in hand outs (the rebate included). So our position in effect was (and largely still is) this: we pay more in, but without it, we’d be poorer. So in effect, EU membership is an indirect fiscal benefit to the Treasury and thus UK taxpayers.

So far so rational, but it’s not exactly going to send people rushing to the polling station to cast a yes in any prospective future referenda. So what is?

Do we need instead need to break the issue down to the emotive and evocative, using stories and images backed up by hard-headed facts?

The image that Europe, a continent that had been in conflict for centuries, has been at peace for over half a century is strong but it doesn’t seem as relevant today as in the last century.  But twin that with the rational facts of our inter-dependent trade and we might just have a script.

So to tell a story evocatively, as well as dealing in rational facts, Labour should weave a narrative of Britain needing to stand on the world stage with others and not alone, needing to draw on the resources of others to forge a way forward, needing to help those in their greatest need and a Britain that looks outward not inward and to quote a phrase, looking forward not back.

Brian Duggan is Young Fabian Policy Officer.

You can find out more about the 2011 Young Fabian Policy Commissions by clicking here.

Introducing our 2011 Policy Commissions

The Young Fabians will soon be launching four Policy Commissions. Our Policy Commissions form the backbone of our policy work and since their inception they have increasingly become strong access points for our members into the policy making process of the Labour Party.

This year we launch the Commissions at a crucial time for Labour. With a thorough examination of party policy under the stewardship of Liam Byrne MP, there is a timely opportunity for our members to take a firm grasp of the chance to offer Labour our ideas on the party’s policy renewal. The process we are undertaking will be a vehicle for our members to develop their ideas and test their suggestions which we will offer into Liam’s Fresh Ideas policy review.

Over the coming months, four Young Fabian members will lead informed debates and discussions, open to all Labour supporters which will result in our submission to Labour’s Policy Review and a Young Fabian Pamphlet setting out our ideas for Labour’s future policy offer.

Our four commissions will look at:

1. Renewing and Reforming Our Economy – Maneesh Sharma and Graeme Henderson

The task of this group will be to investigate the path Labour should take to build a more sustainably prosperous economic settlement for Britain. It will investigate the need for an active industrial strategy, the fairness divide in our economy, job creation and productivity. It also will look towards opportunities in the green economy and in new and emerging markets as well as looking to incentives for business to break out of the ‘low pay low skill’ cycle.

2. Building Stronger Communities - Richard Angell and Anas Sarwar MP

This group will look at the strength and resilience of British community life in the modern world. It will investigate how families across the country are working harder for longer for less. The consequence of this for family life and community activism will be explored. It will also look at the challenge of how communities are empowered into the political process so that citizens become stakeholders in their communities and in national life.

3. Securing the Future of the Next Generation – Joani Reid

Ed Miliband has stated that “the British Promise, that the next generation would always do better than the last, is now under threat like never before.” The key challenge of this Commission will be to investigate how young Britain is coping with the consequences of government fiscal retrenchment. Facing debt, a difficult labour market and a challenging housing market, the next generation of Britain is under huge pressure. This commission will look at how Labour should respond to the challenges facing the next generation.

4. Labour and the World – Debbie Moss

Foreign affairs is at transformative moment and this group will explore Labour’s role in the World. It will span aid policy in a time of austerity, to security in the context of defence cuts and the criteria for military intervention in fragile states and the balance between domestic security and external stability. Labour in the World will look at Britain’s relationships to other states and institutions and how we form an ethical foreign policy and learn lessons from past conflicts.

Young Fabian members have much to offer these four big policy areas.

Please sign up to join our Policy Commissions and join in the debate about Labour’s future policy offer.

Together we look forward to offering the Labour Party a series of new, fresh and robust ideas.

Brian Duggan is Young Fabian Policy Officer.

The Geek shall Inherit the Earth

Earlier this week, I whiled away a convivial evening with a throng of self-confessed science Geeks at the Old Monk pub in the heart of the Westminster village. By golly they were angry (and this was before a drop of Extra Special Bitter or Brewer’s Best had been spilled in anger).

What had roused them from their scientific service, from their molecules and molluscs, from their retinal research? In a word: government.

We were there with the Westminster Sceptics to discuss the shocking absence of evidence in policy making and how the government’s refusal to get serious about the reality of policy evaluation continues to harm us all.

The case for evidence-based policy was made strongly, led by ex Lib Dem MP Dr. Evan Harris and Mark Henderson, Science Editor of the Times, who is writing a book on the subject.

The clear consensus that emerged from the non-partisan crowd crystallised around two clear themes.

First, we need to ditch the idea of the ‘U-turn’ being the ultimate insult to sling in the direction of principled MPs. Parliamentarians are professional politicians; they are not professional academics, technical experts or people charged with running public service delivery organisations on an operational basis.

It is right that MPs should propose theses to be tested and put them to consultation. The conservative political culture that slams back against changes in direction after the expert evidence has been counted is all wrong. It leads to knowingly sub-optimal decisions, made by a government who should have our interests (not their own political self-image) at heart.

We should publicly celebrate MPs like Labour’s Caroline Flint, who when Minister of State for Public Health, openly refined her views in relation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008) upon hearing the full gamut of expert views. She opened herself up to Tory criticsm but her actions were good for the legislation and good for country. It is sad I need to go back to 2008 to find a relevant example.

Second, we need to stop being afraid of using controlled public policy experiments for fear they may show the government was wrong. If that be the case: hurrah; it shows us how to make things better. It is depressing that during recent changes to how Cannabis was classified no one made a concerted effort to track the impact of the changes in line with best experimental practice.

Relatedly, select committees must not step back from continuously tracking and evaluating policy, something we see far too little of. Let’s see less bilious words being hurled incompetent bankers hauled up before the select committees. Let’s see more critical evaluation of how we get our kids to read better, get our elderly people healthier, make housing more affordable.

If we make these uncontroversial and (almost) costless changes to the way government goes about governing, it will be better for all us. Perhaps then one wit at the pub the other night was right: it is time for the Geek to inherit the earth.

Daniel is, according to some philosopher or other. He is also Young Fabians Networks Office and is hosting an event at Imperial College on March 22nd to explore these issues further. Please come along.