4. ‘Noisy’
opinion
• UnrepresentaCve
–
small
numbers
-‐
intermediaries
• Time-‐rich
–
heavy
engagement
• ‘Prejudiced’
(ideology,
religion,
tribalism
etc)
• Self-‐interested
–
not
public
interest
Down with this
• GeOng
more
abundant
(free
publishing)
sort of thing!
Heavy
preferences
&
DistorCon
&
passionate
views
disinformaCon
Coercion:
Campaigning
&
vote-‐driving
5. Good
digital
policymaking
tree
OpCmal
Policy
NaConal
Government
Councillors
Evidence
Opinion
Newspapers,
pressure
Experience
+
research
+
groups,
FOI
requests
+
disinterested
armchair
ConsultaCons
Bloggers
auditors,
hyperlocals
6. We
want…
• Disinterested
analysis
-‐
not
inducCve
• Many
minds
–
diversity
of
perspecCves
/
invenCon
/
‘conversaCon
starters’
• Issues
made
more
a^racCve
to
engage
with
–
infographics
/
walk-‐throughs
etc
• Folksy
descripCon
of
council
work
–
not
‘officer-‐speak’
7. PenalCes
of
being
hard
to
deal
with
• Price
parCcipaCon
at
£0
=
mostly
‘fanaCc’
respondents
• Hard-‐to-‐get
informaCon
(FOI)
rewards
hard-‐
to-‐avoids
–
and
loses
control
of
how
informaCon
is
released
• Having
a
monopoly
in
describing
your
service
=
bureaucraCc
voice/distrust
(spin)
9. SuggesCons
from
the
session
• Review
required
skills
for
LocalGov
employment
• Co-‐ordinate
visualisaCon
skills
within
local
government
be^er
• Lower
expectaCons
on
corporate
style
–
go
for
authenCcity
rather
than
branding
• Encourage
people
other
than
formal
employees
to
present
informaCon
–
it’s
more
authenCc
–
enable
and
curate
rather
than
‘just
create’
• Make
a
clearer
link
between
parCcipaCon
&
decisionmaking
• Make
organisaCons
more
permissive
in
comms
terms
–
making
everything
go
through
the
corporate
filter
doesn’t
work
• When
we
inform
–
say
WHY
we’re
informing
• Curate
walk-‐throughs
of
how
people
do
good
data-‐visualisaCon
–
dotgovlabs
/
skunkworks
• Visual
media
surgeries!!!