I live in Croydon with my wife and two children. I church at Croydon Vineyard. We’ve had season tickets for Bradford City since 2007. I’ve got degrees in History, Post-War Recovery and Public Administration and have spent the last 15+ years working at the intersection of digital transformation and good governance.
I began my career in local government, went on to help launch GOV.UK and most recently worked on defining global standards for digital government at the OECD. I'm currently currently co-authoring a book integrating biblical values with civic life, encouraging Christians to adopt a hope-filled, faith-inspired perspective on democracy and how we are governed.
I’m interested in too many things: being a good husband and father, following Jesus, the theology of governing well, a warm welcome for refugees and asylum seekers, that ‘digital’ leads to fair, inclusive and equitable transformation, exploring the world, League Two football, Pantomime, various England sports teams and Team GB…
In the past week speeches from Keir Starmer, Pat Mcfadden and Georgia Gould1 have painted a bold vision for the work of government. The Plan for Change is ambitious, rooted in missions designed to tackle the nation’s most pressing issues—from housing and NHS waiting lists to economic inactivity.
It is really good to hear our government talk up a positive, attractive narrative about the future they want for our country. Show me someone dismissing the combined story they’re telling and I suspect you’ve found someone choosing partisan tribalism over good faith engagement although, and perhaps more likely, they may just be someone understandably browbeaten by years of disappointment, frustration and hypocrisy.
Speaking personally I want to be optimistic. I really want to believe that mission-led government can make a dent in these seemingly intractable problems. And because I’m now working in a team directly tied to this one of the missions I’m closer than most people to what it means to translate these ideas into practice. But that means I can see a stark challenge: acknowledging the extent of the gulf between rhetoric and reality.
Over the last year Dave and I have been kicking around the idea of “Kingdom Democracy” (or maybe kingdœmocracy) as we try to encourage our fellow Christians to adopt a hope-filled, faith-inspired perspective on democracy and how we’re governed. We haven’t quite managed to write the book yet, but it has been brilliant to take things that we know in our bones and put them into words.
I was hoping PrayReps would be online by now. It’s not there yet, although good progress made with the underlying data. Going back to work has definitely slowed progress. So, no product on the internet but I did repurpose my old locally hosted ChatGPT-assisted code for the US Presidential, Congressional and Gubernatorial elections. Now, with the final result finally being confirmed at the end of last week I can finally publish this blog post.
In Richard Pope’s essential book Platformland he pitches a new ‘anatomy of public services’ and uses helpful images to dismantle, reconstruct and develop for 2024 ideas that he was first part of putting forward in 2015. Given how well the book does this we should all hope that he’s moving the conversation forward in terms of the UK’s inertia in this area.
Over the weekend he popped up on BlueSky and LinkedIn to ask what people who had seen those original drawings in 2015 thought about them at the time.
Question for digital government people c 2015. Did you see these at the time? What worked / didn't work about them (conceptually, not graphically)
This will be the nudge I needed to finally finish a series of posts (I don’t think you want it as a single post 🙃) I started writing about my reflections on Government as a Platform so if you want them straight to your inbox then do subscribe.
I remember being treated to a sneak peek of what Richard and others were cooking up and being persuaded pretty quickly that they were absolutely spot on. When it was subsequently presented to GDS more widely at an All Staff (I don’t think any public version exists but Tom Loosemore’s October 2015 Code for America talk captures a lot of it) it was one of those moments at GDS, of which there were more than a few, that made me feel so lucky to be working alongside such inspiring minds.
So perhaps I was too close to the thinking and experiences that produced the visualisation to be an impartial observer – I was already fertile soil for these seeds to land in. I expect people who were further away from the conversation (and the shape it subsequently took) might give more insightful responses to Richard’s immediate question for his purposes in 2024. Nonetheless, here are some thoughts of my own.
Mark Foden’s “Gubbins of Government” was another reference point at the time and I thought these images and the ideas they put forward were a great complement to that and spoke of a similar ambition in ways that could land with a not-inside-GDS audience.
I liked how the visuals were helpful beyond the ‘whole of government’ perspective. The obvious takeaway is that the data, consent and components layers are about the role of the centre to enable vertical services at the top. I think it’s also a helpful cross section for specific services to think about as well. Any end to end service trying to meet a whole need is going to do that through a composite of elements (micro-services if you will), that sit on top of a service-wide approach to data and identity.
At the OECD I wrote the Government as a Platform pillar of the Digital Government Policy Framework. That exercise was really helpful for me in marshalling my thinking as a partial retrospective on my work as the Lead Product Manager for Government as a Platform in the UK (more on this in those upcoming blog posts).
One of the biggest things I felt when it came to writing it up was the need to take a wider-angle lens on how you enable and equip teams to move quickly, at scale, and with quality. This 2015 visualisation sits alongside a whole host of contextual assumptions about things we at GDS didn’t exactly take for granted but which we saw as self-evidently important: fixing procurement, controlling spend, assuring quality, building capability, etc.
So as powerful as I think the visuals are and were, I think they only tell a partial, more technical story, about what it means to create a Government as a Platform ecosystem
Below I’ve partially recreated a table from the Digital Government Policy Framework that represents the needs which Government as a Platform ecosystems can meet. I’d argue each line is integral to the foundational Government as a Platform model, that of ‘an ecosystem supporting service teams to meet needs’. Many of them are also part of the second order ambition of ‘a marketplace for public services’ and some of them help create a route to the most optimistic vision of ‘rethinking the relationship between citizen and state’.
Transforming procurement to improve supplier relations
Training and equipping of in-house capability
Internal tools for civil servant users such as authentication
Standards and controls for spending
Guidance on “what good looks like”
Reusable common components that respond to common user needs
Reusable designs and patterns that respond to common needs
Standards for ensuring the design of services
Standards for technology
Canonical, discoverable data
Standards for publishing and handling data
Cross-governmental networks for delivering services that avoid silos of delivery
Interoperability of data
Transparency of access to personal data and effective models of citizen consent for their reuse
These ideas went on to be expressed through the Enablers pillar of the OECD Framework for Service Design and Delivery (first developed for work in Chile) and then applied as part of the OECD Digital Government Review methodology. Under that lens those 14 things became 7:
Best practices and guidelines (including style guides and service manuals)
Governance, spending and assurance (including business cases, budgeting thresholds, procurement, and service standards and assurance processes)
Digital inclusion focused activities (including digital literacy, accessibility and connectivity)
The channel strategy (emphasising an omni-channel model)
Common components and tools (including design systems, hosting and infrastructure, digital identity, notifications, payments, and low code)
You’ll notice that while the original 2025 visuals treat ‘trust and consent’ as a distinct layer that digital identity is not given its own focus as an enabler (with the tool folded into ‘common components’ and questions of consent reflected in a wider conversation about data). From an OECD perspective that’s because for many countries digital identity is already a fairly settled and functional tool. So it is comparable to other technical components rather than needing the conceptual discussions that dominate the context in which this conversation happens in the UK.
Back in 2015, and then in the period 2016-2018 when I was involved with the Government as a Platform team, that ‘trust and consent’ layer belonged to the GOV.UK Verify team and because of its scale and scope and importance that made sense. But ‘trust and consent’ isn’t simply ‘digital identity’ and so with hindsight I think what Richard and co were proposing about the interplay between that trust layer and underlying data in 2015 required more of a challenge to ask whether the emerging GOV.UK Verify orthodoxy was going to get us where we needed to be as a country.
So in 2024 if I think about the value of this 2015 visual and what it says about ‘trust and consent’ then it remains critical as something to state explicitly. Digital identity in the UK (with all that comes with it in terms of credentials, proofs, attributes and the rest) is a challenge to solve. And a challenge where the solution really needs to be something that functions on an integrated, whole of society basis as a genuinely foundational layer for all sectors and all people in the country (at home and abroad).
But ‘trust and consent’ is of course only as useful as the layer that sits beneath it. And so whatever the state of digital identity it is inextricably bound up with that of data. It is absolutely correct that data was the foundation of those 2015 visualisations because it really does need to be the basis for everything.
And yet, in September 2018 after Richard and I had sat down for a bit of a retrospective about my time as Lead Product Manager for Government as a Platform he had to ask me why I hadn’t mentioned data. Because somehow despite our wide ranging discussions we hadn’t done so.
It’s not a good excuse, or a legitimate reason, but I think in that 2016-2018 period when I was involved with Government as a Platform the data layer, as expressed through the GOV.UK Registers work, was housed outside the programme. The Government as a Platform Programme was very much focused on that slice of technical common components and not the broader suite of enablers. That mismatch between the concept and the delivery vehicle and organisation structures is something I wish I’d been capable of doing something about.
One of the first things I did at the OECD was take on the baton of the Data-Driven Public Sector (DDPS) Framework from Charlotte van Ooijen (finalising her working paper and then coordinating the follow-up policy paper). That’s the basis for the measure of DDPS maturity used in the Digital Government Index and despite a generally strong performance across the board (though showing increasingly strong performances from other countries compared to 2019) it is the measure against which the UK performs least well. The questionable abandoning of GOV.UK Registers no doubt contributes to that (because however established or otherwise they ever were, they would have ticked several of the boxes in the data collection sat behind the 2019 index and could not for the data for the 2023 index).
UK performance in the OECD Digital Government Index
Edition
Rank in Dimension 1: Digital by default
Rank in Dimension 2: Data-Driven Public Sector
Rank in Dimension 3: Government as a Platform
Rank in Dimension 4: Open by Default
Rank in Dimension 5: User-driven
Rank in Dimension 6: Proactiveness
2019
7/34
1/34
1/34
2/34
3/34
11/34
2023
3/38
18/38
7/38
6/38
1/38
3/38
Though the situation is even worse when it comes to tracking the performance of the country when it comes to Open Government Data. For a country that was in the vanguard of those conversations the Open, Useful and Re-useable Data Index paints a very sorry picture indeed.
UK performance in the OECD OURdata Index
Edition
Ranking
Data availability
Data accessibility
Government support for re-use
Overall score
OURdata 2017
5th (of 35)
0.83
0.83
0.69
0.78
OURdata 2019
20th (of 32)
0.58
0.72
0.40
0.57
OURdata 2023
28th (of 40)
0.49
0.42
0.23
0.38
All of which is to say that judged against international benchmarks and compared to the countries we imagine as our peers the UK has a lot of work to do in establishing a truly effective approach to data in the public sector that satisfies what the OECD judges as the essential mix of:
Governance which covers leadership, capability, legislation, operationalising the Government Data Value Cycle, architecture and infrastructure
Delivering public value which means the nuts and bolts of how government uses data for thinking about the future, delivering in the present and evaluating the past.
Building trust in terms of consent, privacy, transparency and ethics
The UK does do some bits well but it remains stymied by ongoing structural and political obstacles that make it really hard going. It’s nine years on from these visuals and while the last data strategy had much to commend it, the country is still only having vaguely hopeful conversations about a National Data Library that may, or may not, be the answer to some of the data architectural and infrastructural questions that must be resolved to create the kind of foundations that Richard and these visuals demanded.
My final comment loops back to my earlier observation about the whole of government versus individual services. While sorting out data as a foundational enabling layer is critical to ambitions for the public sector, it’s just as important for every service team to be as keenly aware of what the Government Data Value Cycle looks like in their context and how data flows underpin what they’re trying to achieve.
This model needs to be baked into the planning, designing and delivering of individual services. That isn’t about adding data science capability (which is important) or making everything about AI (which it can help), it’s about that core appreciation for recognising data as the foundational building block, and a valuable output, for responding to users and their needs.
My overall conclusion is that until the UK gets serious about data and identity then the country isn’t actually close to being where we imagine we are, let alone where we want to be.
Thinking back to 2015 it was absolutely correct for Government as a Platform to be visualised on the basis of data at the bottom with trust and consent layered on top before you got into the technical components. I can only speak to being in the Government as a Platform team 2016-18 and evidently we didn’t get those layers done. We skipped to the common components and trusted (hoped?) Verify as a separate thing would do trust and consent, and that GOV.UK Registers would handle the data.
But, here we are in 2024 with neither.
It really is too early to judge the decision to bring DSIT and CDDO/GDS/i.AI closer together but I hope, and have to be optimistic, that what is going on in this newly combined entity and in the minds of those advising on the future of the ‘Digital Centre’ is keenly aware of that. I trust that they’re coming up with excellent plans and compelling ambitions to make those of us on the outside, looking in, regain the sense of enthusiasm and inspiration that accompanied all the chat in 2015. And maybe they’ll have some similarly insightful graphics to go with it.
Well done for reading all this way – if you’re still here then maybe I can also persuade you to sponsor me this Movember. I’ve supported the fight for men’s health every November since 2007 and while it’s always good to hear about the progress that has been made, there is still so much more to do. Your sponsorship is so gratefully received. Still not convinced? Maybe the Movember inspired post I wrote about American Presidents and their facial hair will do the trick?
When I left the OECD last summer, it was for several reasons (some of them implicit in this blog post). And I’m pleased that I decided to do so. This has been such a valuable slice of time – a luxury I recognise few people are able to enjoy.
I’m so lucky to have had the career I’ve had to this point and the breadth and depth of what I’ve done. But it has given me a bit of a dilemma about the shape of who I am and the role that best fits, especially in this new, post-OECD phase.
In terms of substance, the OECD was a good match and I was fortunate to have been adept at what the job required. I’m really proud of all the work I contributed to there. But it’s also true that I missed the “gnarliness” of delivery – the practical, hands-on experience without which I wouldn’t have been as good at the job. So I always knew my time focusing on the conceptual and advisory wasn’t forever – it’s testament to the team and the content that I surprised myself and ended up staying for five years.
In the aftermath of the US elections plenty of talking heads are providing razor-sharp analysis about the reasons Trump won and Harris didn’t. But I doubt anyone is giving you analysis about the sharpness of razors and their role in the race. So, let me plug that gap.
In becoming Donald Trump‘s Vice President, J. D. Vance becomes the first successfully bearded Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate to win over the American public in almost 100 years.
It was our first week back for Vineyard English School after the summer break1. Many familiar faces were absent, but one young Eritrean was eager to see us – he’d just received a letter about his asylum claim.
We were back in the hotel today after stopping over the summer (more volunteers would allow for doing this year round). Here's a photo of a letter that had been received by one of the hotel residents. Two native English speakers had to check with one another that we actually understood it.
The letter was dense, bureaucratic, and impenetrable. It’s a far cry from the aspirations for content design that so many advocate for as a central plank in reimagining the relationship between the state and its users.
He looked to us for an explanation. But even among the fluent English speakers, we had to consult amongst ourselves to ensure we understood it correctly. Hardly surprising, since according to The First Word’s readability test, this letter is on par with reading Nietzsche.
This is the monthly round up of the things I’ve written. A quieter month of writing than July because it’s been the school summer holidays and it’s a wonderful dividend from not yet being back in full time work to continue being fully available for them.
The first piece of the month was a grumble about Historic Royal Palaces and the mismatch between a family’s experience in person compared to their experience online. I’ve updated the post to include some of the response I received from HRP’s Commercial Director. It hasn’t mollified me.
Part way through the month the restart of the football season meant a long drive up the M1 gave me the chance to reminisce about Numberplate Cricket. Though it’s quite likely it’s now less playable with every new registration from now until next March being a wicket-taking 74 plate.
And finally, also tapping into nostalgia, we had some fun with ChatGPT trying to place a catchphrase belonging to two Lancastrians who recently announced a reunion tour (no, not those brothers). Which led to me channeling Jane Austen and declaring that: “It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a person in possession of a question must be in want of a chatbot. Yet, one must also remember, that a chatbot, no matter how clever, is not always in possession of the truth.”
As we were driving to our first rendezvous in Wakefield, our friends, who live near Bolton, sent a message apologising that they would arrive after us. I reacted on our end with a loud “No neeeeed”, a catchphrase remembered from my childhood, delivered in an attempted Lancastrian accent. Christine, ever quick to capture a moment, got me to repeat the impression and sent it back as a voice note.
They replied with their own note, which we couldn’t decipher. So when we met up we asked them what was going on. To our surprise, they had misunderstood our message – they thought we were saying “Welbeeeees” as a greeting and had responded with a cry of their own family name.
I was puzzled. I was sure “No neeeeed” was a common cultural touchpoint but instead it was met with blank stares. Confidently, I told them it was a catchphrase from Mark and Lard, the iconic radio duo of the 90s.
However, when I tried to back up my claim with a quick Google, I hit a brick wall.
Growing up in Bradford but with grandparents in Kent and Somerset meant hours on the road, more often than not to a backdrop of Radio 4 (which was not so engaging as a child). Of course, this being the late 80s/early 90s there were no screens to occupy the journey. So my siblings and I had to make our own entertainment and I remember Numberplate Cricket as a great way to kill off the monotony of the motorway.
Fast forward to 2024, and the tables have turned. Now it’s my children enduring long drives from Croydon to Bradford to ‘enjoy’ our our season tickets at Valley Parade1 . Last weekend’s 9 hour round trip served up a pretty underwhelming 0-0 and 3 points denied by dubious officialing.
For the uninitiated, Numberplate Cricket is a simple game (despite what Wikipedia suggests) that turns every passing car into a potential run or wicket. The rules are simple:
This is the fifth time I’ve looked at vehicle registration data in UK to see the extent to which private car owners are impacted by the expansion of ULEZ. I’ll probably do it once more to retrospectively see what the situation was at the time of the general election, and the former Prime Minister vowing to reverse one of the most successful policy interventions of recent years.
That last post, looking at the data until the end of December 2023, showed the total numbers of ULEZ affected private cars in London were 305,009 down from 552,198 in March 2022. What has another three months done to those figures?
Over the last year Dave and I have been kicking around the idea of “Kingdom Democracy” (or maybe kingdœmocracy) as we try to encourage our fellow Christians to adopt a… Read more: Praying for representatives: US edition
In Richard Pope’s essential book Platformland he pitches a new ‘anatomy of public services’ and uses helpful images to dismantle, reconstruct and develop for 2024 ideas that he was first… Read more: Visualising Government as a Platform
When I left the OECD last summer, it was for several reasons (some of them implicit in this blog post). And I’m pleased that I decided to do so. This… Read more: Back to work
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
