<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Taxpayers don&#8217;t want Web 2.0!&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/taxpayers-dont-want-web-20-16031.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/taxpayers-dont-want-web-20-16031.html</link>
	<description>Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:46:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Jo Swinson calls Tories’ bluff on engaging the public online</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/taxpayers-dont-want-web-20-16031.html#comment-99282</link>
		<dc:creator>Jo Swinson calls Tories’ bluff on engaging the public online</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:46:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16031#comment-99282</guid>
		<description>[...] Speaking at the Conservative Conference this week, William Hague announced his plans for a ‘Public Reading Stage’ for proposed legislation. The idea is that this would enable the public to become involved in the process of making laws by using an online system to make comments and spot potential problems. And it&#8217;s all a part of the Tory &#8220;Google Government&#8221; idea that I&#8217;ve covered for the Voice in a review of Cameron&#8217;s speech to the LGA earlier this year, and in the debate over whether Web 2.0 represents value for money for taxpayers. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Speaking at the Conservative Conference this week, William Hague announced his plans for a ‘Public Reading Stage’ for proposed legislation. The idea is that this would enable the public to become involved in the process of making laws by using an online system to make comments and spot potential problems. And it&#8217;s all a part of the Tory &#8220;Google Government&#8221; idea that I&#8217;ve covered for the Voice in a review of Cameron&#8217;s speech to the LGA earlier this year, and in the debate over whether Web 2.0 represents value for money for taxpayers. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lib Dems In Glass Houses Ought Not to Throw Tweets &#124; Sharpe's Opinion</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/taxpayers-dont-want-web-20-16031.html#comment-97222</link>
		<dc:creator>Lib Dems In Glass Houses Ought Not to Throw Tweets &#124; Sharpe's Opinion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16031#comment-97222</guid>
		<description>[...] The Taxpayers Alliance made some disparaging (and almost definitely unjustified) remarks yesterday about a government vacancy for a Deputy Director of Digital Communication1. In response, Alex Foster on Lib Dem Voice had this to say: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Taxpayers Alliance made some disparaging (and almost definitely unjustified) remarks yesterday about a government vacancy for a Deputy Director of Digital Communication1. In response, Alex Foster on Lib Dem Voice had this to say: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/taxpayers-dont-want-web-20-16031.html#comment-97220</link>
		<dc:creator>James Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16031#comment-97220</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure how Cameron can introduce all this &quot;post bureaucratic age&quot; stuff without appointing at least one director of digital engagement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure how Cameron can introduce all this &#8220;post bureaucratic age&#8221; stuff without appointing at least one director of digital engagement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Taxpayers&#8217; Alliance: a case of Web 2.0 hypocrisy?</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/taxpayers-dont-want-web-20-16031.html#comment-97184</link>
		<dc:creator>Taxpayers&#8217; Alliance: a case of Web 2.0 hypocrisy?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:21:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16031#comment-97184</guid>
		<description>[...] pointed out yesterday the Taxpayers&#8217; Alliance opposition to the public sector using Web 2.o technologies: Taxpayers don’t want more Web2.0. They want an end to wasteful [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] pointed out yesterday the Taxpayers&#8217; Alliance opposition to the public sector using Web 2.o technologies: Taxpayers don’t want more Web2.0. They want an end to wasteful [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/taxpayers-dont-want-web-20-16031.html#comment-97183</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:38:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16031#comment-97183</guid>
		<description>Bring back Web 1.0! And do we really need all this wasted money on &quot;email&quot;, whatever that is?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bring back Web 1.0! And do we really need all this wasted money on &#8220;email&#8221;, whatever that is?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Page</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/taxpayers-dont-want-web-20-16031.html#comment-97179</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Page</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:31:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16031#comment-97179</guid>
		<description>I agree with Andrew. Some trivial uses of JavaScript can significantly enhance the web experience, but what really improves public debate and provides value for money is giving people easy access to information in open formats.

This is the strategy adopted by lots of MySociety projects, and they&#039;re all the better for it. Not least with the increasing use of hand-held devices for web browsing, which are significantly lower-powered than desktop PCs - and the desire to reuse computers which are &quot;too old&quot; for the latest version of Windows.

Simple, accessible websites which can be browsed using free software on low-powered machines are more important than all the bling in the world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Andrew. Some trivial uses of JavaScript can significantly enhance the web experience, but what really improves public debate and provides value for money is giving people easy access to information in open formats.</p>
<p>This is the strategy adopted by lots of MySociety projects, and they&#8217;re all the better for it. Not least with the increasing use of hand-held devices for web browsing, which are significantly lower-powered than desktop PCs &#8211; and the desire to reuse computers which are &#8220;too old&#8221; for the latest version of Windows.</p>
<p>Simple, accessible websites which can be browsed using free software on low-powered machines are more important than all the bling in the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Suffield</title>
		<link>http://www.libdemvoice.org/taxpayers-dont-want-web-20-16031.html#comment-97172</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Suffield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16031#comment-97172</guid>
		<description>&quot;Web 2.0 is vital to the future of meaningful use of the internet&quot;? I think that&#039;s a stretch. Some of it is fancy-looking toys, some is small incremental improvements to something that was already working, but the vast bulk of it is stuff that we&#039;ve been doing since the 1990s that some marketdroid decided to rebrand. AJAX is ten years old this year.

Both of those are good, solid examples of traditional fluff-free web engineering, which can be summed up as &quot;give us the data you have, in any reasonable format, and we&#039;ll take care of the rest&quot;. Both well worth doing, both can be done at &lt;i&gt;virtually no cost&lt;/i&gt; (although I&#039;m sure the government will manage to spend a lot of money on getting them done, in its usual inefficient style), and both are inhibited only by crufty old decision-preventing bureaucracy.

(Costing: the &#039;free our bills&#039; proposal can be accomplished merely by changing the way that an office-worth of clerks, plus the MPs and their staffs, write these documents; there would be some transition costs for rewriting forms and policies, which could even be paid for in reduced productivity rather than cash; the proposal to publish transaction records is even easier, because most of the councils are already using commercial accounting software that can dump out the data in more or less standard formats, and all they need to do is shove it on a website somewhere)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Web 2.0 is vital to the future of meaningful use of the internet&#8221;? I think that&#8217;s a stretch. Some of it is fancy-looking toys, some is small incremental improvements to something that was already working, but the vast bulk of it is stuff that we&#8217;ve been doing since the 1990s that some marketdroid decided to rebrand. AJAX is ten years old this year.</p>
<p>Both of those are good, solid examples of traditional fluff-free web engineering, which can be summed up as &#8220;give us the data you have, in any reasonable format, and we&#8217;ll take care of the rest&#8221;. Both well worth doing, both can be done at <i>virtually no cost</i> (although I&#8217;m sure the government will manage to spend a lot of money on getting them done, in its usual inefficient style), and both are inhibited only by crufty old decision-preventing bureaucracy.</p>
<p>(Costing: the &#8216;free our bills&#8217; proposal can be accomplished merely by changing the way that an office-worth of clerks, plus the MPs and their staffs, write these documents; there would be some transition costs for rewriting forms and policies, which could even be paid for in reduced productivity rather than cash; the proposal to publish transaction records is even easier, because most of the councils are already using commercial accounting software that can dump out the data in more or less standard formats, and all they need to do is shove it on a website somewhere)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

