It’s interesting to compare two approaches to using new technology in the public sector which were both covered in the paper on Wednesday. On the one hand, you have SSE Fellow Paul Hodgkin whose Patient Opinion organisation has successfully used blog/RSS/web 2.0 technology to, as he puts it, create a new citizen-state dialogue. He has some great examples of how hospitals and patients are starting to communicate through the web, through the Patient Opinion interface, and how a new language is emerging to help move us "towards a more nuanced public discussion of the thousands of micro
issues that arise in a complex and networked information society where
voice has been democratised".

Compare that to Labourvision (or for that matter, Webcameron) which is basically like having a selection of excerpts from speeches or interviews, and shows no understanding of the interaction which is key to new technology working (see a pithy take on it here). Or, to paraphrase Hugh at GapingVoid, an understanding of the continuity, authority and passion needed for blogs, podcasts and online videos to work. One of the few who seem to get this, in fairness to Labour, is David Miliband, whose blog is authored by him and, although he doesn’t often post comments, he clearly reads and replies to them where appropriate; and writes posts regularly: most of those reading the blog and commenting clearly view it as useful/value for money.

But, largely, he’s an exception, and perhaps this is a macro/micro issue: perhaps the top-down, large-scale nature of central government doesn’t lend itself well to these types of technology (see also the online petition fiasco), at least in terms of ongoing interaction. On a micro level, though, or for smaller constituencies (be they thematic or geographic), the kind of tools Patient Opinion is using are showing how real changes and differences can be made, and better communication emerge.