Tag: UK Politics

Data-driven politics

Both the EU referendum in the UK and the presidential election in the USA have generated a lot of debate over what influenced the results. They were close campaigns. There are many things that could have led to a different outcome. I’ve been particularly interested in the debate over the role played by technology, the web and data.

I think the debate is missing how politics risks becoming driven by data rather than informed by it.

Technology-driven progress, globalisation, fake news, social media, malicious and mischievous actors

Technology is a major strand in the debate about globalisation, nation states, jobs and inequality. The web and data are at their best when they are world-wide, open and know no boundaries but it is essential that we use technology-driven progress to build a better society for everyone.

Technology and the web play a big part in the increased consumption of news online and on social media rather than through more traditional media channels and in particular the changing economics of media and the rise of fake news.

Technology, the web and data are also present in the investigations into the potential role played by organisations and people that may be malicious, for example foreign governments, or simply mischievous. In the UK a report claimed that 1/3 of the tweets on the EU referendum in a one week period were created by bots.

Whilst debate about hacking and bots continues in other countries, such as Germany, this story seems to be at risk of slipping off the radar in the UK and USA. A more informed debate about their effects and purpose would seem useful.

But there’s a fourth element that I’m barely seeing debated at all. Data-driven politics.

Data-driven politics

Politics has always gathered and used data to help it make decisions. This data comes from door knocking, censuses, opinion polls, focus groups and election results. In our current age of data abundance there are ever more and cheaper ways for anyone to gather and use data. Some of the uses by political parties seem to be at risk of copying the worst excesses of online marketing.

In the UK Labour leadership contest in 2016 organisations such as Momentum and Saving Labour talked of capturing email addresses and the reach of their social media channels. Neither group has been open about who is in control of this data, whether it is secure from hacking or how it is used.

Following the UK’s referendum on the EU one of the Leave organisations, Vote.Leave, talked of its superior use of data and how it was used for targeted advertising. The BBC reported that:

“Their dream was of a system that could put information from Twitter, canvassing, polls, websites, apps, into one giant IT programme that would then churn out extremely sophisticated models that would reveal the areas most likely to vote Leave, down to the street.”

Other campaigns and political parties debunked their claims on twitter and proudly said their data tools collected more information. No one questioned whether either was appropriate or healthy for democracy.

The New Statesman reported on the plans of a UKIP funder to start a new political party saying he claimed that Leave.EU’s email database was “a goldmine to anyone doing digital campaigning”. No one asked if it was either legal or right to transfer this “goldmine” to a new political party.

In America the Trump campaign was talking about its heavy use of data before the campaign finished. One insider on the data team said:

“There’s really not that much of a difference between politics and regular marketing.”

I hope I’m not alone in thinking there should be a difference between politics and marketing.

The Trump team used Facebook to target particular adverts to discourage black Americans from voting. Following Trump’s victory there are reports of one of the major data analytics firms being employed on an ongoing basis by both the government and an ongoing Trump campaign organisation.

This increase in the use of data to both listen to and influence people in political debates raises a number of issues.

There are biases in data and in how we use data

Data has biases. This might occur because there are gaps in how we collect data: for example ~10–20% of the UK and US population are not online because of issues such as cost, disability, location or motivation. Data also includes the biases in society such as those affecting gender and race. Bias can also occur through the people who decide how to analyse data and code the algorithms. People write code and people are biased.

If our political parties increasingly use the web and data to get them over the electoral winning line then they are likely to focus their efforts on winning over groups that are well represented in the data and predictable by the algorithms. Other people may be ignored.

National slogans, targeted adverts

The recent campaigns hint at a trend towards very broad brush national slogans (Make America Great Again!, Take Back Control) coupled with targeted campaigns aimed at particular interest groups.

Someone working in the car industry living in the Northeast of England might see an advert telling them that a political party is supporting car factories in Sunderland but see nothing else about that party’s policies or beliefs. The political party can see how that person responds to the advert — whether they comment, share, like, or retweet it — and use that data to tailor their next advert.

Some of these campaigns will come through official channels but targeted campaigns will come from through social media adverts, local (sub-brand in marketing speak) or unoffical channels. Coupled with the ongoing loss of funding for and trust in national journalism this will make it ever more difficult for a coherent national debate where a society makes an informed choice about its future. Instead political parties will tell different groups of people what they think they want to hear based on data.

We risk becoming more fragmented and the importance of values and principles in politics could become ever weaker as politics becomes more data driven.

Now some of this type of political advertising occurs already but technology, the web and data allow it to happen at a larger scale and at a cheaper cost. I can only imagine the voices in political campaigns saying that this is a race and that the process must become faster and more automated through “smart” algorithms. As we have already seen in other sectors these algorithms risk embodying and multiplying the biases in the data.

Use of data in political campaigns will influence how politicians govern when in office

Finally, there is an ongoing debate about the use of data by governments and the private sector. This debate concerns the rights and responsibilities that people and organisations have when data is collected and used. There are calls for greater control by people and more scrutiny by regulators.

This debate needs to include political parties.

If our political parties believe that the only way to get elected is through the use of data and algorithms then they will use them. If that use is not questioned and people are not held to account then that use could be normalised. Politicians might carry those normalised beliefs into office and it risks affecting how they govern and how they legislate.

Data-driven politics

Politics can be improved by new technology, the web and data.

The web offers ways for more people to be engaged in politics and it gives them more tools to influence politics. The web can help with a transfer of power from the centre to communities and people. Data can provide better evidence for policies and make it possible for us to trial new policies before they are implemented on a large scale and at a big cost. Better use of data can help improve public services and the economy.

These things can be dazzling. But we need to recognise the risks. Not just that some technology innovation is pointless but also that some uses of technology are actively harmful. That they can harm individuals and communities and that copied wholesale into politics they can damage democracy.

Rather than being driven by data we need to encourage politics to be informed by data, to be open about how it uses data and for political parties to use data and technology to help people engage with politics and make better decisions based on both evidence and their values and principles. It’s up to all of us, particularly those of us with knowledge of technology and data, to help make sure that this happens.

Growing an open Labour Party

I was excited by the talk of opening up and modernising the Labour Party during the leadership campaign.

Both Stella Creasy, who has been talking sense about this stuff for a while, and Tom Watson spoke about it at length in the deputy leader campaign.

On Monday I got a little depressed when I saw the job advert for a new Director of Digital for the Labour Party . It looked like a marketing job for yet another centralised political party. But then a couple of things happened to make me hopeful again:

  1. Jeremy Corbyn got Labour HQ to run a crowd-sourcing campaign for his first PMQs. It’s not a novel idea but it is an important one and it’s always lovely to see someone turn talking into doing.
  2. James Darling, aka @abscond, who worked on the Jeremy Corbyn campaign published a great piece on what he learnt during the campaign and some ideas on how to build an open Labour party.

James’ thoughts aligned with many of my own.

I got involved in the Labour Party in 2014 as a volunteer working with Chi Onwurah, her team and a group of volunteers running an open process to review digital government. I’m not a policy wonk by trade, it was my first ever policy work, so it’s over-long and a bit dull in places but I did manage to sneak in a few easter eggs along the way….

I left a couple of thoughts on James’ post based partly on his writing and partly on my own thoughts and the discussions I’ve been having with various Labour and digital democracy people over the last year. Another James (this time James Smith, aka @floppy) suggested that I expand on those comments.

Inclusion

10.5 million UK adults lack the basic digital skills to go online. Lack of basic digital skills is most prevalent in the DE socioeconomic groups. According to the last census 138,000 people in England and Wales do not speak English with 4 million not having English or Welsh as their main language. I could go on with many many more exception cases.

The existing Labour institutions and processes may be old and creaking but, as difficult as they are to understand, and as much as they need to be simplified, they have grown to try and cater for this complexity. The processes are obscure but they do allow lots of people to get involved in and contribute to the party, its policy development and the campaigns it runs. There are accountability checks and balances.

So, whilst we need to modernise and give world class digital tools to people, we also need to be conscious of inclusion and inequality in all its forms.

In one of my own specialist areas, digital inclusion, due to the political choice of austerity the current Government has done little to tackle the issue. The challenge has been left to charities, businesses and volunteers. Even Parliament’s new petition system shows no awareness that so many people are not online.

Online meetings have barriers just like in-person meetings. The Labour Party’s crowdsourcing exercise for PMQs fell into the same design trap as Parliament’s petition system by not recognising that it provided no way for people without digital skills or access to contribute.

But the challenge of inclusion and equality in a party is so much more than digital inclusion, and if we modernise the party we need to recognise those challenges.

I want to see the Labour Party website supporting multiple languages. I want to see people able to contribute ideas and thoughts anonymously. I want to see Labour Party members and volunteers given digital training and helping others to get online. I want to see proper accessibility for disabled people. I want to see routes to contribute to policy that mix online and offline. I want to see a fully inclusive Labour party regardless of gender, sexuality, race, faith, age or skillset. I want to see everyone, no matter how shy or how loud, encouraged and supported to contribute to open policy discussions.

When rebuilding the Labour Party for the modern age we need to bake-in both inclusion and accountability. Sometimes the user need is democracy.

The Labour Party needs to work for everyone.

Think local

Local government and locally delivered services are important, so are our members, local parties and councillors.

Most people’s experience of the public sector is local. Cleaning up dogshit, emptying bins, cleaning roads these are all things that local government is doing for us every day. It is local government that administers many benefits and that is working with the NHS to integrate health and social care. Local government budgets have been heavily cut by Treasury. This will impact services.

Devolution is now happening with massive transfers of power and responsbility to local regions. Labour runs many of those regions. In some cases extremely well. The gap between the centre of the party and local government has been growing, it’s becoming increasingly urgent that we fix that problem.

In a smarter state many policies can be trialled and rapidly iterated. This approach can’t be used in every case, rapidly iterating foreign policy may be slightly counterproductive…, but there are many public services where these agile delivery and policy development techniques can be used.

If ideas developed through Labour’s open policy discussions can be trialled locally then even when Labour is in opposition in Whitehall it can continue to use the Labour movement to improve people’s lives.

To give some examples. Collaborative ways for teachers to develop lesson plans to reduce effort and give better outcomes for children. Practical ways for communities to tackle broadband issues so more people can get online. Testing whether a basic income gives better results than a new minimum or living wage. Rethinking mass transit. The possibilities are actually quite exciting.

Labour can innovate in local government when, because we are out of power, it will be difficult to do so in the centre.

If the policies work then the Labour Party should celebrate the local government success and help other regions to adopt them.

Members should be challenging local government, just as they should be challenging the central party, but an open and modern Labour Party needs to build a culture that can accept these challenges and that is open to ideas. A movement where ideas from members and the centre can be tested locally and where the centre of the party is receptive to ideas that emerge locally and are better than their own.

Open by design

We should go further than publishing data open-by-default. The Labour Party should become open by design.

Openly publishing Labour’s processes: dates of meetings, local groups, voting history of MPs and Councillors, campaigns and candidate elections is absolutely right but as we enter the world of open Labour we need to make conscious decisions about how we use data and when we publish it openly.

The crowdsourcing exercise for PMQs got 40,000 responses. With a well-communicated data usage policy the Labour Party could arrange to publish all of the ideas after PMQs. Or analyse them to discover common themes, perform sentiment analysis, understand whether they were from members (or not) and then publish the results as openly as possible.

There will be times when Labour should choose not to publish data but there was nothing exclusive about this batch. Other parties can gather much the same ideas. The more eyes we have poring over those ideas the more value we can glean from it and the better understanding we have of what people want. We can lead by example and challenge Government to do the same with the ideas it gathers from the public sector.

Unfortunately the PMQs page did not even have a basic privacy policy, let alone a data usage policy. That should not happen again. We need to clearly tell people how we will use their data and ideas.

Labour needs to be open by design.

Work together to build a better politics

Finally when building an open and digital party we need to be careful not to imagine that we are creating a ‘minimum viable party’ and iterating from there. The Labour Party already exists and parts of it work pretty well.

Jeremy Corbyn and Jon Trickett used open policy to build the Northern Futures policy document. Angela Eagle and her team ran a massive open policy exercise, YourBritain, during the last Parliament. Stella Creasy helped people start and run campaigns during her deputy leadership run. Chi Onwurah publishes open data on her constituency visits and ran an open process for the 2014 digital government review.

There are party members, councils and councillors up and down the country who are doing similarly great stuff. Camden Council have openly shared their work on digital transformation whilst Theo Blackwell, the councillor in charge, engaged his citzens a series of articles on how the council was tackling its budget cuts. Elsewhere Newcastle Council run participatory budget exercises. There are vibrant communities of Labour thinkers and doers running campaigns, writing up ideas and getting stuff done up and down the country.

Whilst these are all good they do need to improve. Better use of digital design and modern technology can improve things massively but we need to work with people. Seeing them and their communities as building blocks that will help form an open Labour party.

As well as building some new services from scratch we should also research where bits of open Labour already exist. Understand who the communities are, what needs they and the people they represent have, what lessons they have learned and then collaborate with them to iterate and improve and iterate and improve and iterate and improve.

I’m excited about an open and modern Labour Party. It’s a cultural change, not a technology one, but it’s a change that the party can make.

A party that uses modern technology and is designed to be inclusive and accountable. One that thinks and innovates locally and rapidly. A party that is open by design and that works together to build a better politics.

If we all recognise the opportunity and work together to grab it we can both build and be part of this new kind of party. It will make Labour more responsive to people’s needs and make the country a better place for everyone.

Just like James I recognise the opportunity, I hope you do too.

© 2026

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to provide a more personalized experience and to track your whereabouts around our website in compliance with the European General Data Protection Regulation. If you decide to to opt-out of any future tracking, a cookie will be setup in your browser to remember this choice for one year.

Accept or Deny