Here are 63 million reasons why politicians need to take technology seriously

Here are 63 million reasons why politicians need to take technology seriously

Summary: Few of our elected representative understand the importance of technology. That's a big problem for us - and them.

The Houses of Parliament were built in the mid-nineteenth century; some politicians haven't updated their attitudes towards technology since then.
The Houses of Parliament were built in the mid-nineteenth century; some politicians haven't updated their attitudes towards technology since then. Image: Shutterstock

Last week, the think tank Policy Exchange published its own tech manifesto — an agenda it wants the UK's political parties to adopt ahead of the next general election, expected in May next year.

Policy Exchange's claims that the public sector could save as much as £24bn a year by rethinking the use of technology across local and central government. Among the recommendations set out in its manifesto is a commitment to universal broadband availability, improvements to the basic digital skills of the population, and a move to digital-by-default for government services. Other suggestions include increasing the amount of government data — including Ordnance Survey mapping — that can be freely reused.

Most of these recommendations make sense, but there is a broader problem that they can't fix: that few politicians have any interest in, or understanding of, technology issues.

It's not just me saying that — it's our politicians as well. At the launch of the Policy Exchange manifesto at Google Campus (a more optimistic backdrop than the usual mildewing Westminster committee room) some of the few politicians that do understand tech said Parliament needs to try harder.

Nadhim Zahawi MP, a member of the Number 10 Downing Street policy board, told the event: "The internet and technology is shaping the way everyone interacts transacts and reacts and has been doing so for at least a decade... well, everyone, that is, except government."

That has to change because government has to reflect the population it serves, he said — and that population is only going to get more tech-savvy and therefore have higher expectations of government services.

Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert referred to one parliamentary debate where a minister described an IP address as "an intellectual property address" as an example of politicians not grasping the fundamentals.

"Across all the parties there are a handful of MPs but only a handful who really get it. The vast majority of MPs simply do not get it," he said.

And yet politicians — whether we like it or not — have to be involved in some big decisions about technology.

Those decisions can't be left to the tech industry, which inevitably focuses on its own needs – maximising profits and, in particular, minimising tax.

Look at the strife in San Francisco which is being generated by inequalities of income and opportunity between the tech industry and the rest of the local community. That's hardly something we ought to replicate in the UK — although some argue it's happening already.

Labour shadow Cabinet Office minister Chi Onwurah warned of the risk of an increasing digital divide, highlighting that the combination of new technologies and tough economic conditions is creating a real risk that a "large disenfranchised and disempowered underclass" will develop "while the privileged few of the geek-elite enjoy greater freedom and transparency".

And tech strategy can't be left to the tech employers either, because their vision is clouded by their short-term needs which may well conflict with the wider needs of society: for example, their use of offshore outsourcing in the past has significantly contributed to the lack of entry-level tech skills which they constantly complain about today.  

I'm not suggesting every MP should want to code their own app, but we need them to understand that the impact of new technology on society is significant and important; that our elected appointees have a responsibility to engage in and lead the debate here in order to benefit all 63 million of us.

There are also massive questions about state surveillance, the right to be forgotten, the future skills mix in this country, and more that won't be answered by politicians who laughingly dismiss boffins and techies.

The stakes are much higher, as Huppert points out: "This is actually an existential question; how will Britain earn its way in 2050, what is that we're going to do to have the rest of the world send money to let us have a good quality of life. And I can't see what it is if it's not about new technology — we're not going to become the great agricultural powerhouse of the world. It has to be around tech."

Further reading

Topics: Networking, Government UK, EU, United Kingdom

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • How about freedom?

    And this goes not just for the UK but for the US as well:

    The proper role for government in the area of technology is a Separation of Technology and State. We do need government to understand technology well enough to properly adjudicate intellectual property disputes, but mostly along those lines we need to throw software patents out the window. They have been and continue to be incredibly damaging. We need copyrights, but not patents, in software.

    It is not the job of the government to provide access to the Internet or educate people about technology. The job of the government is to protect individual rights and otherwise leave the private sector alone to provide Internet access and education. Public utilities have been a universally horrible idea that have stifled innovation. People complain about how expensive Internet access is in the US. Well, if it weren't being provided by governmentally protected monopoly companies (cable TV providers), there would be competition that would push down prices.
    • We need government... effectively use the available technology itself and to make policy decisions that make sense (which means that politicians and bureaucrats need to either understand the issues themselves or at least be seriously communicating with people that do (other than lobbyists). Separation of technology and state is a Randian fantasy (even more so than separation of economics and state), but willful ignorance is downright dangerous.

      Of course, it would be helpful if many more techies (both working and retired) were politically active.
      John L. Ries