Here's our (belated) "pick of the paragraphs" from this morning's interesting speech by David Cameron at the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Go to NESTA's website for a video and transcript, and WebCameron for a blog post on the speech.
Technology changing our lives: "There were no computers in classrooms when I was at school. When I first started work, it was still “word processors” not computers – and not everyone had one. But today the Cameron household’s weekly shop is done online. And the Cameron family holiday tends to get booked on the internet. More seriously, I take a close interest in the new disciplines such as biotechnology that scientists are using to fight illness and disease."
Social innovation: "I think that innovation should not be limited to science and the economy – as it overwhelmingly is in the Government’s recent innovation strategy. They say their strategy is about innovation in general, but the weblink to it is actually “scienceinnovation.pdf”, and the bulk of the document is about promoting innovation in the economy. I want to talk this morning about innovation in its broadest sense. Most of all, I mean innovation in public policy – what might be called social innovation."
Government's failure: "Before New Labour came to power they talked about social innovation and social enterprise too. Ten years on, I think there’s a sense of disappointment. Too often, as so often in the past, top-down government has stifled innovation rather than stimulated it... Indeed, the odd thing about the Government’s innovation policy is how un-innovative it is... Whitehall and innovation don’t go together, for the simple reason that innovation is the product of many heads not a few, and free thinking not state control."
Can't predict the new solutions: "I
can’t tell you exactly how social problems will be solved once we’re
elected. But I can tell you that we won’t be setting up new quangos and
government units to find solutions to society’s different problems.
We’ll be trusting the people who know best – those with experience,
those who live close by, those with the commitment and the compassion
to make a difference through their own efforts. In a phrase, the people
who break moulds."
It’s a very British thing:
"The habit of defying conventional wisdom and setting off on a new
course. We are a nation of explorers and entrepreneurs. Indeed, there
is a direct comparison between social innovation and the way the market
works. The free market is the best mechanism there is for harnessing
information without controlling it… for making use of the ideas and
expertise of millions of people without anyone telling anyone else what
to do"
Information liberation: "Some companies have grown because people rely on them to transmit information quickly, easily, cheaply and securely. Imagine if the information that government controlled were available to the public too? I don’t mean sensitive information – we don’t want to see Revenue and Customs posting all our private records online, whether by accident or on purpose. I mean information which will allow people themselves, expert and non-expert, to create innovative applications that serve the public benefit."
Related policies: "We have already set out a series of policies that embrace this open approach to government information. They will enable both greater accountability and enable new services – that we can’t predict – to emerge to benefit the public. So our Spending Transparency Bill will require future governments to publish online, in an open and standardised format, every item of government expenditure over £25,000. And our commitment to standardised local government information will for the first time enable people to compare performance between different councils. The same goes for our plans for crime mapping."
Small, open source projects: "We also want to see how open source methods can help overcome the massive problems in government IT programmes. The basic reason for these problems is Labour’s addiction to the mainframe model –large, centralised systems for the management of information. We will follow private sector best practice which is to introduce 'open standards' that enables IT contracts to be split up into modular components. And we will create a level playing field for open source software in IT procurement and open up the procurement system to small and innovative companies."
Society not the state: "Real innovation needs to take place in society, not the state. A government still wedded to the age of the mainframe doesn’t just mean its own processes are slow and bureaucratic. It means it’s not doing enough to liberate the innovation which is latent in British society – in the economy, in voluntary organisations, in local government, and in the innovative spirit of millions of British citizens. I want to see what we have called a supply-side revolution – a huge widening of the source of good ideas in the public services.
The freedom to take risks: "At the moment, in the way the government interacts with the voluntary sector sector, there is a culture of risk aversion - and punishing mistakes rather than rewarding success. When it comes to contracts, the government tends to fund its own departments for the long term, but voluntary bodies for the short term. And when it comes to dealing with new or small voluntary bodies or charities … the tendency is to play safe with the big organisations, rather than to take risks – and achieve real innovation – with the smaller ones."
Adam Afriyie's role: "Harold Wilson put Tony Benn – the arch-statist – in charge of technology. I am putting Adam – a entrepreneur and innovator himself – in charge of public policy innovation. Adam’s task will be to find the great innovations of today and tomorrow from around the world, and be their champion inside government. We accept that innovation requires a culture of risk-taking, of trial and error, of flexibility in thinking and often of collaborative effort. So I have also asked Adam to identify ways a Conservative government could tackle the corrosive sense of risk-aversion which holds back innovation within our society."
A Conservative government will be different: "We’re going to move from a top-down system to a bottom-up one. Where money follows the needs and wishes of individuals and the users of services – not the priorities of the bureaucracy. Where we don’t ask, where does the voluntary sector fit in? – but rather: where doesn’t the voluntary sector fit in? Where we in government concentrate on the results that public services deliver, not prescribe the processes they have to follow."
Can we please stop using the word 'innovation'? It's become totally devoid of meaning, on a par with 'solutions.'
Posted by: powellite | April 03, 2008 at 17:05
Mr Cameron promises transparency from local government but his head of candidates will hardly publish any data on the Conservative Party's MEP selection process.
Pathetic hypocrisy.
Posted by: Alan S | April 03, 2008 at 17:08
What a sick joke! The party does not have the technology or skills to maintain accurate membership records. Many members did not receive ballot papers for the Mayoral and European ballots.
John Maples, the returning officer for the European ballot, disobeyed a 3 line whip and abstained on the crucial vote for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Iain Dale deleted my comment on his blog which asked why he had criticised Ken Clarke for voting against party policy but not Maples. Dale has been silent on the gerrymandering of the European selections. He is not an independent commentator, just a CCHQ sychophant and sanctimonous hypocrite who is desperate for a seat!
Posted by: Blue Ken | April 03, 2008 at 18:36
I look forward to seeing an increased role for the voluntary services. This is the only way to get a proper micro-managment of social problems. However we have to ensure that voluntary bodies are at all times accountable, yet not weighed down by bureaucracy. The top-down approach, more often than not, leads to big-fix overkill solutions which turn out to be no solution at all. Only by working on the ground and getting to the heart of social problems will it be possible to begin making a difference. This is a refreshing new approach to getting things done.
Posted by: Tony Makara | April 03, 2008 at 19:29
"I can’t tell you exactly how social problems will be solved once we’re elected
I hope this sentence doesn't come back and haunt DC. Given all the stirling Social Justice policy work that has already been done I hope that DC does have some idea!
I'm usually impressed by DC's speeches but this one seems rather muddled and confused.
What point was David Cameron trying to get across?
One minute he says that he doesn't want to talk about science and the next he starts talking about mainframe's, Linux, open source solutions (a decades old Conservative Government concept - Posix, OSF etc) and IBM (who were one of the main opponents of 'Open Systems' back in the 80's). Is IT no longer considered technology?
He says he wants to talk about Social Innovation but he doesn't mention the social problems that need to be addressed by that innovation or how a Conservative Government would facilitate such innovation?
Then he he hints at the general concept of decentralisation of power without providing any detail but says nothing about deregulation (or perhaps even new regulation) or funding, both of which, I suspect would greatly assist in facilitating certain types of innovation.
This speech was hardly a concise message.
If a Conservative Government is not going guide entrepreneurs by identifying the areas where they want social innovation. How on earth can we be confident that entrepreneurs are going to provide the sort of innovation that is required?
If a Conservative Government are not going to facilitate innovative ideas from small scale entrepreneurs. How will small scale entrepreneurs (e.g in the IT sector) overcome companies such as Microsoft who have suppressed innovation elsewhere since pretty much their inception.
There are certain impacts of decentralisation that potentially can have a negative effect as easily as a positive one such as loss of central control and diversity of outcome. DC does not consider how a Conservative Government would ensure that the outcomes from such issues are positive?
This speech suggests that DC has a long way to go before he is ready to lead the mobilisation of innovators and utilise technological innovation appropriately to address the social issues that face this country.
Perhaps he could start by highlighting the key issues that he thinks might be assisted by technology or other innovations and provide an outline of requirements on which such innovations need to be based?
There are obvious areas where innovation could be used - transport, environment, energy usage, information security and availability.
As a postscript, I agree given the topic there also does seem to be a lack of consistency between what he said in the speech and the actions of the Party. It's about time on issues of political transparency and internal democracy the Conservative Party got their act together and walked the walk. Talking the talk without backing up with real change is getting rather tedious. DC needs to lead by example.
I'm going write this off as just a pretty poor speech.
Posted by: John Leonard | April 03, 2008 at 19:42
"One minute he says that he doesn't want to talk about science"
....nope, he said it shouldn't ONLY be about science.
He has a point - The government sems to be stuck on biotechnology and can't see any further.
"and the next he starts talking about mainframe's"
......how many people think of mainframes as "science"?
"he doesn't mention the social problems that need to be addressed"
.....Ian Duncan Smith has already done that very effectively.
There seems to be quite a lot of unwarranted criticism aboove but
I agree with Tony Makara, this looks interesting.
Posted by: Deborah | April 03, 2008 at 20:16
In the land of the blind the eye-catching initiative is king.
TBH the one thing we need to be promising the electorate is that - if elected - we'll get out of the way of ordinary people and let them live their lives without trying to micromanage them.
No more 'initiatives' or 'strategies' or 'policies' - instead, promise to *do* less, *intervene* less, *tax* less. Setting people free to realise their potential means getting the government off their backs, and out of their lives.
Posted by: Tanuki | April 03, 2008 at 20:53
How can the Conservatives claim to want to support technological innovation when they support the governments polices that have caused so much damage to small IT companies by destroying their markets with, in effect, subsidised overseas suppliers. Outsourcing and inter-company transfers have destroyed small companies and individuals. Now youngsters are not studying many technical subjects at university as they see no future prospects for themselves in the industry. The Conservatives have done nothing to oppose these damaging policies. Why? It is a bit rich to now claim to support technical innovation.
Posted by: David Bodden | April 03, 2008 at 22:46
Although there wasn't a lot of detail (we can hardly expect that) I think this was a good speech that showed a decent grasp of innovation, a field I have worked all my life in. He hit on some key points - we can't predict or state organise what new ideas will emerge but do have to create the conditions for them to emerge. He also hits correctly on removing the barriers to risk- taking and the overly pervasive fear of making mistakes when conceiving new approaches.
Posted by: Matt Wright | April 04, 2008 at 00:20
Innovation is just a buzzword, nothing more. It sounds modern. It may be fluff but its par for the course in this political climate.
Most of Camerons speeches are a good substitute for toilet paper to be honest.
Posted by: James maskell | April 04, 2008 at 09:43