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.

We would love to hear from YOU on what the key issues facing young people in Britain are today. We invite you to submit your thoughts in the form of a 10-30 second video, which we will edit into a 2-3 minute video for the conference.

It’s simple to have your voice heard: just upload your 10-60 second video clip to Youtube or other video hosting site and send a link to the video to Daniel Bamford.

You can also post a link to the video on the Facebook event page.

One issue more than any other has dominated British politics since May. Cuts have been the order of the day, as the coalition has taken the axe to the public finances in its effort to bring down the deficit and shrink the state. In this tough political climate, Labour have played an important role in holding the coalition to account and opposing cuts, like those to housing benefit, that hit the poorest hardest. However, the party must be careful to avoid the temptation of riding the inevitable wave of public anger and opposing all cuts on matter of principle. The recently launched policy review provides a vital opportunity for Labour to develop a credible policy platform that is rooted in the political and economic reality of today.

That reality is a challenging one. Despite what the coalition may claim, the structural issues within the UK economy go far beyond financial services and alleged Labour profligacy. In fact the UK’s long-term debt has far more to do with our ageing demographic profile than with bankers bonuses and complex derivatives. Put simply, the taxes of those in work no longer cover the services and pensions of those who have retired. The problem is systemic and the only solution is a new conception of the state that reflects the complex realities of modern day Britain. Of course this must go beyond the rhetoric of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’. However, unless Labour understands its message – that the state needs to be reformed and that people want more power over the issues that affect their lives – the party will fail to offer the credible alternative that is so desperately needed.

This doesn’t require Labour to give up on its own political traditions. In the latest edition of the Young Fabians magazine, Anticipations newly ennobled Maurice Glasman makes a powerful case for Labour rediscovering its radical tradition of solidarity and cooperation. As he rightly argues, Labour has a rich history of grassroots activism and it is this that the party must tap into if it is to offer a new vision of government that goes beyond investment and centralised control. At a time when the public feel disempowered by an overbearing market and an often unresponsive state, now is the time for Labour to once again become the party of civil society. To win the next election, it is vital that Labour does not cede this ground to the coalition.

There is a lot of great work already being done in this area. As new MP Stella Creasy discusses in this edition’s interview many Labour activists are applying the principles of grassroots activism to their own constituencies, supporting local people to take power and influence the decision making process. As a participant of Citizens UK’s national community organising training – I share my experiences in Anticipations – I have seen for myself how effective these methods can be.

However, organising is only a small part of this agenda. Steve Reed, leader of Lambeth Council, writes in Anticipations about the groundbreaking work he is leading on to make Lambeth the country’s first cooperative council. Big ideas are vital, but implementation is equally as important and Lambeth are showing how Labour’s cooperative and mutual tradition – of which Greg Rosen provides a fascinating overview in the magazine – can be applied to the challenges of the modern world.

During the times of plenty, Labour’s instinct was to invest rather than to empower. Despite its shortcomings, this approach had a huge impact of which all on the Left should be proud. However, in today’s economic climate and with the long-term challenge of an ageing population, a new approach is required. Now is the time for Labour to rediscover its history as a grassroots movement and place community empowerment at the heart of a radical new approach to government. Cooperation, mutualism and community organising; these are old ideas whose time has come.

James Green is Editor of the Young Fabians magazine, Anticipations

An online taster edition of the winter edition of Anticipations is now available on the Young Fabians website here.

To full edition of Anticipations is only available to Young Fabian members. However, along with the online taster edition for all our supporters, we are offering a special rate of membership to celebrate our 50th year – £5 for six months membership. For further information and to join visit www.youngfabians.org.uk.

The result of the Swedish General election and with it the election of the far right into the Riksdag with 20 seats has cast a dark cloud over European Politics. This cloud grew even darker yesterday as it became clear that the far right Dutch PVV, led by Geert Wilders would be asked to support the Dutch coalition after elections there.

It’s not all doom and gloom though. The Young Fabians & Young Labour ran a trip to Sweden for their General Election. What was clear to us was just how much more politically engaged the general population were compared to here in the UK. For example the Swedish Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterna)have over 100,000 members in a country of 10 million people. The UK Labour party has around 180,000 members in a country of 60 million people.

There is no single reason for this greater level of political engagement that we can simply emulate to reinvigorate British politics, rather there are structural and cultural processes at work. The electoral system in Sweden is a form of proportional representation and while we’re all familiar with the pitfalls of PR it does result in an every vote matters campaign. With no such thing as safe seats, and vast numbers of activists the political process is constantly invigorated and campaigning is not highly focused in a small number of key seats.

The recording of voter ID is not allowed in Sweden and door knocking is a relatively new political campaigning tactic. As you can imagine with no voter ID information the approach becomes very broad brush. Campaigning also takes place where people congregate. Town squares, railway stations and busy public places become a colourful election fest. A carnival atmosphere takes hold with good humour all round.

All this brings the political process to the people, not some people in key seats but all citizens. The Swedes therefore are engaged. Their vote matters, state funding of parties mean they get manifestos and quality literature from all sides. The process is not remote and with the absence of the Murdoch press the media reports events rather than driving them.

In analysis of the Swedish Social Democratic model a great deal of importance is often placed on the Swedish protestant work ethic as a factor in their success and this also begets a sense of civic duty where people really do believe that voting is an important duty. Combined with political engagement this results in 80% of Swedes voting in General Elections which puts the UK to shame.

So although the results in Sweden were poor to say the least, the Social Democrats are in a good position on the ground to lead a European Social Democratic resurgence. Their electoral system means that the elite cannot simply sneer at the far right but rather will have to confront their narrative in order to regain power.

Economic crisis has historically always led to a surge in right wing support. Over the last hundred years however Social Democracy has transformed Sweden from one of the poorest countries in Europe to one of the richest. Surely therefore the Swedish democrats are in an enviable position when it comes to creating a narrative to oppose the anti-immigration, anti-islamic, welfare and public service slashing right wing narrative of the moment. Hopefully this will be a narrative that can be easily exported to their sister socialist parties including the Labour Party here in the UK ensuring that those dark clouds are quickly dissipated.

However, what was more irritating was when I went to collect my alarm before going home. After a lengthy search the alarm was produced but rather than trusting that I was in fact leaving the complex and heading home, I had to be escorted out of the secure zone and my alarm was only returned once I had passed through the security barriers. They wouldn’t even trust me to with it as I went through the gate, rather they had to squeeze it through the barrier once I had exited, ensuring me and my illicit alarm were not reunited until firmly evicted.

If I was a braver individual I would have tugged the cord and flung the shrieking alarm (which for male readers who may be unfamiliar with how these things work, once triggered can’t be silenced) back into the secure zone. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) the adult in me prevailed and realising the security incident and ensuing lifetime ban from Conference that would have resulted from my act of rebellion, I let the opportunity for revenge pass.

All the same, a woman should not be made to feel like a criminal for carrying a personal alarm, perhaps something Conference organisers could remember for next year?

It was the final Anticipations of this exec year and as it went to print I realised how steep a learning curve it has been since I took over as editor last November. Learning how to use professional design software, understanding how to best commission content and, most of all, working out how to put it all together in a way that is both accessible and engaging has been challenging to say the least.

However, while it’s tough it’s also addictive. Not many people get the opportunity to edit a political magazine and the challenge can make you obsessive. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve got up in the early hours with ideas for new features or simply to tweak articles. It’s been a huge privilege to edit Anticipations and I’d love to continue doing it next year.

I’m always looking for ways to make Anticipations even better so please do get in touch with your comments and ideas.

James Green

Anticipations Editor

jgreen@youngfabians.org.uk

In this guest post Young Fabian Tim Nicholls looks at the issue of long-term challenge of obesity and asks how can we be radical but still sensitive on such a touchy and personal issue?

Last week, Anne Milton caused, in her own inimitable fashion, an all-too-minor stir when she suggested that overweight people should be called “fat” in order to motivate them to lose weight.

To say that obesity is a public health timebomb is axiomatic. Comparatively low food prices and increasingly sedentary lifestyles have caused our waistbands to expand. We’re getting bigger and our children are too. But it occurs to me that name-calling is not the best way to lessen our collective mass. It deserves more time and more debate.

Getting people to eat more healthily and exercise more (the one consistently proven weight-loss technique) requires a cultural shift on a daunting scale, but it also requires a proper understanding of the causes. The truth is that most people aren’t overweight because they want to be. Constraints on our time and our purses can make healthy living incredibly hard.

This requires much more than name-calling. In fact, in a society where the stick-thin are celebrated, to stigmatise being overweight is likely to have an anti-motivational effect. Furthermore, I don’t understand how the Right could accuse the last Government of making children too body-conscious, but stigmatise being overweight in a way that will clearly filter through to kids.

Change 4 Life, though much criticised, was a good programme that promoted healthy living in small – if you’ll forgive the pun – bite-sized chunks. But I think we have to go further; be more radical. Councils ban junk food shops near schools, but how do we get kids to not want to go to the chippy on the way home? Nutritional information covers our food packets, but how do we make sure this is understandable?

We have to look at all the behaviour that needs to change and we need to approach this from both the supply- and demand-sides. One of the ideas that interests me the most is to place an extra tax on junk/unhealthy food, in order to subsidise healthy food. The truth is that it is expensive to eat healthily. Subsidies would lower prices for consumers, but they will also force producers to change their behaviour. As prices for healthy food fall, demand will increase, with correlating calls for supply. In short, Burger King would move to selling healthy food.

Is this perfect? No. Is it complete? Clearly not. But the obesity epidemic in this country demands revolutionary and proactive solutions.

Public understanding is also key: we’ve got to move beyond “if you eat chocolate you’ll get fat”, because it’s not true and living without any chocolate would not, let’s face it, be much fun. Simple signs, like the traffic light system identify healthier food. But there is not yet a similar system for judging portion size.

It also demands wider thinking: this is not just a discussion about food. It’s about PE and health education in schools; strong and active family units; a living wage; greater corporate responsibility; tackling excessive alcohol consumption; and a better balance between work and family life.

Over the next few weeks, I’m going to try to unpack some of these issues but what do people think about the issue?…

But while we have surely all made up our minds by now about who we are going to vote for as our new leader?! I don’t witness the same level of debate about which Labour candidate we want to challenge Boris Johnson to be the most powerful directly elected politician in the country.

Perhaps this is because Labour supporters don’t think we can beat Boris? Or perhaps its because we are a bit tired of these nomination processes now and if we are going to go to the effort to go to a hustings, its going to be for the Party Leadership and that’s about it?

But while the Leadership contest is about the future of Labour and how we will challenge and hold the new coalition Government to account, the Mayoral nomination race is surely about the future of London, and nothing is more exciting to me at this time than that.

I’ve lived in London all my life, and I think Labour in London has always been weaker than it should be. We have had and still do have, a huge wealth of hard-working London Labour MPs, activists with huge amounts of experience and knowledge, and a structure of local and devolved government which allows for our councils, and our Mayor to have a real impact on the lives of Londoners and make our city a better place to live.

For me, its a shame that Ken has thrown himself back into the race this time. I think if he had said that he wasn’t standing then we would have seen some of his supporters throwing themselves forward, such as David Lammy.

Ken should have recognised that it was time for the next generation to take on the challenge on re-engaging with Londoners, and what a great nomination race it would have been if Lammy and Oona has both been vying for our votes. Labour could have showcased its diversity and talent in London at a time when the Party is desperately looking for experienced and engaging personalities to re-connect with voters.

As we get closer to the nomination of our candidate for Mayor (it will be announced in London on the day before Party Conference) I hope that London members will get more engaged in the debate, and will see that Labour has to re-energise itself in London with a new and vibrant candidate before we have any chance of taking on Boris Johnson in 2012. In my opinion, there is only one candidate who can do that.

What are your views? Email me.

David.

David Chaplin
Chair, Young Fabians
dchaplin@youngfabians.org.uk

Weijun Chen’s film, in which he records schoolchildren in China undertaking an election for class monitor, is in equal measure funny, touching, disturbing and fascinating. In a country without national elections, how will the youngsters deal with the challenge of seeking office with democratic legitimacy?

It begins with their teacher explaining the process they are about to undertake, and indeed democracy itself: “This is new,” she understates. And it ends in tears as two of the candidates (unlike our recent election) have to deal with defeat.

In the end it is a landslide victory (I won’t spoil your enjoyment by telling you who wins) but the process which brings the class to this outcome is fascinating to observe.

There is something to be learnt about children and about human nature no doubt. But, ultimately, it is amazing – given the assumed lack of exposure these eight year olds in Wuhan, the capital city of the central Chinese province of Hubei, have had to democratic political processes – how quickly the youngsters adapt to politics, and in particular, how similarly they adopt the characteristics we can associate with politicians.

This is evident in the language they use, the way they interact with each other, (look out for attack-laden debates), the candidates’ grasp of deal-making and carrot-dangling (and, sadly, bribery and lies), their understanding of the need to consult with the electorate, the eagerness of others to advise and fulfil their own ambitions (primarily the kids’ parents), and a macho male aggression. Plus the frailty and insecurity political candidates can display in private. It was not hard to make the leap from despondent child head down and holding hands with father to the Western politician being reassured and looked after by adviser or bag carrier.

A remarkable piece of work; it’s not hard to see why it won awards around the world. It’s not a new film – indeed I understand the BBC first showed it a couple f years ago – but if you’ve not come across it before, I’d highly recommend a viewing in the next couple of days.

You can watch a trailer of Please Vote for Me here.

Over at Left Foot Forward, Will Straw has highlighted the issues MPs are currently debating given the content of the Government’s Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Labour will be rightly worried that the proposals of a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) system is being used to push through proposals that will restrict electors representation and gerrymander constituencies to the benefit of the parties in power rather than the electorate as a whole.

Whilst I think it is important stuff, I do wonder whether this is what the average voter on the street worries about. I suspect the ‘average voter’ has more simple electoral questions on their mind (whenever elections do pass through their minds):

Currently these simple, practical questions are rarely discussed. Why do we seem to have ignored the debate? Everyone is focused on what system of voting we should be using with no real attention given to what could be done to radically overhaul the way the vote is actually conducted in the UK.

It is easy understand why. The move to include postal and proxy voting proved hugely contentious for John Prescott when he introduced it for the Labour Government in 2001. Since then scandals and fear of manipulation have meant there has been little will to push innovation further. Yet everyone agrees about the importance of voting and the need to get people voting in elections, especially since voter turn-out has dropped since the early 90s.

I have some sympathy for those responsible for the system. It isn’t the easiest of subjects to try and tackle. The fact is that helping 29,691,780 people put an ‘x’ on their ballot paper to vote for one of the 4,150 candidates that contested the this year’s General Election, in a single day, is an incredible feat of modern administration.

But there’s something disappointing in the fact that people can travel to the moon, regularly and comfortably move vast amounts of money across the world through telephone cables, and choose in their millions their favourite X-factor contestant by text, but making it easier for people to vote for their MP seems beyond us.

Some of the biggest headlines of 6/7 May were of the queues outside 27 polling places across the UK as people scrambled to make their vote, albeit in some instances at the last possible minute. 1,200 votes were affected across 16 constituencies. Small fry given the number of successful voters but surely a rationale for looking seriously at some new ideas?

So I feel this year’s report by the Electoral Commission on the 2010 election was a missed opportunity. The Chair of the Electoral Commission, Jenny Watson, did not use her interview on yesterday’s Today programme not to put forward a radical plan but simply suggested that voters who have joined the voting queue before 10pm should have the legal right cast their vote. Simple to understand, but hardly radical.

Credit where credit’s due, the Electoral Commission had been successful in increasing voter registration. Their “About my Vote” campaign successfully produced 700,000 new electors between December 2009 and April 2010. But the majority of these new voters are presumably more comfortable with the smart phones, Internet and mobility that is part of their modern lives. Voting doesn’t compare, so is it any wonder that  the highest rates of non-turnout are with voters under 34.

There is no point in trying to argue that all non-voters don’t vote because they are uninterested in politics (for instance, the LSE found that voters were as interested in the battle between Gordon Brown and David Cameron as they were between Wilson and Douglas-Home). But modern, busy lives mean that our pre-21st system of casting your vote on paper and in person makes less and less sense to these non-voters and makes it harder for them to cast their vote.

I know that people need to trust our voting system and in many cases innovation has led to scandal. But if our elections are going to be more contentious, with ever closer results and if truly believe in making ‘every vote count’ , then shouldn’t we also aim to get almost everyone voting?