´óÏó´«Ã½

Yuck, the mix of Politics with IT.
Expect the consultancy bills to be high on this one.

Next up, PMQs will be replaced by the PM commenting on your Facebook status.

That Petition site was never ever meant to inform the Government as to the public's wishes, nor was it ever to be used to allow the public any real say on policy.

It was all a sham so that the last labour Government could pretend to be listening. There was no way that Gordon Brown was ever going to give any real power away to 'the people' as this was completely alien to his psychology as a control freak. He micromanaged everything, even down to 3:00AM telephone calls to check on the progress of a cycle lane in Oxfordshire.

The Government always ignored any of the petitions that they disagreed with.

Good fun while it lasted. Allowed everyone to let of steam.

Transparency was always only going to be favoured by the Coalition while they could continue to blame the previous Government for things people would criticise. Self-evidently a review they commissioned which potentially says some unwelcome things - perhaps linked back to the results of the spending review - would be unwelcome. One of the problems all Governments face is the law of unexpected consequences - and the doctrine of transparency seems to me to be a classic example

The things we should be able to do in regard to obtaining services or interacting with the Government are simply not available.

Tax and Tax Credits (system failed after constant attacks from Criminals)
But that said it is not beyond the scope of "DECENT" It service providers to enable a secure service, if the Banks can do it so can the Gov'

Benefits service, there should be a website where an applicant can securely register, and then make a claim, fill out the forms etc.

These are just 2 areas where massive cost savings could be made.

And it does not need the wheel re-inventing, or huge contracts for NEW software, use proprietary software and security systems that are known to be effective and get on with the job.

If contracts are let to enable this, then make sure it is only paid for by results and on actually providing what we need.

Although that said, the Government need to make sure that they ASK for what they actually want, and that it can be delivered on time and on budget, none of this 5yr + mission creep that plagues major IT projects!

Who would believe that government, any government, would allow the electorate to have sight of its inner workings? Why, it would mean running two sets of accounts in the manner of the old-time Chicago gangsters. By the swiftness in which the document was taken down from the internet, some would say this is still the case. One has to be very careful so as not to confuse the real thing with the public version. These little slip-ups actually make government more transparent in that we can see right through it.

@spinonthis - when you say "the Banks [sic] can do it" you do know that they allow in their business models for a certain percentage of fraud and error, don't you? I think if we are to look to private sector models as exemplars of better ways to transact, then we need to take on board the full picture, not just selected highlights. And that would mean greater tolerance to errors in public sector systems (which would appear in full public view, if the public demand transparency, unlike the realities that the banking system are able to sweep out of sight).

But we're not going to get that tolerance, are we? Because that would require maturity, and realism, and letting go of some of our favourite myths, like a flawless, secure private sector. The first hint of a fraudulent transaction and our dear press (and most online commentators) would be bellowing for action and retribution.

The public really deserves what it gets, I fear.

I seem to recall that the two most popular petitions were to oppose road pricing and end the smoking ban in pubs. I assume that one of the reasons for discontinuing the site is that the public, through total lack of understanding of course, weren't petitioning for the "right" causes.

This transparency thing all works fine until it hits the politicians themselves.

The fact is that the political class beleive and act as if they are above their voters. This applies to all parties.

What is needed is a concerted effort to root out their high levels of incompetence and disembling. Exposure of their limited competence is needed across the piece.

purpleDogzzz wrote:

It (the No 10 petition site) was all a sham so that the last labour Government could pretend to be listening ... The Government always ignored any of the petitions that they disagreed with.

####

I should hope so - what would be the point of being in government if you simply enacted policy ideas that you thought were wrong?

The same thing could be said for Cameron's thoughts on listening to the public - most of the ideas will be rejected simply because they wont fit the governments view.

In the end, a government will always reject most ideas simply because those ideas that it thinks are good it is probably already doing and therefore people are unlikely to lobby for them; they are more likely to lobby for things that the government is NOT doing, and the chances are that they are therefore ideas that the government believes are against what they are trying to achieve.

This is perfectly logical.

Quote " 7. At 8:59pm on 22 Nov 2010, Paul Clarke wrote:

@spinonthis - when you say "the Banks [sic] can do it" you do know that they allow in their business models for a certain percentage of fraud and error, don't you? I think if we are to look to private sector models as exemplars of better ways to transact, then we need to take on board the full picture, not just selected highlights. And that would mean greater tolerance to errors in public sector systems (which would appear in full public view, if the public demand transparency, unlike the realities that the banking system are able to sweep out of sight). " /end Quote

No system is perfect and will no doubt attract attempts at fraud, deception and plain old theft, but the current system is plagued by the same "faults" and they are managed within an acceptable level (or so we are led to believe).

An on line system is perfectly feasible, agreed not perfect but what we have now is not perfect either.