The Freedom Bill: this time the consultation is for real, but is it better?

The Freedom Bill (previously known as the Great Repeal Bill) has been a Liberal Democrat policy for some time and now that we’re in coalition government it’s become the Your Freedom initiative – an online consultation to identify laws to repeal.

In two respects this is good news – online consultation is becoming more of a habit for government and it’s also becoming a welcome pattern to see long-standing Liberal Democrat demands move towards actual implementation by government.

But in one respect I think the Your Freedom site does not address a key issue as well as the party did when we ran our previous Freedom Bill online consultation. I worked for the party at the time, and I was very keen to ensure (and colleagues agreed) that the online consultation was a meaningful one. In other words, if there are certain options which are never going to make it, be clear up front that is the case.

In the case of the Freedom Bill consultation that meant being up front that there were certain laws the party had decided it would repeal and also some that it would not repeal. No volume of online responses saying “keep ID cards!” would have changed the party’s decision – already taken – to repeal ID cards. So better to tell people that.

The result of this was that the Freedom Bill consultation was done in the form of a draft Bill, saying ‘here are the key repeals we’re intending to make; please tell us if you think we’ve got the detail wrong and if there’s anything similar missing’. That made for a far narrower consultation than one that says, ‘here’s a blank sheet of paper’ but I think also a much better one than when you are presented with a supposedly blank sheet of paper but it’s not really blank.

Hence my doubts about the Your Freedom site with its much more open questions but rather limited guidance as to what is really up for consultation. This question about the pros and cons of consulting on a broad rather than a narrow front is, by a lucky coincidence of timing, one that I’ve addressed in an academic article just published in the journal Politics, co-authored with Darren Lilleker and Nigel Jackson.

It isn’t available for free online, but if you have access to an academic library look out for Political Parties and Web 2.0: the Liberal Democrat Perspective in Politics: 2010, Volume 30(2), p.105.112.

(For three other interesting perspectives on the site see Simon DicksonPaul Evans and Chris Applegate. I think Chris would set the barrier too high with the suggestion that people should be forced to be very specific about the piece of legislation they are talking about, but his point in a way is similar to mine as it’s about raising the quality of the feedback by restricting its range – in his case by requiring people to know or find out details. A different approach to some of these issues has been taken by the Better Regulation Executive whose own systems for submitting ideas including important differences from Your Freedom, such as prior moderation and direct feedback.)

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Online politics and Op-eds.
Advert

5 Comments

  • Andrew Suffield 5th Jul '10 - 11:07am

    The site’s certainly been creaking under the strain. More evidence of the IT de-skilling?

  • I’d share the concerns about the open ended nature of the site, although to be fair the moderation activity is getting on top of the duplicates and the general rants. My biggest issue is that the way it’s set up only allows one to support an idea to varying degrees. There is no opportunity to easily object to an idea. There are ways around that, it was suggested that tagging those that are calls for ”new laws” with ”notrepeal” would help, and it has. there are now some 271 entries tagged with that, and many of them closed. But that’s not really helping with some of the others.

    @Andrew, the platform is merely a customisation of the Dialog App from DeLib. So it was a question of buying a service off the shelf; both Tory and Lib Dem policy, making it a very small project, and opening it up to the SME marketplace. DeLib are one of only really three small organisations that can do this, although something could have been done more in line with Marks suggestion using one of the two consultation wordpress themes developed by DBIS and used by Cabinet Office and MoD. That could have opened up the marketplace a little, but the requirement does define the market, not the other way round. The DeLib blog talked about the strain on day 1, although I was still seeing problems this morning. That perhaps suggests a weakness in both our own policy and that f the Tories with respect to reducing the need to due diligence, is Delib really big enough, and robust enough, and have they got adequate support contracts in place to give them the elasticity needed for something like this? Very few technical issues there, and almost all commercial and procurement.

  • Tony Greaves 5th Jul '10 - 3:37pm

    As propaganda stunts go it’s quite a good one, but let’s be honest that this is what it is.

    Tony Greaves

  • Andrew Suffield 6th Jul '10 - 1:43am

    That perhaps suggests a weakness in both our own policy and that f the Tories with respect to reducing the need to due diligence, is Delib really big enough, and robust enough, and have they got adequate support contracts in place to give them the elasticity needed for something like this?

    The big IT de-skilling issue is that nobody working for the government is really capable of answering questions like this. They don’t have the ability to determine what they need or which suppliers are capable of providing it, so IT contracts invariably fail at the first hurdle – they trust what the contractors tell them, and the contractors lie a lot. Bottom line, purchasing decisions that should be made by experts are instead made by bureaucrats.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJoeB 24th Feb - 5:49pm
    Michael BG, the figures are for the current account budget (defined by Office of Budget Responsibility as (current expenditure – current receipts – depreciation). Keynes...
  • User AvatarRoland 24th Feb - 4:39pm
    @Peter Martin - "It’s always interesting to read Keynes and other notable economists from past eras too. But I don’t believe we should hang on...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 24th Feb - 4:27pm
    @ Michael BG, Sure, Govt can steer the economy. It can raise or lower interest rates to encourage everyone to save more or less. It...
  • User AvatarRonald Murray 24th Feb - 4:17pm
    As a third generation Liberal now Liberal Democrat with over forty years membership I find all the points made above excellent. There is no comparison...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 24th Feb - 3:58pm
    @ JoeB, It's always interesting to read Keynes and other notable economists from past eras too. But I don't believe we should hang on to...
  • User AvatarMichael BG 24th Feb - 3:53pm
    @ Peter Martin In the context of what is a stimulus and what is austerity and how is the economy affected generally when the deficit...