Martha Lane Fox, one of the unwritten bits of the British Constitution

Whitehall say that between nine and ten million people in the UK have never used the web. They also say that they intend to provide all public services over the web, and only over the web. How can they possibly have argued themselves into this position?

For once, Whitehall's answer is clear, ...

Tom Loosemore: This journey started with Martha Lane Fox’s report demanding that Government ‘revolutionise’ its online services ... Francis Maude: Established in response to Martha Lane Fox’s report ... our core purpose is to ensure the Government offers world-class digital products that meet people’s needs. GDS Projects: The Single Government Domain team are responsible for designing, developing and testing a single domain for government as recommended by the Martha Lane Fox report. Digital Engagement: The Government Digital Service is the new name for the organisation created by the merging of Directgov and the Cabinet Office Digital Delivery and Digital Engagement teams, following the recommendations of the Martha Lane Fox review ... David Mann: HMRC is way ahead of the game in terms of creating a ‘wholesale’ model for delivery of government services online, an approach strongly advocated by Martha Lane Fox ... James Stewart: Martha Lane Fox’s report made delivering high quality APIs a key objective of our work ... Ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken: The mission for GDS, outlined by Martha Lane Fox, requires us all to collaborate ...

... "Martha Lane Fox told us to".

This is a novelty in public administration. When did Ms Lane Fox's dicta take on the mantle of statute law? The constitutional historians must be scratching their heads – nowhere in any of the books covering Henry VIII clauses is there any reference to the MLF Prerogative. Not yet, at least.

----------

Added 12.12.12:

Government Digital Service Invitation To Tender APPENDIX B – SERVICE DESCRIPTION 1.                  BACKGROUND TO GOVERNMENT DIGITAL SERVICE 1.1               The Government Digital Service (GDS/the Authority) is a new organisation that has been created through a merger of the Cabinet Office Digital Delivery and Digital Engagement teams with Directgov, the "one-stop shop" for online government. It is the aim of GDS to be the centre for digital government in the UK, building and championing a 'digital culture' that puts the user first and delivers the best, low-cost public services possible. 1.2               GDS is responsible for implementing the recommendations set out in the 2010 review of Directgov, undertaken by Martha Lane Fox. These recommendations called for the overhaul of 750 separate government websites, to be replaced by a single Internet "front-door" to public services on the web.

Martha Lane Fox, one of the unwritten bits of the British Constitution

Whitehall say that between nine and ten million people in the UK have never used the web. They also say that they intend to provide all public services over the web, and only over the web. How can they possibly have argued themselves into this position?

Universal Credit, the Whitehall computer game in which real money is used to provide imaginary services to a virtual public

There was Nick Robinson the other day, on BBC Radio 4's Decision Time, asking how policy is made by ministers and their officials. And there was Rachel Lomax, telling him.

Ms Lomax was Deputy Governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2008. The poor regulation and ultimate collapse of the UK banking system was nothing to do with her. With immaculate timing, she picked up a non-executive directorship of HSBC on 1 December 2008 and another one subsequently at BAA, the airport operator that cancels half its flights when three inches of snow fall.

The BAA appointment no doubt benefits from her experience as Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport. She's also "done" the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the Welsh Office, the World Bank, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.

She's been around and, according to her, the answer to Nick's question is that ministers should bring their little policy ideas to their officials and let them, the officials, work out the details, she just hates it when ministers think they know how to achieve their objectives, that never works.

Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, played it by the Lomax book and took his Universal Credit idea to his officials and let them work out the details. It's not a bad idea, Universal Credit. And what horse designed by a committee did his officials come up with?

Let Steve Dover tell you himself, otherwise you won't believe it. Mr Dover is director of major programmes at DWP and he is quoted in the Guardian today as saying:

The starting point, I said to our telephony collaboration teams based in Newcastle, was just think of a contact centre, but it has got no people in it and think of an operating model that has got no back office, and start from there.

Universal Credit will be claimed over the web, and only over the web, and it will be paid over the web, and only over the web – "New dole system is 'digital by default', like it or not", as they put it in ElReg.

Never mind the fact that something between nine and ten million people in this country have never used the web, the Cabinet Office want all public services to be delivered over the web, and only over the web, even if the nine or ten million people who have never used the web are the nine or ten million people most likely to need Universal Credit and other benefits.

Universal Credit will be introduced in October 2013, says to Mr Dover. It's the way he tells them.

Universal Credit, the Whitehall computer game in which real money is used to provide imaginary services to a virtual public

There was Nick Robinson the other day, on BBC Radio 4's Decision Time, asking how policy is made by ministers and their officials. And there was Rachel Lomax, telling him.

Ms Lomax was Deputy Governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2008. The poor regulation and ultimate collapse of the UK banking system was nothing to do with her. With immaculate timing, she picked up a non-executive directorship of HSBC on 1 December 2008 and another one subsequently at BAA, the airport operator that cancels half its flights when three inches of snow fall.

John Vine report delayed

Hat tip: Anonymous

Home Office Publications:

Report by the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency - WMS This written ministerial stement (sic) was laid in the House of Commons on 31 January 2012 by Theresa May, and in the House of Lords by Lord Henley. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Theresa May): Following the resignation of Brodie Clark, a senior UK Border Agency official, last November, I asked John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, to carry out an independent investigation into border checks conducted by the UK Border Agency. Mr Vine has asked for more time to complete his investigation. Once I have received his final report I will update the House after constituency recess on both the findings of the report and on the action the government will take. Tuesday, 31 January 2012

John Vine report delayed

Hat tip: Anonymous

Home Office Publications:

Report by the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency - WMS This written ministerial stement (sic) was laid in the House of Commons on 31 January 2012 by Theresa May, and in the House of Lords by Lord Henley. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Theresa May): Following the resignation of Brodie Clark, a senior UK Border Agency official, last November, I asked John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, to carry out an independent investigation into border checks conducted by the UK Border Agency. Mr Vine has asked for more time to complete his investigation. Once I have received his final report I will update the House after constituency recess on both the findings of the report and on the action the government will take. Tuesday, 31 January 2012

GreenInk 5 – The Economist magazine publishes a surprising article

Unpublished:

From: David Moss Sent: 17 January 2012 15:26 To: 'letters@economist.com' Subject: ... seeing what/the man will do/unbribed, there's/no occasion to. http://www.economist.com/comment/1208953#comment-1208953 Sir With their suggestions that only the dimmer Indians have stayed at home, and that Indian men are all ne'er-do-well drunks, and that the blandishments of the snake oil salesmen of the biometrics industry are all credible, last week's articles on India's Unique Identity scheme (14 January 2011: Reform by numbers and The magic number) didn't read like real Economist articles. Were they unflagged advertorials, written by its desperate management, trying to save the fast failing UID project? Yours David Moss

---

For information on the Unique Identification of Authority of India and their Aadhaar project, please see India's ID card scheme – drowning in a sea of false positives.

GreenInk 5 – The Economist magazine publishes a surprising article

Unpublished:

From: David Moss Sent: 17 January 2012 15:26 To: 'letters@economist.com' Subject: ... seeing what/the man will do/unbribed, there's/no occasion to. http://www.economist.com/comment/1208953#comment-1208953 Sir With their suggestions that only the dimmer Indians have stayed at home, and that Indian men are all ne'er-do-well drunks, and that the blandishments of the snake oil salesmen of the biometrics industry are all credible, last week's articles on India's Unique Identity scheme (14 January 2011: Reform by numbers and The magic number) didn't read like real Economist articles. Were they unflagged advertorials, written by its desperate management, trying to save the fast failing UID project? Yours David Moss

---

For information on the Unique Identification of Authority of India and their Aadhaar project, please see India's ID card scheme – drowning in a sea of false positives.

The Economist magazine's chickens, now on their way home to roost

Normally hard-boiled, The Economist magazine chose to publish a glowing soufflé of a report on the Unique Identification Authority of India in its 14 January 2012 edition. Not surprisingly, this article, The Magic Number, now takes pride of place on UIDAI's website:

---

UIDAI website, 1 February 2012

---

UIDAI does have its detractors.

"Some of the resistance", The Economist said, "is principled, but much comes from the people who do well out of today’s filthy system. Indian politics hinge on patronage—the doling out of opportunities to rob one’s countrymen. [UIDAI's Aadhaar initiative] would make this harder. That is why it faces such fierce opposition ...".

The resistance to UIDAI at government level comes from the Home Ministry and the Finance Ministry. Are these "the people who do well out of today’s filthy system", as The Economist put it? Are they the ones "doling out of opportunities to rob [their] countrymen"?

The Economist may or may not be wise to jump into bed with UIDAI. But they run the risk – surely quite unnecessarily – of putting some very powerful noses out of joint. No more juicy stories coming their way from the Home Ministry and the Finance Ministry for The Economist any more.

Which is a shame, because there are some good stories around:

• UIDAI are fighting a turf war with the Home Ministry, who have a rival identity management scheme of their own, the National Population Register (NPR).
• And the Finance Ministry were opposed to funding any more work by UIDAI, who were about to run out of money – until the Prime Minister sorted out a (slightly ham-fisted) truce.
• Not only that, but the statutory basis for UIDAI's work is questionable. The National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 still hasn't been enacted.

Why did The Economist do it?

---

NB For anyone who reads the articles linked to:

• 1 crore = 10,000,000. 1.2 billion Indians = 1,200,000,000 Indians = 120 crore Indians = 12,000 lakh Indians, because
• 1 lakh = 100,000. 100 lakh = 10,000,000 = 1 crore and
• £1 = 78.7618 Rupees

The Economist magazine's chickens, now on their way home to roost

Normally hard-boiled, The Economist magazine chose to publish a glowing soufflé of a report on the Unique Identification Authority of India in its 14 January 2012 edition. Not surprisingly, this article, The Magic Number, now takes pride of place on UIDAI's website:

---

UIDAI website, 1 February 2012

---

UIDAI does have its detractors.

"Some of the resistance", The Economist said, "is principled, but much comes from the people who do well out of today’s filthy system. Indian politics hinge on patronage—the doling out of opportunities to rob one’s countrymen. [UIDAI's Aadhaar initiative] would make this harder. That is why it faces such fierce opposition ...".

The resistance to UIDAI at government level comes from the Home Ministry and the Finance Ministry. Are these "the people who do well out of today’s filthy system", as The Economist put it? Are they the ones "doling out of opportunities to rob [their] countrymen"?

The Economist may or may not be wise to jump into bed with UIDAI. But they run the risk – surely quite unnecessarily – of putting some very powerful noses out of joint. No more juicy stories coming their way from the Home Ministry and the Finance Ministry for The Economist any more.

Which is a shame, because there are some good stories around:

• UIDAI are fighting a turf war with the Home Ministry, who have a rival identity management scheme of their own, the National Population Register (NPR).
• And the Finance Ministry were opposed to funding any more work by UIDAI, who were about to run out of money – until the Prime Minister sorted out a (slightly ham-fisted) truce.
• Not only that, but the statutory basis for UIDAI's work is questionable. The National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 still hasn't been enacted.

Why did The Economist do it?

---

NB For anyone who reads the articles linked to:

• 1 crore = 10,000,000. 1.2 billion Indians = 1,200,000,000 Indians = 120 crore Indians = 12,000 lakh Indians, because
• 1 lakh = 100,000. 100 lakh = 10,000,000 = 1 crore and
• £1 = 78.7618 Rupees