By silicon.com, 21 March 2006 11:55
Many of us have been in the situation where we change jobs and realise the IT in our new office is a bit ramshackle.
But to hear how new MPs are realising soon after entering parliament that they have to provide IT services for themselves, and even log on in Starbucks if they want to efficiently email their constituents and live the connected government dream, is shocking.
Equally inexcusable is the fact this issue has gone unchecked for so long because too few MPs are tech-savvy enough to demand improvement. And it's a problem which goes right to the top.
If a new hire in a lowly position within a company arrives full of ideas about how the IT can be improved and how staff can be better-equipped for more efficient, profitable work, they are very unlikely to initiate change.
If the CEO thunders in one day demanding laptops for all and wi-fi throughout the premises, you can be sure the odds of change occurring are considerably shorter.
So to see the top jobs within government filled by self-confessed technophobes and the tech-ignorant is a cause for concern. The likes of Tony Blair can't necessarily force through change to IT services within Westminster but they can be seen as advocates for change and evangelists for the benefits technology can deliver, which would undoubtedly create an environment for change.
No other major business issue upon which the success of the UK realistically hinges receives as little government attention as IT.
And when those in power show such scant regard for the benefits it can deliver, even on an individual professional level, the prospects for improvement look bleak at present.
Of course MPs don't have a divine right to such things because they have letters after their name, or because they're less than a mile from the very centre of one of the world's most important cities. Rather, because it is the seat of our government and because we as voters have a right to contact our MPs, it is vital that such issues are addressed.
Individuals who do not conceive of technology delivering benefits are unfit to govern and legislate for the development of the UK and its people as a pioneering and progressive nation.
Comments
There are 5 comments. Join the discussion
1. Richard Sarson
It is not technophobia that is the problem in government, but excessive ill-conceived technophilia. Since 1997 Tony Blair has championed e-government like no previous Prime Minister. Too much so, with monster poorly executed projects like the NHS National Plan for IT and the Individual Learning Accounts.
It is absurd to say that "No other major business issue upon which the success of the UK realistically hinges receives as little government attention as IT." Since 1997, every Parliamentary session has seen major IT legislation, from RIPA, through Ofcom to IT cards.
Most MPs are indeed not as IT literate as one might wish, but this is psychological. To become an MP you have to be a glad-handing extrovert. IT guys are introverts, and don't have what it takes. That is a fact of life.
There is a small band of IT literate MPs, who try desperately to educate their colleagues through All Party Groups, and to keep abreast of new technologies roaring down the track: the Internet Group, the Parliamentary IT Committee, the Mobile Telecoms Group, the Intellectual Property Rights Group, the Telecommunications Group. Find out they do.
The Parliamentary computer network must indeed seem a bit creaky to a techie new MP, but it is still a contruction site, as it is only since 2001 that the House started supplying computers to all Members. Give it time.
I could go on, but in the meantime, I suggest that your leader writer does just a tiny smidgeon of research into what he is ranting on about.
2. Karen Challinor
The government interest in IT extends only as far as using IT to tell us what to do and allow us to pay our taxes on line.
Unfortunately IT allows us to voice our opinions back to the government which is something they are a lot less interested in.
Consequently they can pass legislation based on the support given for a manifesto pledge several years ago, regardless of the current opinion of the public who are now better informed, and still say the people support the bill.
We could do away with constituency voting and have true democracy where we vote for the party and not the person, with a party electing it's own representatives to the house. Using public access connections to let the public tell those representatives of the popular opinion regarding any current issue. Politicians then vote in the issue using the popular opinion given by the people and in the absence of popular opinion the politicians are free to vote on issues as they see fit.
We wouldn't have this 'cult of personality' we have now, the politicians would be there to do a job and would do it and they would be responsive to the views of the people at the same time.
I'm sure I just saw a pig fly past the window.
3. Haydn Rees
In the 19th century, we paid MPs the equivalent of £500,000 per year, and ran a quarter of the world extremely effectively. Hundreds of the brightest and best people available fought for a seat in parliament.
An MPs salary is now roughly that of a teacher or trade union official, and a capable executive couldn't afford the pay cut required to become an honest MP.
Does anybody else here think we get what we pay for?
4. Haydn Rees
Properly implemented e-Government (to be delivered by 2005 without fail – failure is not an option (not strictly true)) has the potential of shaving around £13Billion of the cost raising tax and running the state. It could radically improve quality and speed transparency of service.
It will never happen. The electorate justifiably ask "what's in it for us?", and when IT is revealed to be used as a form of coercion - as a master, rather than a servant, and no advantages appear for the citizen, they will withdraw their cooperation.
5. Haydn Rees
In the 19th century, we paid MPs the equivalent of £500,000 per year, and ran a quarter of the world extremely effectively. Hundreds of the brightest and best people available fought for a seat in parliament.
An MPs salary is now roughly that of a teacher or trade union official, and a capable executive couldn't afford the pay cut required to become an honest MP.
Does anybody else here think we get what we pay for?