I've said my piece and for the good of mySociety, I will try not to continue saying it in public. However, as I've been mentioned in this thread, I feel I have to respond.
I think Tom has compromised the organisation. By allowing his name to be used in the way that it has, Tom has caused almost irreparable damage to the reputation of mySociety. You may choose to rationalise his actions. You may think that it is unipmportant to remain *and be seen* to remain party neutral because the polls suggest a change of government. And that's a shame, because the organisation was on the cusp of profoundly changing politics in the UK for good. It's going to be harder to do that now. Sure, I asked Tom to shake the tree within government - even when I knew he was talking to the Tories. Despite people telling me that the Conservatives had offered him a job if they won the election, I stuck by him. I did so because I believe in what mySociety is trying to achieve. I wouldn't have dreamed of using him during a conference speech and spinning him a "Labour internet guru". And I thought he had the integrity to avoid that kind of thing. The Labour party members I talk to, many of whom have gone out on a limb to support the organisation from within government, feel like their efforts are not valued today. And I feel very personally let down by Tom. I'm sorry these words are so negative. On 06/10/2009, Matt Wardman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Here are my thoughts in the spirit of open debate, as an interested > outsider, said the giraffe as he stuck his neck out. > > I think that advising a party is OK, and that getting in on the ground > floor with ideas and advice must be a good thing - outside experts do > that all the time. > > I don't personally think that an announcement at a party conference > was necessarily a good idea, particularly bearing in mind that there > is at least another 6 months of this government to go - and we don't > know who the next one will be. But that is not my relationship to > manage. > > >Hasn't Tom advised the Labour government as well? > I think that the distinction between "party" and "government" is very > important. > > My most important point: I think a key principle may be maintaining > (and demonstrating) continuity/appropriate distance, and whether > "ideas" are perceived as being "Tory" ideas or "MySociety" ideas. > There may already have been one instance of this in that Mr Haig's > "reading stage" of a Bill, if I have it right, looks like a > sound-bited version of "free our bills" - but I could be wrong. In > some places that is being questioned as a Tory policy not a good idea > adopted from an outside source. A further aspect should perhaps be to > emphasise excellent work done in the *last* 5 years or so, with the > support of the Parliament and the last Government. > > I think that Tom Watson made a good point about Tom's personal > identification with MySociety, and the need to manage perceptions of > that relationship. > > Having said all of that, I recognise that I'm not either a volunteer > or team member, so I'm happy to be ignored :-) > > Matt Wardman > > > > On 10/6/09, Philip Potter <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2009/10/6 Francis Davey <[email protected]>: > >> 2009/10/6 Matthew Cain <[email protected]>: > >>> There's a significant distinction between advising the government of > the > >>> day (regardless of which party is in power) and advising a political > >>> party. > >>> > >> > >> As I said, this must be some political nuance I'm missing because I > >> don't see it. Sorry. Surely advising people on IT and having a sane > >> policy is a good thing. I'd be happy to advise the Tories on anything > >> I knew about because it would mean they were a better and more > >> effective political party, that in turn can only be good for everyone. > >> I struggle to see how telling people what is a good thing to do can > >> ever be bad. > > > > I can see the argument for eg a civil servant. Civil servants are > > supposed to be apolitical; they advise their political masters through > > their jobs; they are paid from the public purse to do this job. If > > they were to advise an opposition party, they would be seen to be > > political in this action, and if they did it on public paid time, it > > would surely be wrong and a disciplinary matter. > > > > However, AFAIK Tom is not a civil servant; he is not being paid by the > > Tories (and so has no immediate financial interest in seeing the > > Tories win), and frankly, although one can infer that the Tories may > > have more influence over Tom than they did before, I think it is more > > important that they get good, sane IT advice than it is that Tom be > > protected from ever meeting a politician. > > > >> Surely no-one cares *who* is in power provided they do the right thing? > > > > Sadly, this is clearly not the case. I know people who would always > > hate on a Labour/Tory/Lib dem government no matter what they did. (See > > Obama in the US for a prominent example.) > > > > Phil > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list [email protected] > > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
