Dancing with debt, devolution and digital

Fraser Hendersonwww.particitech.com

March 2011

1. Deficit reduction!a. Cut spending, find new efficienciesb. Small government {no more quasi non-governmental organisations}

2. Localisma. Lifting burden of bureaucracy {cutting red tape}b. Diversifying public service supplyc. Opening government to public scrutinyd. Increasing local control of finances/decisions {empowering citizens}

3. Big Societya. Take over running of servicesb. Pro-bono supportc. Co-production, social enterprise etc.

4. Self-regulation

On the rise On the fall

Digital by default Digital divide

Customer Insight Blogging

Non-PC Digital skills / literacy training

Green ICT / print Webcasting

Superfast The council website

Cloud computing Community IT

Health & Police solutions E-Democracy

Social Media Centralisation

Primary access methods

Mobile internet trends

If you feel strongly about an issue..

ePetitioning history (UK)Scottish Parliament: 1999 – Napier University (ITC), Edinburgh

Bristol & Kingston : 2004 – Local eDem National Project (via ITC & NLC)

Bundestag : 2005 (ITC)

No.10 downing street : 2006 – MySociety (end 2010)

Bristol revamp & National Assembly for Wales : 2008

Europetition (EC funded) : 2009 - MAC & Public-i

2010: New supplier market emerges {5 or 6 agencies}

2011 : New system for UK Parliament? : No.10 re-launch?

ePetition AppraisalFor Against

Transparency and feedback

Escalation in the democratic process

Data collection

Speed of raising and collecting

Pre-petitioning phase

Improves validation

Catching media interest

Duplicates

Astroturfing

“Graffiti” – time consuming

Moderation?

Raises expectation of a response

However•In the case of four parliamentary systems it was generally be concluded that the introduction of the ePetition systems failed to significantly mobilise non-participating or underrepresented social groups.

•The typical user of the German, the Scottish and the Queensland•systems tends to be a middle-aged male with an above-average level of formal education

•Local politicians tend to deal with petitions, irrespective of the submission channel

•Available data gives no indication that the introduction of ePetitions in Queensland and Germany has significantly contributed to an overall increase of petitions submitted

Motivation•· To express anger•· To exert power and control•· To make a difference•· To increase the status, elevation and positioning of an issue•· For publicity reasons•· For transparency•· To force a response•· To establish a collective voice or for aggregation of opinion•· To cause mischief•· Because there is an expectation (‘feel good factor’)

The petition imbalanceThere is a long tradition of petition writing in the UK.

Signing a petition is a simple way for members of the public to call for action

It is the most popular civic activity in the Citizenship Survey.

A 2007 Local Government

Association survey found that less than a

third of local authorities guarantee

a response to petitions

CLG research shows that even fewer councils make

information available about how to petition

Research by Leicester DeMontfort University shows that petitions empower people when there is a clear relationship between the petition and decision making

The LDEDC Act (2009)The duty requires local authorities to draw up and publicise a petitions

scheme which will give citizens :-

•A duty to respond and implement an online facility by 15/12/10

•the ability to trigger a full council debate on their concerns (est 1,500 signatures for 150,000 population)

•the ability to trigger a senior office to give evidence at a meeting of the overview and scrutiny committee (750)

•the ability to appeal to the council’s overview and scrutiny committee if they feel the response from their council is not adequate.

What is a valid petition?

is signed by the requisite number of people who live, work and study in the local area (incl. <18s)

The appropriate number of signatures required for triggering a debate (limited to max. of 5% of the local

population)

Relate to a function of the authority OR (upper tier only...) relates to an improvement in the economic, social

or environmental well-being of the authority’s area to which any of its partner authorities could contribute

ExclusionsOn the face of the Bill

vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate petitions are excluded on the face of the Bill (Cl.14(1)(b))petitions under other enactments (Cl.12(1)(c)

By secondary legislation

•any matter relating to a planning decision;•any matter relating to a licensing decision;•any matter relating to an individual or entity in respect of which that individual or entity has a right of recourse to a review or right of appeal conferred by or under any enactment;

Tip of the iceberg challenges

Language and translation

Thresholds and the certainty of validation

Data protection

Guaranteeing a response from partner agencies

Council versus the world

Politicking

Early adopters

To support the Act:•A “petition expert group” consisting of 6 Local Authorities

•An I&DeA community of practice (providing peer support)

•Case Studies

For ePetitions

•A recommended “data standard” for petition interoperability

•Guidance (e.g. Model scheme)

Volumes (end 2009)In Bristol, 101 ePetitions since 2004 Over 40,000 signatures (Population c.400,000)

In Birmingham : 9 petitions, 960 signatures (since May 2009). 25,000 hits/month

Since 2006, the No.10 site (to 2008) : Over 29,000 petitions have been submitted, of which over 8,500 are currently live and available for signing, over 6,000 have finished and 14,601 have been rejected outright. There have been over 5.8 million signatures, originating from over 3.9 million different email addresses.

NB the set-up costs of the Downing Street site were £17,500 and the annual running costs are £109,000,

Europetition : European Parliament

European Citizens Initiative (>1m signatures)

Bristol 400,000 Kingston-upon-Thames 150,000 Birmingham City 1,000,000 North Lincolnshire 150,000

Norfolk 824.000

2007 = 1,506 Europetitions

Environmental issues, water, etc 288Fundamental rights 226

Urbanisation 131Education & cultural issues 103

Social Affairs & Discrimination 207Internal Market & Consumers 192

Health 105Justice 99

Transport issues & Infrastructure 88Property & Restitution 72

Local vs Euro petitions 2009/10

Trans-European dimension

Expanding possibilities

Multimedia evidence of citizen and committee work (photos / videos)

Videoconferencing with petitioners, SMS signatures

What Next?

Health Authorities? Police Authorities? Other agencies?

Internally – staff petition managers?

National aggregator / router?

Petition maps?

National ‘mood’ barometer?

Frågor?