There are some examples of open data successes in the UK. The crowd sourcing of possible cuts was useful in identifying the £1million – £10million issues that departments may have missed. A good example of this was the public pointing out that the £8million per year was being spent on sending out National Insurance cards to 16 year olds, even though no-one has ever needed this piece of plastic. The Red Tape Challenge has so far identified 6,000 regulations that need to be alerted or removed.

Open data my not be the democratic panacea it at first seems. There is a danger that crowdsourcing will only be accessible to those who have the ability to utilise it. It is estimated that in the UK 8.4million people have never been online – half of these have a disability and half are living in social housing. This ‘middle-class parent’ syndrome is a fact of life. Where a decision will lead to benefit or hurt then people will use all their abilities to try and influence the outcome. This is something the convener of any consultation needs to be aware of when analysing feedback.

The debate contained some underlying frustration that those outside the room were not embracing open dataness. But of course we were a self-selecting crowd of geeks who had decide to forego the comforts of our home to stand in a basement talking tech and policy, thus found it hard to understand why anyone would choose to watch Eastenders. The way to get people involved is to make involvement fun, make involvement easy and make the benefits obvious, but unfortunately the formation of legislation can’t always tick these boxes. To quote Otto von Bismarck “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Moaning about politicians may be a national pastime but that does not mean the masses want to ‘do’ politics.

There is a big difference in crowdsourcing data and crowdsourcing views. Allowing the public to collect/peer review information is different from trying to achieve consensus of opinion. Frustratingly for those who wish that life always worked in a linear way there are many important grey areas where data and opinions collide. This is especially true in politics and policy formation. Transparency can help people to judge where empirical evidence ends and ideological persuasions begin, but solving the big questions in life will never be left to neutral open data.

Policy Innovation are holding four more events in their ‘Transition Layer’ season.

Many are focusing on the appealing claim that lighter afternoons would make roads safer, reduce crime, and boost business and tourism income by some billions. Many others are highlighting the objections of the Scottish people who would be plunged into relative darkness. Few have challenged the foundation of the supposed scientific claims of the Bill.

Dr Malcolm von Schantz, Senior Lecturer in Physiology and Biochemistry at theUniversity ofSurrey has expressed his concern: “The Government’s decision to back a bid for theUK to join the Central European time zone is based on a fallacy.

“Under GMT we change our time to make optimum use of daylight hours. The proposed system would mean we wake up in the dark, but it would look like we have an extra hour in the evenings. This is not a fair trade, despite appearances.

“Our body clock, which controls a host of crucial internal processes, is only sensitive to light in the morning. Preliminary data fromAmericasuggests that if the Government proposal was to go ahead, then this could create sleep problems and a significant increase in winter depression.

“To remove exposure to natural light in the morning from the population without first doing the proper research into the likely consequences for public health would be very irresponsible.”

Whilst the economic impact of making what superficially appears to be a slight change is tempting, Government policy should be based on the best knowledge available at the time the decision was taken instead of pandering to what appears to be a politically expedient solution.

Who could argue against more light for playing with your kids? Who could object to reducing road accidents? Who could object to such a small change bringing billions into the British economy and increasing tourism employment?

Independent, academically neutral experts – that’s who.

The expertise of Dr von Schantz and his colleague Dr Thomas Kantermann leads them to predict that moving the clock forward would lead to a delay in sleep patterns. This means that more people would stay awake later and sleep less. Ultimately this would mean that the next morning we would not be operating at 100 per cent efficiency. When that happens day after day, it could lead to severe problems ranging from work performance to seasonal depression.

A comprehensive cost and benefits review into the scientific evidence behind the Private Members Bill must be had. Evidence from neutral academic sources supporting in matters that concern public health and safety should be essential in the formulation of all Government policy.

 In this instance it really doesn’t appear to be satisfactory.

 Why not look at their critique of the research and make up your own mind?

 Main arguments against joining the Central European Time Zone by Drs von Schantz and Kantermann:

1. To date there have been no studies of the physiological, psychological, and other health effects.
2. Based on what we already know about the body clock, such effects are likely to be either negative or very negative.
3. The argument that changing time zones would somehow create more light hours in winter is spurious. British Summer Time ends at the time it does because at that time of year, it is dark when most people go home anyway. What the change back to GMT in winter accomplishes is more light in the morning without any loss of light after the end of office hours.
4. The human body clock is only sensitive to the effects of light at specific times of day. Light is only able to advance the body clock in the morning. This is crucial, because the set point for our internal body clock is greater than 24 hours. Thus, we are required to constantly advance our clock with the help of morning light. If this does not happen, the result is likely to be a delayed sleep phase. Because we still need to get up in the morning, this will result in less sleep, which may result in more accidents, lower productivity, and an increased risk of winter depression.
5. It would be totally irresponsible to decide on a shift to Central European Time without any research on the effects on human health.

The Research Paper evidence refuted

In the ‘Research Paper’ Ms Harris has summarised the benefits of shifting to Central European Time for the nation. Drs von Schantz and Kantermann have included a point-by-point critique of this highlighting the flawed logic and dangers that result from the current approach.

Claimed benefits of joining the Central European Time Zone

1.     Saving 80 lives and preventing hundreds of serious injuries each year

A) Insignificant number — 80 out of 3,000 (0.27%)

B) Fatal accidents inNorthern Scotlandwould actually increase

2.     Creating 60,000–80,000 new jobs in leisure and tourism, bringing an extra £3.5– 4.5 billion into the domestic tourist economy each year

A) Claim not supported by any evidence.

B) Who will want to visit the Greenwich Observatory if GMT becomes Lisbon Standard Time?

3.     Lowering electricity bills by maximising the available daylight and flattening the peak in evening demand

A) The claim amounts to a modest and insignificant 0.6% saving.

B) If claim of increased leisure activities were correct, then an increased use of motor vehicles would follow.

4.     Improving the quality of life for older people

A) Claim not supported by any evidence.

B) Older people will wake up earlier and go to bed earlier naturally regardless of clock time.

5.     Helping to make people healthier and tackle obesity by giving people more time to exercise and play sport outside in the evening

A) Claim not supported by any evidence

B) An American study indicates that people living at the western edge of a time zone suffer from increased winter depression with increased carbohydrate cravings, overeating, and weight gain

 6.     Cutting 447,000 tonnes of CO₂ helping meet out international commitments to cut the UKs carbon output at minimal cost

A) The UK’s total carbon footprint is 500 million tonnes. Thus, even if this unproven claim were true, the savings would be 1/1,000 of the total CO₂ production

7.     Reducing insurance premiums by decreasing the number of road accidents and incidences of burglary

A) During the last year, road accidents and injuries have decreased – but the average premium has increased by 1/3

 8.     Reducing opportunist crime and the fear of crime in the evenings

A) Claim not supported by any evidence

1. 9.     Making the nation happier – including reducing the effects of Seasonal Affective Disorder
   1. Claim not supported by any evidence

In fact, an American study showed a 30% higher incidence in winter depression at the Western boundary of a time zone at the same latitude compared to the Eastern boundary

Frederic Filloux has written an interesting blog for the Guardian on how to make money out of digital news. The way news/entertainment is consumed is evolving in a mass personalised way. Technology has made  sharing easier and tailoring content to individual demands easier. As portable tablets become cheaper less and less people are willing to accept except what Clay Shirky calls the “printed paper bundle”.

Note to Rupert Murdoch: this direction of travel is powered by an immovable force – peoples desire for choice. I am excited about NetFlix’s entry into the UK market, not because they are doing anything the tech-savies aren’t aware of, but because they are trying to bring the bespoke consumption mindset to the masses – and have already forced LoveFilm to up their game.

Two old school news magazines – one in the UK and one in the US -have shown how technology can strengthen their presence and product.

Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, believes that free content is a driver for selling paid content:

“The Spectator on Kindle or iPad… now make up 8 per cent of our sales, a figure that is growing fast… We charge for the magazine but have no intention of charging for the blogs… Best of all, we’ve been picking up two (paying) digital readers for every one news-stand reader lost… People read The Spectator in many ways and for different reasons. But the important thing is that more people are reading us than ever before.”

Lauren Indvik’s piece on the Atlantic is worth a read:

“One of the most interesting aspects of the Atlantic’s digital success is the unexpected effect it has had on print. Although Smith acknowledges that tablets and ereaders are cannibalizing print newsstand sales, both magazine circulation and print ad revenues are up, “largely due to the brand impact that our strategy has had”, he says. “The dramatic growth in digital audience has in turn driven demand for the magazine, because so many more millions are now aware of it.”

I’m not sure anyone has found the best model yet but one thing is for sure: People have money, and many like spending it. Companies want to reach these people to suggest where they should dispense that cash. This means there is money to be made from good content. Though this does not mean that all newspapers have to do is transfer what they have always done on-line.

This has been the most challenging few weeks to date in the life of the nascent UK solar sector. After a short burst of unprecedented sales growth, with installations more than doubling between June and October, we had to intervene very quickly indeed to ensure the entire subsidy for this and other exciting micro-generation technologies supported by feed-in tariffs, wasn’t swept away by excessive returns for a lucky few. At 43p/kWh, your average domestic solar PV panel receives more than four times as much subsidy as renewable electricity generated from a wind turbine, way off the coast, in the hazardous conditions of the north sea.

However, it is easy to see why solar is so popular. It is reliable, intuitive, easy to install and is a great solution for people worried about rising electricity bills or wanting to do their bit to fight climate change. But with the price of solar falling quickly in a very short period of time, the subsidised tariff payments were suddenly offering new customers financial returns completely out of step with other green technologies or government-backed schemes. Double-digit yields, index linked and guaranteed to be paid at that rate for 25 years.

In the current financial climate when interest rates are at record lows, it really was too good to be true. Unfortunately the scheme the coalition inherited just wasn’t designed to adapt to these dramatic price falls.

This government believes in solar. We see its huge industrial and employment potential. We get the strong case for smart, well-targeted subsidy, to help early deployment and build a thriving UK sector. However that is not the same as a blank cheque. And we are equally determined to stand up for consumers alarmed by rising energy prices and have shown ourselves willing to take action to curb rising energy bills.

In such tough economic times, we just can’t turn a blind eye and watch the solar boom go unchecked, when it is paid for by subsidies taken directly from other people’s bills.

We would have preferred to have waited until this April before applying our proposed changes to new installations but the threat to the Fit budget left us no alternative.

Of course the industry would like a longer lead time to work through their bulging order books, I understand that, but the cold reality is that every day of delaying a cut in the tariff would mean more money flowing out of the budget at an excessive rate.

So now the challenge for the new year is to make sure we use the remaining subsidy far more wisely, put the sector back on a more sustainable footing, and reform the scheme to put in place the budget and deployment mechanisms it should have had from the outset. With more than 2,300 responses to our consultation, DECC is busy ploughing through a wide range of opinions on how we should proceed.

Despite this enormous workload, I am determined to publish our response before the end of the month. At the same time I hope to publish our new proposals for reform, to make the Fits much more like the German system and ensure we avoid this type of tariff-fuelled bubble in the future.

However I will be paying particularly careful attention to comments on our proposals to introduce an energy efficiency requirement. In fighting climate change there is a clear hierarchy of action, and reducing energy consumption, whether you are a big business or a domestic customer, should always be the first priority. We really shouldn’t be offering a costly subsidy to people to generate renewable energy when in the same building it is being unnecessarily wasted.

I want to look very carefully at what we are told in the consultation responses about how we make this link work, how we better align decentralised renewables with the coming green deal, and how we do so without unduly damaging the solar sector. I am itching to move on to solutions.

We won’t build a sustainable future for the industry in the court room, regardless of who wins the appeal. But a return to 43p could be catastrophic for the budget.

Now is the time for genuine collaboration between industry, NGOs and government. That doesn’t mean shirking tough choices on budgets and subsidy. But if we can build that elusive consensus around a financially responsible bridge to the future, continuing price falls could put the UK solar sector on the threshold of a genuinely exciting era, unconstrained by the need for high consumer subsidy and able to emerge, at scale, as a genuine market alternative to fossil fuels, and a vital weapon in our war on man-made climate change.

Greg Barker is Minister for Climate Change. This article first appeared in the Guardian.

“A large proportion of Britain’s Asian population fail to pass the cricket test. Which side do they cheer for? It’s an interesting test. Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are?” 

So spoke Norman Tebbit (ironically in an interview with the Los Angeles Times) back in 1990.  His concern?  That those who had come to this country, and who had benefited from our generosity and our opportunity were not repaying the favour with their loyalty and their support.

And of course – in highlighting concern about immigration and its potential impact on Britain’s economy and our identity – Tebbit was ahead of the curve.  Throughout the late nineties and early noughties migration would rise and rise up the scale of popular, political concern until – arguably at its zenith – it played a crucial role in the 2010 election.   It was Gordon Brown’s rejection of commonly held anxiety about the impact of immigration on jobs as ‘bigoted’ that blighted his campaign, while polling has time and again reinforced the popularity of Cameron’s simple pledge to bring immigration down ‘from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands’.  But now, as our Party takes the opportunity to convert policy into practice and to set about restricting migration effectively, it is also vital that we turn our minds to the integration of those who are here and ask ourselves the question, does Tebbit’s ‘Cricket Test’ hold any meaning for Conservatives today?

The answer to that question is, I believe, a straightforward ‘no’.  Polling – carried out by IPSOS MORI for a report by new think tank British Future, launched today – suggests that British people are much more nuanced and understanding about identity than Lord Tebbit ever gave us credit for.  60% of people agreed with the statement ‘People from abroad who settle in Britain should be able to choose to support the sporting teams of the countries they came from, even against British teams, without people saying this shows they aren’t willing to fit in here’ while only 15% could agree that ‘People from abroad who settle in Britain should support our sporting teams, even when they are competing against the countries they came from, to show that they want to fit in here’.  What’s more, when it came to the children of migrants, the majority held in favour of a pluralistic view of loyalty.  And this isn’t a view distorted by any so-called ‘progressive majority’.  When broken down by who respondents voted for at the last election, 54% of Conservatives supported the right of individuals to choose which team to support and only 21% of our fellow members disagreed.

It’s clear that British people aren’t especially paranoid about the twinge of sentimentality that may draw a British resident to support India at cricket whilst remaining an enthusiastic and involved part of their adopted community.

This relaxed, confident attitude about individual choice and migration was reflected in recent Demos work on patriotism in modern Britain.  Our focus groups and polling uncovered deep-seated anxiety about immigration but, also, overwhelming acceptance and tolerance of individual differences such as faith and sporting sympathy.  People worry about how immigration affects job opportunities for young people, about crime and about resources such as housing.  They worry, also, about the capacity of communities to absorb and adjust to the sheer numbers of migrants that have arrived in some – about the way in which the shape and character of neighbourhoods can be transformed over-night.  But they are also – in spite of feeling ignored and marginalized on this issue – remarkably committed to the idea that once people are here we must make every effort to make them welcome, to learn from them and to ensure that Britain’s historic tolerance and acceptance are safeguarded. 

These sentiments were summed up perfectly in a BBC News vox pop in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence verdicts when a TV journalist – determined to goad residents of Eltham into open racism – was disappointed by a young woman who told him that yes, she was angry about the changes in her community as a result of migration and her inability to find social housing but that no, she absolutely didn’t blame migrants themselves:  ‘It’s the Government’s fault for letting all these people in without thinking about the resources’.

What does this all mean for Conservatives?  Well, for a start, that our policy answers to migration are largely the right ones.  Britain doesn’t want ever-more strenuous loyalty tests, we want less immigrants overall but are fairly confident in the capacity of British society to integrate and absorb those who do come.  The cap – Government’s primary tool in delivering on Cameron’s pledge – fits with public sentiment perfectly.  But we should be careful – our focus group work demonstrated a deep-seated (and entirely understandable) mistrust of Government’s ability to have an impact on immigration – making the cap work in practice must occupy Theresa May’s every waking second.  Secondly, I agree with Conservative MP for Croydon Central Gavin Barwell when he said, in a recent Demos essay collection, that

 ‘I would love our prime minister, who has done so much to transform perceptions of the Conservative party for the better, to give a speech doing to Norman Tebbit’s cricket test what he did to the Margaret Thatcher’s ‘There’s no such thing as society’ quote. Yes it is important to have loyalty to this country, but your roots are important too. In the words of the Michael Jackson song, no one should spend their life being a colour but our ethnic identity is a part of who we are.’

David Cameron – emboldened by this poll – should use his next speech on immigration to explicitly reject the simplifications of Tebbit’s vision of society and identity, buying him and our party the political leeway and credibility to continue to talk about a more grown-up, more nuanced and vitally important vision of a better integrated Britain that respects difference but which holds to common values and expectations too.

New Labour was bad on policy when it came to immigration and bad on tone too.  Silly, occasionally offensive rhetoric was used to mask a do-nothing attitude towards our borders and a barely veiled contempt for people’s concerns.  The Conservative Party should reject both the hyperbolic grandstanding and the poor policy – we should speak to the reality of British people’s fears, step back from the lazy typecasting that Lord Tebbit represents and – above all else – commit ourselves to proving the cynics wrong on the capacity of Government to reduce immigration overall.  In doing so we can not only achieve our goal of a healthy and cohesive body politic but, as this important poll shows, we can win the trust of British people across the partisan divide.  Immigration remains important but, as the Biritsh people are telling us, it’s complicated.

During this year my plan is to explore this subject. I have written a blog for the excellent  Kernel Magazine explaining what politicians, business people and techies can learn from the decline of HMV. My conclusion is quoted below, but if you want to read the whole of the article click here.

“Technological innovations have enhanced the ability of humans to be free. We have more choice, can access more information and have more potential to create. Those societies and sectors who understand this will flourish, because they will be more willing to negotiate and experiment, while those who don’t risk stagnating until death. You have been warned.”

Today there are around 91,500 people in the UK infected by HIV.  According to the HPA, “The annual number of infections acquired within the UK… has almost doubled [between]…2001 [and]…2010, and exceeds the proportion probably acquired abroad.”  More than 3,000 gay men were diagnosed with HIV last year – the highest ever annual figure.  10-in-11 gay men in London, and 1-in-20 nationwide,  are living with the virus. 

Just as infection rates are reaching new highs, awareness is dipping alarmingly.  1 in 5 people who attend sexual health clinics turn down an HIV test and half of the 6,600 cases of HIV diagnosed last year were diagnosed after drug treatment should have started. 

World Aids Day should be a way of raising awareness.  At the moment, it’s failing to do this.  I work in central London and have only seen a handful of people wearing the ribbons today.  According to the World Aids Day site, ribbons are available in ‘MAC stores’.  Why aren’t they being sold in the big supermarkets, newsagents, bookshops and chemists?  If we are serious about raising awareness, we should be serious about raising awareness beyond the already aware. 

Public policy has a big role to play.    Policy makers need to consider reforms that will ensure that those most at risk are tested and need to recognise that the danger of HIV is as large today as it was in the 1980s.  A Unicef report showed that knowledge of HIV and Aids amongst young people in particular has declined and that many people have difficulty accessing sexual health services, experiencing difficulty making appointments and long waiting times.

The ‘Don’t Die Of Ignorance’ marketing campaign was one of the most powerful advertising campaigns of recent decades.  It was shown in every commercial break.  So many people still remember it today.  Two decades on, awareness has fallen and ignorance has risen.  The work done by the powerful advert has gone into reverse.  It’s clear that raising awareness of both the risk of HIV and the availability of testing is particularly important today.

The statistics for HIV amongst gay men are particularly shocking and some of the pressure groups also have a real awareness raising role to play.  A survey for gay professional networking group ‘Jake’ showed a hugely worrying amount of unprotected and casual sex amongst the gay community in London.  Of the 1,500 people who responded to their survey, 48 per cent said they had unprotected sex with strangers and barely half had been tested for HIV over the past year.  Gay pressure groups, such as Stonewall, which have done such tremendous work pushing the gay rights agenda over recent decades, have a responsibility to help turn around the rise in HIV amongst gay men.

Today should be a real day for awareness raising and should mark the moment when policy makers, pressure groups and health professionals take stock of recent trends in HIV cases and consider new measures to tackle the disease.  They should be considering ways to improve awareness, prevention and access to testing and ensuring that the problem is seriously addressed. 

David Skelton is Deputy Director of Policy Exchange.  You can follow him on Twitter @djskelton

The headline figure is that 79% of respondents to the survey were proud to be British citizens. When you attend an event such as this you invariably end up asking yourself questions. Am I proud of Britain? Yes, well more often than not anyway. Do I have pride in being British? Yes, my chest puffs up when I think about the freedoms, opportunity and democracy that exists here. How often do I think about Britain? Hardly ever, only when I’m challenged.  Am I a patriotic person? Well, I stand when the national anthem is played but I don’t own a Union Jack or search out patriotic events, so probably not. This feeling puts me in the majority as only 36% agreed with the statement ‘I wish I had more opportunities to demonstrate my pride in Britain today’. Us Brits have pride in our country but don’t necessarily feel the need to wave flags or have a ‘British’ day.

One possible issue with the 79% statistic is that there is almost endless scope for people to define what represents Britain. Is it the NHS (69% said they were proud of the NHS) or the monarchy (68%) that embodies the UK? But patriotism is a lot more complicated than this. For a start many people would rightly say that the answer is both.   A couple of months ago I was having dinner with some Russian friends. They couldn’t help bringing up hack-gate and the expenses scandal, in a “you think that Britain is so pure but you are more corrupt than us” type of way. Rather than graciously admitting the UK’s recent descent into griminess I valiantly fought for the honour of my nation.  The nation I am a part of and I suppose is a part of me. Does my patriotism come from a self-validation need? The argument reminded me of a story by a left-wing commentator who was having dinner with a French friend when the topic of empires came up. Despite being an anti-imperialist he could not let his Gallic chum get away with the assertion that France had the possessed the greater empire, even though he hated himself for defending what was in his view the indefensible.

The most interesting part of the report is where it teases out the connection between patriotic feelings and community involvement.  Wind-Cowie writes: “Pride is important to promoting positive behaviour because it rewards and sustains altruism”. More work needs to be done on this observation, but could this be the missing link in turning our nation into a Big Society?

The issue of patriotism and what it means to the political mainstream is an area of work that needs to be pursued. The amount of press interest generated by the Demos report (here, here and here) shows that there is appetite to discover more. Luckily a new think-tank called British Future will be launched in the New Year – to look at issues of identity, integration, migration and nationhood – so the debate will continue.

People driven, technology enabling

The most dramatic example of how this technological revolution can change landscapes is the Arab Spring. Social media tools were used to communicate messages across class barriers, ethnic groups and international boarders. But It is always worth remembering that while the technology is important in understanding how things happen it does not necessarily tell you why, or what will occur. To appreciate that you need to understand people. The Arab Spring was not about Facebook or Twitter, it was about peoples desire to be free. Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, is the first to admit this: “My own opinion is that it would be extremely arrogant for any specific tech company to claim a meaningful role in those events.” Mubarak was not defeated by ‘social media’, he lost power because he didn’t understand that the world had changed – thus the techniques his regime used to crush dissent had become redundant.

Prioritising access over ownership

Our Government will only be able to harness the power of social media if they adapt, and go with the grain of what is happening. Civil servants should always have in mind the advice of Israeli tech-entrepreneur Ron Gura when considering tech-projects: “What we do is simple really: we take something that a lot of people like to do, but which can be hard to organise in the real world, and make it easy online.” It would be even better if Whitehall encouraged innovation by prioritising access over ownership. A good case study is the Sat-Nav, that magical device that ensures you get from A to B without having to give the matter any thought. Of course, there is no magic. The data that powers these devices is provided – for free to anyone – by the US Government. The McKinsey Global institute has calculated that the wealth created off the back off America’s GPS system is worth over $100billion a year. In the UK, if you want to use Ordnance Survey data or information from the Land Registry you have to navigate the two hurdles of cost and bureaucracy. Experience shows us that if data is freed then others will make good use of it. It is not realistic to believe that those who collect data have the exclusive understanding of how best to use the information.

Freedom helps growth

Both the teams in Number 10 and Number 11 Downing Street are working hard to produce a growth agenda. Paul Romer, Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, says, “Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange them in ways that are more valuable.” A quick and cheap way to promote growth is for the state to free it’s data so entrepreneur can try new ideas. 

Open politics is the future

During the election campaign the Conservatives made a lot of noises about using the power of the crowd. While the Government’s consultation process has improved since May 2010 there is still a lot more work to do.  Policy formation should be open to all. Those who care should be given the opportunity to ruminate, experiment and populate the process with their ideas. Thanks to  modern technology harvesting ideas from the crowd is both fast and cheap. To quote Chris Anderson, from his book ‘Free’: “Ideas are the ultimate abundance commodity, which propagates at zero marginal cost. Once created, ideas want to spread far and wide, enriching everything they touch.”

An ‘open source’ mentality is needed

The test for whether the Government is operating an open government model is not based on the technology it utilises, it is about the mentality that is adopted from the top to the bottom of Whitehall. If knowledge is power, let’s use everyone’s knowledge.

 This article was first published in the Conference edition of the Reformer magazine.

At the same time, the England cricket team capped a remarkable turnaround.   From being the bottom ranked test playing nation in 1999, Andrew Strauss’s team were crowned the world’s top test nation only eleven years later following a crushing victory over India.  The win happened at Egbaston, only a few miles from the Winston Green area of Birmingham, which suffered so much devastation and tragedy.

Surely now is the time to harness the power of sporting success, such as that of the England cricket team, to help re-engage young people and ensure that the kind of violence that we saw earlier this month doesn’t happen again.  There are numerous examples of how sport has been used as an instrument to provide focus and meaning to lives previously devoid of both.

Sport generally, and cricket in particular,  has displayed an extraordinary capacity to transform lives.  The tremendous ‘Fire In Babylon’ showed how cricket helped bring real pride and determination to an otherwise poverty stricken West Indies in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.  You only need to look at the scenes in the film from Brixton and Vauxhall after the West Indies’ routing of England in 1984 to see the way that cricket has helped pull some of the communities most affected by the disorder together in the past.

Examples from South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh illustrate the transformative power of sport.  There’s even an example of former Compton gang members in the States who have seen cricket as their salvation.  Boxing and football have also given people a route out of poverty and, in some cases, rescued people from a life of gang culture and crime.  Sport not only provides real focus – it also instils the importance of discipline and teamwork.  In many cases, sport can enable people to be proud of their achievements, providing a sense of self worth and engagement with society that had previously been missing.

Policy makers need to consider how sport can be used more effectively as a force for the good in deprived areas.  Sport in schools is particularly important, but there is also more that can be done to provide the right facilities to harness the power of sport.  It’s unbelievably that Brixton, for example, rich in cricketing culture from both the Caribbean and England, has only one cricket pitch – the Oval.

Government has a big role to play in this, but so do employers and philanthropists (the cricket and football clubs in the North East were often built and kept up by the local mine of steelworks).  Perhaps now is the time for more of the richest people in society to give a little back by giving philanthropic donations to help build sports facilities for some of the poorest in society.  Some of the richest in society should be encouraged to give money towards exciting sporting projects, funding cricket and football pitches, boxing academies, BMX and bike tracks and so on that would give a new lease of life to some deprived areas.

Nobody is suggesting that sport is some kind of panacea for social ills.  However, it does have an important part to play.  Time and time again, the transformative effect of sport in poorer communities has been clear for all to see.  We should use the fact that England are now the world’s number one cricket team to inspire young people from deprived backgrounds and help reengage many young people in society.

This post has also appeared at www.huffingtonpost.co.uk