Open data for an open government

The new coalition government has launched plans to ensure more data and information on government activities, particularly spending, is accountable and shareable online, announced in an open letter from David Cameron to all government departments. Within a few days of the COINS government spending database release, the press were able to report on the scale of government losses.

Not merely a knee-jerk reaction to the Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests following the MPs expenses scandal, this follows moves by the Labour government to use open innovation to benefit the public at large (and with it the government) in the provision of services.   It’s a win-win equation: the collective time and resources of web developers, data analysts and campaigners can make light (and cost-free) work of processing data and informing the government of key trends and issues, whilst citizens benefit from better accountability for issues that matter to them.

Good thinkers from the digital sector are partly to be praised: Tom Losemore (currently head of Channel 4’s 4iP innovation fund) introduced open data concepts in his consultation role to the Cabinet; he previously established They Work For You, a means for all citizen to communicate with and bring to account their member of parliament (I remember the site when it was Fax Your MP, in the days before MPs would accept email as a legal form of communication.  The wheels of democracy move slowly).

What e-democracy needs to succeed

E-Democracy is critical for the success of society and to ensure that politicians are acting in the interests of their citizens.  This can include anything from finding out the cost of the council tax bill for your new house to having your say about a major local or national issue.  The government’s central drive to ensure more services are delivered online ultimately benefits everyone, but only if Digital Champion Martha Lane Fox succeeds in her cause  to get the 25% of British adults currently ‘digitally excluded’ online, and those entering the digital world are given the digital literacy skills to seek work, do business and communicate with others online (doing fun stuff like social networking can contribute to this too).

So it’s a step into the brave new world of the digital economy where commerce and democracy walk hand-in-hand.  But reflecting on last month’s general election, I wonder how impeded we are by uptake and the ‘crap in / crap out’ problem of capturing good data and information.  I was excited by the prospect of the first web 2.0 UK election, where well adopted tools like Twitter and Facebook could influence the democratic processes.   If Twitter uses were a representation of the voter count, I’m sure Nick Clegg would have won a landslide election, seen by the televised Leaders Debate using online comments to trigger the sentiment and approval of voters.

Digital tools and the UK General Election 2010

As a voter I found it extremely hard to find useful information on candidates standing for election.  Various online tools such as betting odds comparison, local polls and the comments from my own networks gave me a sense of the mood.  Tools that allowed me to compare my preferences with party policies, see flyers others had uploaded, and videos voters had made when being door-stepped all allowed me to get a better sense of the prospective candidates than in previous elections (NB: I would link to these sites but many strangely now seem to be invisible or erased since the election).

My biggest issue?  The lack of quality ‘input’ from candidates.  In my consistuency only the outsider Liberal and Conversative candidates bothered to enter their data and responses into online questionaires, and not all candidates provided an email contact (including the drop-landed winning candidate Chris Leslie who won a landslide victory despite only being named as the candidate 2 weeks before election and doing no online campaigning whatsoever). On election night, I discovered from the Voter Power tool that my vote was only worth 0.084 of a ‘normal’ vote.

I saw no examples in my constituency of candidates blogging (although I know others who did) and only one whom I could make contact with by Facebook and Twitter (thanks @blueewan).  Finding out when ‘real world’ hustings was impossible (I presume these are promoted in the local paper few people read) and none took the initiative to host an online chat.

Getting politicians skilled for e-democracy

I would like to see a wholesale commitment from all political parties to educate their incumbent and prospective parliamentary members, and to trickle down inclusive, digital communication skills to all those involved in supporting the democratic processes.  It would be a simple step for all the major parties to set up a blogging tool centrally for all members which they should be obliged to update with their key activities at least once a month.

Equally having a presence on the two largest social networks (Facebook and Twitter) should be mandatory, at least during the campaigning period.  Forums to host online surgeries or hustings should be provided, particularly for voters unable to attend hustings (including house-bound elderly, parents and those working away from home).

If candidates want an example of someone making it work, look to Tom Watson, the MP who blogs, Twitters and show real interest in the public at large, drawing more people into the political process.  Voters too should consider how candidates respond to online situations: do you want your MP to be someone who never answers emails or makes it as difficult as possible to fulfill their obligations to you?

E-democracy isn’t just about releasing financial data and giving us the ability to make a Freedom Of Information request.  It’s about ensuring we all have a voice to be heard and listened to; better digital communications skills are vital to this cause.