Something for nothing
by Jonty Olliff-Cooper
The Telegraph today reports that the government is set to release 2000 data sets from across the public sector. Fantastic.
Leaving aside the usual “this could have happened years ago” snipes, this is a great move forward. But the government could go further. If the Labour and the Conservatives are serious about developing power and transparency, one or other should pledge a Swedish-style Open Data Act, which would free all public sector data by default, unless specifically censored. Of course there are costs to full transparency like this, but savings offset the upfront cost rapidly as malpractice is uncovered (think expenses). Moreover there is an important cultural value to openness.
Further, open data can be a great source of innovation. The next step is to capitalise on this data by setting up prizes for better use of public sector data. Such prizes are already making a powerful impact in hundreds of businesses (and some governments), saving billions by tapping into the ingenuity of customers and staff.
For example, Dell turned around a customer service nightmare by setting up Idea Storm (little video here), which harnesses the ideas of users to find product improvements. This need not be bureaucratic. On idea storm the community rates each other’s ideas, with Dell staff only taking a look at the best. Goldcorp is another well-known example. The mining company came back from bankruptcy to become a $13 billion business after freeing its geological data and offering half a million dollars for anyone to find new seams of gold.
There is huge potential to save money and get people involved with creating their government with the same approach in the public sector. Washington D.C.’s data prize cost $50,000 but found $2 million in efficiencies, and groups like the Social Innovation Camp show what can be done here. Tim O’Reilly has spoken of moving to government as a platform – a flexible source of data, money and skill to draw down on and combine with your own talent and energy.
This is one of the new frontiers of progressive conservative thinking: decentralised, human, lean government you feel you own. The Progressive Conservatism Project is working on the potential of crowd-sourcing like this to save money and unlock good ideas in our new project, provisionally entitled The Ministry of You. Keep checking the website for more.
The government has dipped a toe in the water with showusabetterway. It is now time for the next government whoever it may be to dive in to a world the public and business is already embracing. So good start Gordon – better late than never.
Jonty Olliff-Cooper
Andrew, pleased to see you manfully continuing to read our blog despite the obvious irritation it causes you.
You are quite right that Dell's approach to its customers was mistaken, but Idea Storm was a U-turn on the policy.
Try Jeff Jarvis's 'Dell hell' experience for the full story, which illustrates my point well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/aug/29/mondaymediasection.blogging
Andrew Preston
I understood reasonably well what you said first through.
What really happened at Dell was that in 2005 their performance was in freefall. The founder Michael Dell stepped in, sacked half the board, and re-assumed the running of the company. Because of the nature of its business, ie a trend-follower in what is now a commodity market, Dell doesn't really look to customers for ideas, it gets them from its competitors. Dell's blog is an advertising platform.
In terms of your comment about my manfullness, what concerns me is the laziness and arrogance of your approach. With respect, you are not teaching history at Eton now, where a repetition of your 'point', and a vaguely patronising remark can get you through.
Your party's recent history in Norfolk, and the imposition of your favoured London Central Office candidate upon local people illustrates reasonably well why your party has so little
to little to contribute to open democracy.
Jim
Andrew,
I would argue that new open primary system, whilst not perfect, is a reasonable attempt by the Tories to open up democracy to the public. That 25% of people, not just members, voted in the Totnes open primary implies that more people are being included in the selection process for candidates, hopefully meaning that fewer are left with two opposing candidates both of whom fail to adequately represent their views when the election comes round. The floating voter is being empowered a little perhaps.
Moreover, the imposition of central office candidates is merely a way of making the party more representative of real people, rather than simply representative of those who pay their subscription to the party. By pushing forward non-traditional people to the forefront of the party, the Tories are trying to show that they are representative of modern Britain: some see it as a cynical ploy to pretend they are “diverse”, “ethnic” and “modern”, I take the view that Cameron is cleverer – and wants more - than that.
It may annoy the signed up members of the party, but it is far more democratic in an extra-party way if it allows "normal" people to have a candidate for whom they actually want to vote. Some would argue that, although the means are slightly unpalatable for paid up members (and those who believe in the “grass-roots” of the party as a powerful entity), more female doctors and fewer white, middle class barristers as MPs is a step forward for democracy in a wider sense if it represents the people and their interests more accurately.
Jim
That was the polite, reasoned part of what I have to say. As for the rest of your incoherent babble, have some of this: stop trying to play the class card with references to double barrelled names and people’s former jobs. No-one from Demos has been calling you an ignorant cretin - their restraint is admirable given the evidence on show - so please stop attacking them on the basis of where you think they were born and try to make a positive contribution.
Forget that enormous chip on your shoulder for a moment and try to listen to what they’re saying. To this you will no doubt mumble something along the lines of, “I am listening, but St. John-Smythe and his band of merry liberals are not saying much”, but probably with less analysis and even less wit. Well, some of the progressive conservative thinking doesn't make much sense. Some of Labour’s doesn't either. But what has become clear is that the Prestonian thinking we’ve seen so far is no substitute for either of these; you seem to offer little in place of the suggestions offered by Messieurs Wind-Cowie and Olliff-Cooper and are content to write as “fact” that which you have dreamt up yourself as how things really are. Most often you talk utter rubbish. If you must be spiteful, at least have arguments which make sense.
As for citing the “laziness and arrogance” of Mr Olliff-Cooper’s approach, perhaps some more time, sense and humility considering your own position would be helpful. The Demos blog offers insight and provocation in equal measure. You offer little but childish insults and illogical ramblings. And the odd memory stick for a PC no-one uses.
Jim
Incidentally, to return from the gutter, the open primary in Totnes allowed Dr Wollaston to fend off the two central office candidates and gain selection. Maybe the two policies will run side by side to produce more candidates for whom people actually want to vote, potentially increasing voter turnout. Or it could mean that the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem candidates all shift even more towards a similar position...Time will tell.
I apologise to everyone for taking up so much space on the comment thread.
Rory Graham-Watson
Nothing like a dig at Eton now is there?
jack
Gosh, what a terrible article and what an incredibly embarrassing exchange after it.
AGNESHughes
I had a dream to make my own company, but I did not earn enough amount of cash to do it. Thank goodness my close fellow told to use the business loans. Hence I used the short term loan and realized my dream.
David Vinter
Wow what fun, high class-----pistols at dawn!
Andrew Preston
In my opinion the route to open, decentralised government that citizens feel they own is to get rid of the system whereby parties can parachute favoured candidates of 'Central Office' into whichever constituency they wish.
Dell.... If it was possible to go mad due to the sheer volume of advertising junk, then I think I would have been absolutely barking long ago thanks to Dell. Just about every newspaper I buy, there they are, their boring brochures.
I'm not interested in Dell, but from what I remember....
They don't actually make interesting, or innovative products. They are box-shifters.... In other words they make their living by efficiencies of logistics and distribution, by paring manufacturing costs to the bone, and by huge amounts of advertising.
Almost the complete antithesis, by the way, of , for example , James Dyson's view of manufacturing.
At a guess, or rather I'm pretty sure that a lot of Dell's customer service problems came about because because of the cheap-box shifting attitudes caused large quality problems that manifested once the boxes were with the customers.
Whereas, if you start from the position of producing a quality product, then you don't need half of what you suggest.
Except..., you aren't interested in a quality public service, are you. Just a cheap one.
As I said... In my opinion the route to open, decentralised government that citizens feel they own is to get rid of the system whereby parties can parachute favoured candidates of 'Central Office' into whichever constituency they wish.