It was my initial feeling (and remains so) that the Prime Minister’s web site should be the main portal to the workings of the British government and be internationally recognised as such. The main problem that I saw with it at the time was that there was insufficient interaction. It appeared to be little more than a place for peoples’ "moans and groans". Most of all, I was concerned at the number of complaints from users of the site that felt their messages were being politically censored, or otherwise rejected without explanation.

My intention was therefore to provide a facility whereby users of the site could refer their concerns to a completely independent group that would act as arbitrators. The IUG is not a formal organisation as yet, but rather a very informal group of site users who contact one another by email. Our members come from all over the country and we also have overseas members (in the US and Canada presently).

Since the site was re-launched in February of this year, we have seen many improvements, yet there are still areas that concern us greatly. Foremost amongst these are the ability of posters to submit anonymous messages, accusations of censorship and the lack of contributions in the "Have Your Say" section from the PM, ministers and officials. These concerns will be expounded later in this paper. Above all however, we seek to establish a professional relationship with the administrators of the web site. We recognise that running the site is a sometimes-difficult job and that our task is to both support the No. 10 staff as well as criticise. We believe that the site deserves the very best resources, in terms of site design and navigation and we want to see it flourish. We feel that in knowing more about how the site is managed and hearing about future plans will assist us in providing an independent service to site users, in line with our founding principles.

We would highlight the following areas that we believe need addressing:

People have been writing to the Prime Minister for centuries. Most people accept that they will not always get a personal reply from the PM, but they do expect that their correspondence will be officially acknowledged. With the introduction of the web site, many correspondents are using this medium in an attempt to contact the PM.

Number 10: They have looked at the US system but their feeling is that it is a little too impersonal. They told me that the amount of normal correspondence arriving at No. 10 over the last few years has steadily increased, to the point where the staff who deal with it are already overburdened. The Editor’s view was that if he provides an email address on the forum pages for direct contact, that will allow his team to filter any particularly important messages out. I asked if it would be possible for them to directly forward any sensitive matters that required personal intervention (a la "write to your MP" mode) to the relevant government department and reply to the correspondent informing them that this had been done. He said he would like to be able to do this and would look into it further.

We believe however, that the topics in Speakers Corner that specifically relate to the site’s operation (such as "Suggested Topics") should have more responses.

There is of course the option that correspondents could address their concerns to the Users’ Group, rather than the site Editor, especially where they are complaining of political censorship. Provided that the Users’ Group is assured that the Editor will look into cases referred back to him by the UG, this might ease the burden on the admin team somewhat. I think many of the points that correspondents bring up could be handled by the UG without having to refer those points back to Number 10.

Number 10: Pointing out the massive numbers of messages received, the Editor said that his six-strong team are always hard-pressed to read every posting every day, but they do try to achieve that. He was very responsive to the idea of the Users’ Group acting as a referee and said he would give us every co-operation in that respect.

Number 10: They told me the first Policy Forum response would be on the site in the next few days. Since our meeting, Jack Straw’s reaction to the "Parenting" debate has been published. My initial reaction is good – I hope the government really do mean what they say about taking public opinion into account.

One of our members has suggested a return to the "Expert View" contributions that were seen on the "old" site. He says that people are more likely to respect the views of expert commentators who are not members of the government. We suggest that such expert commentators are accorded the privilege of an identification icon, in order to combat impersonators.

The question of ministerial responses is pressing. We feel however that although the number of topics has grown considerably, users often tend to mistake the "Speakers Corner" section as one in which they can directly address government departments. We believe that if it’s made clear on the site, perhaps via links to other sites, where people can expect to get official responses to their queries, this problem may partly be solved. It would be great if the PM, ministers and senior officials could be persuaded to add their contributions to Speakers Corner now and again, though we recognise the difficulties to which all busy working people are subjected.

Number 10: This was their first priority. They realise that they made some rash promises at first, without coming up with a suitable format to address it. They are going to introduce an online discussion feature where a senior minister will be lined up to take and answer questions interactively on a particular day. So far, it’s being proposed that the first such discussion may involve Agriculture Secretary Nick Brown. Asked whether the PM actually sits at a PC and reads Speakers Corner messages, the Editor said that Tony Blair does that occasionally, though of course he can’t afford too much time, but at least he is making the effort to keep in touch with what people are saying on the net.

There may be concerns of security on the part of some users, who may feel they may be subjected to covert surveillance as a result of identifying themselves. The considered view of most IUG members is that anyone who has a legitimate point to raise should not be afraid to speak out. There could be safeguards provided by the site to address these concerns.

Number 10: A registration system is being introduced very shortly. Details are being worked out with the software developers, but they want it to have a simple interface.

We are concerned that the "language filter" that is designed to automatically exclude messages containing offensive language is defective. It excludes words that are in common, polite usage. We wish to see it discontinued. If it is not possible to provide constant monitoring of messages by Number 10 staff, then we suggest that the Editor stress in forum introductions that (upon the restoration of registration) offenders will either be given a warning or barred from the site.

Number 10: We had extensive discussions on this one. The Editor asked me if I thought that the filter should be removed or more extensively edited to permit words such as "bomb" and "anarchy" to be used freely. I told him that my personal view was that it was best removed, since most users are adult enough to read swear words and that children using the site would see little (if anything) they couldn’t read on their school wall. I added that after registration for site users, it would be easier to remove offenders’ messages and stop them using the site. The Editor feels that he would like to use some kind of "yellow card, red card" system, as used in soccer and be able to "suspend" users for a period of time. Since the meeting, Russell Oppenheim has emailed me, saying that he has edited the filter to remove all but the very worst obscenities.

In supporting the Independent Users’ Group, Number 10 has an avenue to which it can refer such matters. We would expect that the site’s Editor would agree to any complaint referred to him by the Users’ Group being fully investigated. For our part, the Users’ Group would seek to assure the Editor that we would only take such action if we could not resolve the problem on the basis of the evidence presented to us.

Number 10: The Editor said that he was inclined to delete any postings that were blatant electioneering, regardless of which party or candidate was being supported. It was his view that this would reassure users that the site was not being used for Labour Party propaganda. I said I thought he should think again about this one, because such a policy would severely restrict debate. I said that it was usually obvious when someone was electioneering, and that, often as not they "shot themselves in the foot" with their comments. I further remarked that deleting this kind of posting really would be political censorship, even if it was applied even-handedly. He would give this some further thought.

Number 10: I was informed that they had just done a "clearout" that would improve the access times and that they were working with the software developers to further improve response times. Once again, it was all a matter of resources and funding.

I made one post in the Policy Forum on the web site that discusses suggestions for the site in which I said that I felt the Editor should identify himself by name and provide an email address where he can be contacted. I drew the analogy to the Press, where newspaper editors are known. I realise that this may well result in much flak being directed to the Editor and yet I think that it would go a long way towards providing a little more confidence for users.

Number 10: The Editor had given this some weighty consideration. He told me that he wasn’t personally afraid of "going public" but that after the exposure of his boss, Alistair Campbell, there had been many accusations of "spin doctoring". He did say that he had authored one Cabinet report where he had suggested that he should identify himself as the person who had written the report. I told him that this really was a matter for him to decide. He says that he is going to publish an email address on the discussion pages where correspondents can write to him directly.

"The political debate is stimulating and informative. I think that it has value in the UK and could be an excellent forum for citizen participation and interaction with government. I wish you good luck in developing the User Group and with the site development."

2) Possibly with a view to discouraging posters to talk to each other, I find it difficult to open the e-mail addresses and the "outlook express" system is not installed on some public computers."

"My bottom line is things need to be made clearer. There may be no need for substantive changes. I can't comment on much of the site's procedures because I simply do not know what they are. This is the problem. A quick suggestion- you know those icons in the forums? (message, Official reply etc) It might be nice if the User Group could have one. That'd raise the profile a bit."

"I think the No. 10 Downing Street Web Site is an outstanding opportunity to have a really sensible and serious Board without all the usual dysfunctional nonsense!"

"I must say that the attitude of the web-master seems to be much more positive and responsive. They seem to acknowledge people's desire to see official participation in discussions and I believe them when they say that at present they are over-burdened with work. I am sure that they are also worried that ill-considered statements by officials or ministers might leak out via discussion on the web-site and get into the press.

I see the policy forum as a mechanism to encourage discussion with some official participation, but with minimum risk to the government. But I do not think that so far they have been a terrific success. They are on moderately non-controversial subjects, with no official participation during the discussion. I find the questions also restricting and do not allow anyone to question the basic assumptions behind the proposal"

"Regarding a facility where one had the option of giving an email contact address, my feeling is that one should be prepared to stand by one's words and in any case, aliases are frequently used or second e-mail addresses given - probably advisable as I recall someone receiving direct and graphic propaganda from Timor.

The fact that the Government has decided to consult with you and to see how it can improve the service is a good sign as it means that they are concerned about their lack of credibility and that many people are now sick of spin doctoring."

"If I have any point to add to your discussion it is just maybe two: #1 That people realize the potential audience that views or reads these messages when posted, and # 2 The importance and the freedoms granted by the use of this site or known this is a open forum for all it’s really a privilege. 20 years ago just think could we have imagined such a site?"

J. Kevin Webster

The meeting was a very useful exercise for both the Users’ Group and the Number 10 staff. My next task is to further build up the Users’ Group and I would welcome any ideas that any of you may have as to how best to do this. I’m unsure whether to stick with the informal set-up we have at present, or to think about a more structured organisation. That would require us finding some source of funding. The Downing Street team want to have further meetings, and suggested the next one could be here in Lincoln, (where I live). Before that however, I really would like to have some others from the group with me. Any offers???

Thanks again for all your input and for trawling through this lengthy tome!

Kevin

March 31^st 2000