gov.uk launch: a quick digression about all the nice things the government are doing

I had today's blog post all planned out in my mind. I was even going to review the other blogs covering the gov.uk launch like a grown-up sub-academic.

OK here goes -

Delib - 'Looks great! Hypothetical savings!'
Puffbox - 'Looks great! More search less navigation!'
Helpful technology - 'Looks great! More centralised control!'
Disambiguation - 'Why most UX is shite'

Haha I'm sure the timing of the last post was just an unfortunate coincidence. UX and web consultants don't like to knock the government supersite idea too much, although Puffbox's Simon Dickson is known for his healthy scepticism. Over the years Directgov must have provided a nice little earner for hired guns.

OMG a digression of a digression. No, what genuinely appalled me twenty minutes ago was the revelation that not only would gov.uk feature public services, it's going to feature extensive PR on the policies of the government of the day:

http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2012/02/03/government-policy-a-spotters-guide/

Later this month we will unveil another bit of our GOV.UK beta – the element that explains the work and workings of government. This is intended to replace the many separate sites run by government organisations, simplifying things for people who are personally or professionally interested in how government works and what it is doing.

So far so good. It always tickled me pink that the same organisations who forced Gubbins to converge to Directgov would have to find themselves going through content editors to get anything published on the web. Those editors will be sitting in separate buildings, if not separate cities hundreds of miles away. They could wait for years on end for a Project Austin to not show up as well.

Naturally GDS are putting hypothetical users first:

In developing this component we’ve found ourselves returning frequently to the question: “what is government policy?”

Not “what is government policy on issue X” (a separate problem which I will return to in a minute) but, more philosophically, what is and isn’t a government policy and how do you know when you’ve met one?

Apparently GDS need to comply with FOI as well so all this government openness and accountability would be a terribly good thing.

Here's where the stench of evil becomes overpowering:

Working definition

Our ambition in creating GOV.UK is radically to improve the user experience of government, and that includes explaining government policy in a clear and consistent way.

The current Government is on record as saying: “It is our ambition to make the UK the most transparent and accountable Government in the world”.

Being able to identify, aggregate and explain government policy is critical to our doing that.

The ICO study cited two workable definitions:

• a course or general plan of action to be adopted by government, party, person etc. (OED)
• the process by which governments translate their political vision into programmes and actions to deliver “outcomes”, desired changes in the real world. (Modernising Government White Paper, 1999)

We’d like to suggest a third, the one we’re working to in the beta of GOV.UK, which is:

• statements of the government’s position, intent or action

See the rhetorical metamorphosis there - from 'user experience' to 'identify, aggregate and explain' to 'statements of the government’s position'.

It's impossible to explain the government of the day's policies without advocating them.

Here's a quick reminder of how Alphagov looked:

Alphagov test site

Why, roughly half of it was devoted to promoting, sorry, explaining the workings, of the government of the day, wasn't it?

In the middle of the lower half there was a smiling, happy portrait of David Cameron and Nick Clegg in the garden of No 10 Downing Street. 












Presumably you need to see that smiling, optimistic picture of Dave Cameron and Nick Clegg in the Garden Of Future Promise when you're off to find out about public services.

They could have used a more neutral picture to express the somewhat dull idea of government structure and policy but I expect this was the photo the Coalition had lying around.

While charming politicians is one of the ten things Directgov actually does, to their credit, Directgov always remained politically neutral. Now GDS seem to be crossing a sinister line to appease their paymasters.

Oh dear, there I go with the rhetoric again. Here's more from GDS themselves - their italics:

Towards a language for describing policy

To fully answer the question “what is government policy on issue X”, though, we need not only to identify government policies reliably but also to find a naming convention and consistent language to explain them.

We’re trying out one possible approach to that in the beta, using a new ’policy definition’ format to apply a structured set of sub-headings on each policy, as below. The first two (‘the issue’ and ‘actions’) are mandatory headings, everything else will be optional – a flexible framework to describe policies of different flavours and at different life stages.

The issue – the problem or opportunity, and government’s aims
Actions – what government is doing/will do/has done to address the problem or seize the opportunity
Background – how the policy has developed to date, why the government has chosen this course and rejected other options, including the evidence
Engagement – who government has asked/is asking/will ask, when and how
Impact – who benefits or is otherwise affected
Bills and legislation – the legal framework in which this policy is operating, and how the policy might change that legislation
Partner organisations – what government and non-government organisations are involved, and in what capacity
Related news, speeches, publications and consultations - how the policy is evolving through announcements and publications (displayed automatically by creating associations in the publishing system)

The headings are experimental and might be wrong. The approach may, faced with the complex ebb and flow of a policy-making machine which lacks an “everyday need for a precise definition”, prove too simplistic.

But simplification is absolutely the point here. The goal is to produce a comprehensive, coherent, constantly updated list of everything government is saying it will do or is doing, and to allow people to dig into that information in ways that makes sense to them.

That's all right, then - they're on a mission to explain. And if the government of the day's policy happens to be an illegal war or a bank bailout, you'll find plenty of information which justifies their position; published by the same people who publish all other government content, on the only government domain left.

I remember from visiting Directgov there was an air of nervous excitement when a member of the cabinet office was in the building. They're a lot closer to people in power than they are to people answering the phone in stressful government call centres.

In What happened to that £400 million? Part 2 I wondered why the Tory like Francis Maude would support a government supersite in principle - "less individual responsibility, more 'government knows best'". Now it seems the politicians have a vested interest in supersites which go beyond hypothetical savings.

Apart from the fact that 72 hours after the gov.uk launch GDS already seem to be losing interest in the task at hand, this predicts the worst scenarios yet for new versions of Directgov.

Next time maybe I'll get back to gov.uk's shortcomings - if GDS let me.