Manifesto for Local Government Digital Services - part two
I recently attended Nick Hill’s Public Sector Digital Transformation Forum event Local Gov MIDLANDS Transformation, Collaboration & Digitisation at which I did a session to introduce and talk about my Manifesto for Local Government Digital Services.
One thing which especially pleased me about the event was the extent to which the other speakers there were sharing insight and experiences which complemented the ideas in the Manifesto quite well - to the degree that rather than simply write up the other sessions as a simple event report, I can write it up as a Part Two of the Manifesto.
So, to round up what I learned from listening to Kate Hurr, Hilary Jones, Ben Proctor, and others and their presentations:
For about the last 10 years, the work we’ve collectively done to develop and improve our online services has been done so under the banner of Transformation. We could say there have been four phases of that transformation up to now:
- Phase one - 1996. The creation of the first council websites and the baby steps of development they took, starting with initially with just a handful of pages and a handful of reporting forms, eventually crystallising into comprehensive websites (some of which may have been over-comprehensive!), some of which following the standardised pattern of the Local Government Navigation List. The LGNL has come in for a lot of stick in recent years, much of which is now justified, but we often forget what it was for and what it replaced - as the first experimental council websites were created there was a lot of mish-mash of different councils putting different content on their sites sometimes without any strategy behind it, often without any actual navigation structure to enable a user to easily find that content. The LGNL was an attempt to standardise what a council website should contain, providing what at the time was agreed to be a clearly defined information architecture and navigation structure to save web managers the burden of having to make it up from scratch, and to enable users to easily know where to find any given piece of content on any council website.
- Phase two. The first online accounts started to appear, allowing users to login before making reports, which would be entered into Customer Relationship Management systems allowing citizens to receive reports when there was an update to a ticket they’d raised and refer back to the ticket ID when subsequently contacting the council to find out what was going on.
- Phase three. These online accounts and CRM systems, initially standalone entities requiring service area staff to copy and paste information from an email or a service ticket into a dedicated system used by the service to manage their own work - planning management systems, highways management systems, waste management systems, etc. In Phase Three of Digital Transformation these separated systems started to be connected to each other using what’s known as middleware or APIs, allowing the citizen’s report from one system to go straight into the other system - with integration coming back in the other direction when the request was completed - without the need for a human being to be intervening in between.
- Phase four. The phase we are currently in could be characterised by the rise of Local Government as a Platform, and Cloud-based services. As we currently are, these two concepts are more or less interlinked, and are more specifically directed at how the council itself works rather than how the citizen interacts with it. Cloud-based services are services which are not tied to a certain individual being tied to a certain specific computer, or desk, or whatever, but enable a user wherever they are in the world on any device to login to some kind of portal in a web browser, hosted by the service provider rather than within the council’s own network, and be able to access everything they need to do their job instantly. LGaaP is an aspiration by service providers and software vendors to create common services which they’ll host on a single platform and deploy to multiple organisations with changes and updates available instantly to everybody rather than each council having to schedule in those updates onto their own infrastructure.
So far, the main focus of digital transformation has been all about prevention:
- Preventing phone calls and in-person visits
- Preventing paper-based processes
- Preventing duplication of effort
- Preventing long term issues
- Preventing paper-based notifications
Some directions that future phases of digital transformation could take could include
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Automation. I’ve written in the past about how intelligent council websites could make educated guesses about what individual users are interested in based on information which the council’s website can already determine about the user - eg, their location, the weather, the time of day or the season of the year, whether they have council tax accounts with us or not, what the pages they most often visit are, etc. AIDA could be about service areas having computers to predict things which are likely to happen based on what’s happened in the past - if it rains, which street’s bins are least likely to be collected, if it snows, where are more potholes likely to appear, if it’s hot, which leisure centres and swimming pools are most likely to get overcrowded, etc. These kinds of predictions based on the wealth of data we’ve accumulated over the years can enable us to more target and prioritise work in order to better serve our citizens before they realise they need serving - and if it’s a service where it is appropriate for that AI to act automatically, then our citizens can be better served before we even realise they need service.
- True Local Government as a Platform (LGaaP). A lot of council service delivery and service management work is reasonably common in its needs - we have services which need to send bills, take payments, instigate recovery action against people who don’t pay, make payments back to people, take requests, case manage those requests, send notifications. So why do we have separate council tax billing and payment systems, car park season ticket payment systems, penalty charge notice for overstaying parking or straying into a bus lane payment systems, and payment systems to allow people to book a bulky waste collection or subscribe to a commercial waste collection? Why do we have completely separate systems for logging and managing pothole reports, reporting bin collections which haven’t happened, booking bulky waste collections, booking a squash court at the local leisure centre, etc? True LGaaP will recognise that life can be much simpler for council staff, council service designers, and council citizens if these disparate disconnected systems were replaced with single systems which can be configured individually for each particular service’s particular needs. With, of course, the appropriate backup and resilience systems put in place to reduce the possibility of ‘the system’ going down, and if the system does go down, the work of the council can continue until it’s restored.
- Two-way integration between central government and local government. There are some areas of life where the boundary between services provided by local government and services provided by central government are blurred, cross over, or are simply downright confusing. The benefits system is the obvious case here, but other services also have a degree of crossover - health and social care services are another big area, but even things as mundane as trying to report an abandoned vehicle will ultimately end up being dealt with by or require input from a central government agency or a local government agency depending on the unique circumstances surrounding the vehicle. Getting so far into a process only to at some point be told ‘ah, it’s not us you need to tell, it’s them’ is incredibly frustrating for a person, especially if you need to start again providing information you’ve already provided. The Government Digital Service have already created some tools as part of their mission of Government as a Platform - a notification service, a payment service, and an authentication service - these tools could be made available to local government as part of facilitating such two way integration.
- One common Citizen (and Business) ID for all local and central government services. Why do we need so many logins in order to interact with ‘the government’ anyway? Why do we need a separate council website login, a separate HMRC login, a separate library login, a separate leisure services login (whether or not leisure services have been contracted out to the private sector), a separate NHS login, etc? Why can we not have a single government login which will log us into any government service? Such a single government login could incorporate a personal data store for each citizen that they can share relevant pieces of data with other parties as desired / needed - you don’t need to share your leisure bookings with HMRC, you don’t need to share your tax history with your GP, and you don’t need to share your GP appointments with the waste management service. A common government identity which allows the citizen control over what data they share with what government agency would be able to simplify things for the citizen and for the government. With, of course, the appropriate backup and resilience systems put in place to reduce the possibility of ‘the system’ going down, and if the system does go down, the work of local and central government can continue until it’s restored. And the appropriate security controls and measures put in to ensure data can’t fall into the wrong hands.
- Political boundaries crumble. During the whole of my adult life I’ve only ever lived in a unitary local authority area, the Metropolitan County Councils having been abolished when I was 16. I’ve never really understood the concept of two-tier local government, why you might need to go to one council to report a pothole and to another council to report that your bins weren’t collected. The websites of some two-tier local authority areas do better jobs of signposting a service to the correct website than others, but it is plainly inconvenient for the user to need to be signposted in the first place, whether that’s between district and county council websites or between local government and central government websites. It’s equally inconvenient for the user to be wanting to report an issue which they’ve noticed somewhere which happens to be near a boundary, only to be told it’s on the other side of the boundary and they need to report it again to the other council. I myself experienced how broken the process of applying for a copy of a birth certificate is a couple of years ago when it turned out I was applying to the wrong authority and I could have applied centrally anyway. A single government portal which all citizens interact with would mean we won't need to interact with different individual council / central government digital services, we’d just interact with a central common service which sends the request to or pulls the data or information from where it needs to go to automatically. With, of course, the appropriate backup and resilience systems put in place to reduce the possibility of ‘the system’ going down, and if the system does go down, the work of local and central government can continue until it’s restored. Colleagues who’ve been around the block a few times might groan and this ‘this is the Local GDS yet again’ - I too have had some concerns about the concept of a LGDS, not least because of the potential for such a thing to stifle innovation - if different bodies are unable to compare themselves with other similar bodies they can’t see what works better or worse about their own service in comparison with another body’s service. But a common single government portal constructed properly need not be the single instance of the portal - a portal constructed properly using APIs would allow each individual body to put its own local flavour on to it; far from stifling innovation, a proper Open Source API-based Government as a Platform digital service would allow other agencies - public or private sector - to develop their own skins and ways of implementing the service, whether that’s a group of keen individuals who, like the Wikipedia community or the Open Street Map community, simply see a shortfall and choose to fix it out of civic duty, or commercial entities who might see an opportunity to profit out of offering their own premium services on top of the core offer.
Some of these ideas of future phases of Transformation might be easier to realise than others. Some of them might even be more or less desirable to embark on than others.
Do we even want to bring about further Transformation anyway? Is Transformation an appropriate term to use for bringing about the future of local government digital services, of Local Government Digital Services 4.0 or 5.0?
One argument has it that Transformation is irrelevant to the modern era – it's a term based on industrial-era thinking about spending money to invent a machine, deploying that machine, and measuring the return on investment in that machine; the modern era is a complex ecosystem in constant flux where tools, skills, and culture are constantly changing and evolving; it could be said that we need to do gardening rather than transforming. We need to think more in terms of planting seeds, trimming, tending, and pruning, and harvesting in a process of continuous improvement rather than the transformation model of an old-skool waterfall project with the delivery of A Thing at the end of it.
Culture and skills
Of course, part of our gardening activity has to be as much about improving our own skills and cultures as it is about providing services which are of use to citizens. First of all we need to encourage and ensure a positive culture within the organisation - we need to ensure staff are able to openly share their frustrations and their successes, being enabled and encouraged to talk about what they do, how they do it, and why they do it, and what barriers they face in doing it well and what needs to be done organisationally to remove those barriers. Culture change does not come about just as a result of doing an annual staff survey and the chief executive doing a weekly blog post name-checking ‘great team of the week’, it comes about as a result of staff being listened to when they are asked to describe a good day at work and a bad day at work.
And we need to recognise that too many of our colleagues really are, putting it charitably, not quite as IT savvy as the average 14 year old. Worse than that, too many of our colleague - perhaps too many of ourselves, in fact - wear our IT incapabilities on our sleeves as badges of honour; ‘oh, I’m not really very computer literate’ too many of us say in a tone of faux-apology. In 2019 there are too many service areas in too many councils where if a staff member wants to communicate electronically with a citizen, they’ll open up a Word document, with the council headers and footers included and the boilerplate letter formatting, they’ll type their communication into that Word document, they’ll save it to their documents folder on their computer hard drive, open up an email window, and type ‘Dear (sir / madam) - please see attached letter’.
We need to introduce mandatory IT training for all staff - not just training in how to use Word etc, but training in the conceptual bases of how to think about how ITCD can be used to improve service delivery. As well as this we need to create environments in which staff go beyond replicating a 1980s office environment with the tools we’re using, but get up to speed in using modern tools and concepts in our work, tools like videoconferencing, collaboration tools like Teams, Slack, and Sharepoint, planning tools like Trello, etc.
Rules of citizen engagement have changed – citizens have higher expectations; we need to design user-centric services which align with modern (mobile) lifestyles which are speedy and frictionless, which build trust and reassurance, make people feel engaged and consulted, with a service which is personal to them and their choices allowing targeted action, with one single place to transact.
Essential to help us doing this we need a deeper understanding of our citizens, redesigned end-to-end citizen-centric service delivery processes, and new business operating models and ways of working.
#localgovdigital #localgov #manifesto
In group Public / Third Sector Digital
Local Government Digital Services 3.0 - A manifesto
"There will come a time soon when for some councils there won't be a council website any more - the website will be the council" - Tom Steinberg, founder, MySociety
This is the second time I've opened an article with this quote - the first occasion was in March 2016 at the start of A Web strategy for local government. I don't normally do pithy quotes from other people in articles, but this one seems sufficiently relevant that it bears repeating.
But what does it mean?
Go to any modern council website these days, and you'll see more or less the same layout of links on the home page - at the top, you'll see the so-called Top Tasks, links to specific services such as paying your council tax or a parking ticket or reporting a pothole or that your bins weren't collected, followed perhaps by some links to more general service areas, some links which will have been provided by the council's communications and marketing team to the latest council news stories and some marketing and information campaigns they want highlighting, and a series of other links which make perfect sense to the council but perhaps seem a little random to the website visitor.
A lot of the choices for links on the home page, particularly the Top Tasks area won't have come out of the website managers' heads, they will be data driven - if the most prominent four links at the top of your council's home page are to pay your council tax, see when the school terms dates are, report that your bins haven't been collected, and check for planning applications, that will be because the data for the website in question shows that out of all the people who are visiting the council website, they're the most numerous tasks all of those users in the aggregate are wanting to perform on the website.
Does that fit your profile?
I don't know about a lot of people reading this, but personally I pay my council tax automatically by direct debit (and my wife, who is not the bill payer, does not pay it at all), this coming September will be the first time in 30 years of living here that the school term dates will be relevant to me, only a few times since I've lived in this house have my bins not been collected, and I'm generally a live and let live sort who is quite content to let planned development, whether it's the people three doors down wanting to build an extension or a supermarket wanting to build on empty land up the road, be done without the benefit of my opinion on the matter. In short, whilst the home page of a council website might meet the individual needs of an aggregated majority of visits to it, it doesn't meet my own personal needs as an individual citizen.
And the data shows that I am not alone in this, either.
Taking the last 30 days of analytics data of a certain UK council website, there were 3,839,287 total page views. The top viewed page is the home page, clocking up 137,121 or 3.6% of those views, a pair of login-related pages occupy the two and three slots combining to 196,497 / 5.12% of the page views, and some jobs-related pages at positions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 11 account for 187,843 / 4.9% of the site. The first actual service-related pages to show up in the top 20 are a group of rubbish-related pages at 7, 8, and 15 totalling 93,652 / 2.44% of the page views. The next service-related pages are the council tax main page in number 10 at 31,489 / 0.82% of the views, then the school term dates page at 27,508 / 0.72% in position 14.
So to put it another way, on a typical council website home page, the three top service tasks on it account for 2.44%, 0.82%, and 0.72% of the total page views for the site. It would take a piece of detailed analysis outside the scope of this article to drill through the data to see how many of the pages further down the list are part of the suite of pages featured on the home page, but at a rough guess based on the data already analysed, it's reasonable to suggest that the content of the home page is not relevant to 95% of the site's actual visitors, never mind 95% of the citizens the site is supposed to serve.
Of course, we also know from our data that most people using the site don't come in by typing the web address in their browser anyway, we know that 71.6% of visitors have come via search and only 15.3% of those visitors have come directly. What we are less clear on though from a cursory glance at the data is how many of those searches are for '[council name] council tax' which would take them straight to the council tax page, and how many of them are searches for '[council name]' which indeed take them to the home page anyway. Regardless of this, the website's home page is clearly an important page - it sets the standard for all that lies within, it sets out the ethos of the organisation, and indeed it shows the ethos of the design of the digital service it's the principle representative of.
We may never get it perfect, but I contend that the current strategy as has been adopted across the local government digital sector the last 10 years is up for revision.
For the last year or so I've been keeping an eye on the monthly Govmetric channel satisfaction emails. Govmetric's methodology is based on three faces the user clicks - if the user clicks the green smiley face, that scores a 1, if the user clicks the red frowny face, that scores a -1, and if the user clicks the neutral amber face it scores a 0. The scores are added up every month and divided by the number of entries to produce a satisfaction index - so a positive score indicates users have been broadly satisfied during that month, a negative score indicating broad dissatisfaction, and a score around 0 indicates users are broadly content, considering the site to be neither brilliant nor terrible.
Over the few years I've been keeping track, satisfaction for the top three councils for the telephone and face-to-face channels - channels which in most councils have faced significant cuts, with neighbourhood offices being closed and moved to appointment-only and with telephone queue times increasing - have remained consistently high around the net 0.9 score, and indeed increasing slightly over time, with the top council's face-to-face score in April 2019 achieving the maximum possible 1. The top three council's web scores have been consistently much lower in the 0.25 to 0.3 area, and in the time I've been following there has been a slight, but consistent, drop in levels of measured satisfaction, with the top council achieving 0.4 in January 2015, and the top council in April 2019 acheiving 0.32. Council number 10 on the April 2019 list acheived a score of 0.05 from which we can make a reasonable deduction that most of the council websites using Govmetric are achieving negative levels of satisfaction.
We can make all kinds of speculation about why satisfaction has been decreasing over time; ideally we will ask our users. We can speculate that people are expressing their dissatisfaction with the council's actual service delivery rather than expressing dissatisfaction with the information and reporting platform, but that does not explain why citizens are generally well satisfied with the telephone and face-to-face channels. We can say that the warm fuzzies of human contact make people feel slightly less bad about getting a rubbish service, we can say that in an Amazon and Facebook world people have higher expectations of an online service so will be more inclined to click their dissatisfaction with ours.
But these various possible speculations are just self-serving excuses. The data clearly and unequivocally shows that our website homepages are not meeting our citizens' needs, and our sites as a whole are not meeting their expectations; at best, the work we as a sector have been doing over the last three years has failed to keep pace with citizens' expectations, at worst, we have been actively annoying them.
We may never get it perfect, but I contend that the current strategy as has been adopted across the local government digital sector the last 10 years is up for fundamental revision.
If the limit of our ambition is to get more citizens paying council tax and reporting potholes online rather than phoning up to do that, then we will be failing from the outset. We may never get it perfect, but we at least have to try.
One of the websites which consistently features high in the Govmetric satisfaction top 10 is the site for the States of Jersey; not strictly speaking UK local government, but close enough for the purpose under discussion. On hearing about Jersey's success, a friend and colleague, new to working in the local government digital sector, went to look at their website and landed on https://www.jersey.com/ . 'Wow', they said, until I pointed out that was the tourism promotion website, and Jersey's government website is https://www.gov.je/ , which looks somewhat more like any standard UK local government website.
Why is it the limit of our ambition to build websites which look like standard local government websites? Why is it not our ambition to build websites with the same vibrancy and attractiveness of tourism promotion websites? Both classes of websites have the same intrinsic goals - to attract users to the site to engage them in what the organisation (be it the city or the council) has to offer, and to pursuade them to make a quick decision to act there and then. There is no inherent reason why we have to present our top tasks - such is the importance they'll always have on our sites, however they're determined - in a boring plain white oblong on the screen, there is no reason why we cannot present our top tasks in a manner which makes the user go 'wow'. We will never make a user feel good about paying a parking fine, but if we make the experience of paying it be done a little more flair we might make them resent it less. If we make the information about parking in our districts easier to navigate, more engaging to view, and more up to the minute when they park their car, people might incur fewer parking fines in the first place. And if we put the same amount of effort into making the pages on the website containing the county's parking strategy as engaging and readable as the website editor of an online general interest magazine puts into making an article engaging and readable, then we'll have an increase in the number of active and civically engaged citizens who better understand the thinking behind the decisions we have to make and are less likely to complain to us when we have to make difficult ones based on impossible choices.
So what might a digital service fit for the next five to ten years - yes, I accept we have to still be pragmatic about the constraints we're under even though I want to raise the threshold of our ambitions - start to look like?
It should be a number of things. It should be:
- proactive, integrated, and timely,
- personal, and
This does not mean the same website looks nice on your laptop screen as well as your mobile phone screen. It means it should adapt according to all changing conditions, as automatically as possible. If a service depends on the time - such as for example if a citizen can't report a missed bin collection until after 3:30pm on the collection day (because until 3:30pm the crews are still collecting), then don't give them the option to report it before 3:30pm that day, rather than annoying them by letting them start the process and then annoying them. If it's a page about a building, service, or event with open and closed times, if the user visits when the thing is closed put a message on the page to say it's closed, and when it will be open again. If it's a page about events in the area, if it's raining or cold right now prioritise showing the indoor events, if it's sunny and warm prioritise showing the outdoor events.
Proactive, integrated, and timely
Personal digital assistants such as Alexa and Siri are proliferating in the home. I've manually set mine to tell me several times during Tuesday evening every week to do the bins. A digital service which can be integrated into a user's PDA could not just automatically be set up to do the reminder, it would know which bins need to be done on any given week. A digital service which is proactive, integrated, and timely would be tracking and displaying the route of the bin wagon in real time, so that if first thing on Wednesday morning I realise that despite Tuesday's reminders I've still forgotten to put them out, I can see if the wagon has not reached my house yet so I can quickly put my dressing gown and slippers on and catch them before they get to me, and if for whatever reason the bins end up not being collected, I can see the route the wagon took before it decided not to come down my road, and I'll get a message telling my why they didn't collect my bins and when they'll get collected instead so I don't even need to report a missed collection. If I see a pothole, broken manhole cover, or faulty traffic light during my daily walkabout and go to report it, if on the reporting page I can see it's already been reported then I don't need to waste mine and the council's time reporting it again.
Most councils are working with a plethora of line-of-business systems for managing council tax records, housing records, planning applications, committee meetings, street defect reports, etc. Most of which are mutually incompatible (even when created by the same vendor), many of which were designed and built in an earlier age. A lot of effort has to go in to making online systems talk to each other. Sometimes it can't be done at all, so either an online service involves double-handling, or it doesn't happen at all.
The work that most of these systems need to do isn't inherently complicated - most of them are just databases containing records which are created and edited according to a workflow, with various outputs and reports. There is an opportunity for local government digital service providers to clean up here looking at some of the worst examples of poorly designed line-of-business systems and creating modern alternatives. And after all, if the citizen goes to the council website to find out information about logging a planning application, why can they not log that planning application on the same website, and the planning department access and workflow that application through its whole life in the planning cycle in the same system. Planning applications will thus also show up in the local area search on the website - and of course a citizen will also be able to get proactive notifications from their online account of new planning applications related to their chosen area(s).
Of course a lot of local government digital service providers won't want to get into the business of trying to enter a market for a system that another provider already has significant market share and expertise in delivering - they might want or need to just concentrate on their own particular offer. There's no shame in that. However, if all local government systems were to work with open standards and open APIs, with full two way integration that is easy to set up and configure between different systems, then that's fine. If I submit a planning application on the website, a two way integration to the separate planning management system will still make it look to me as the citizen that I'm dealing with one council digital service. With open standards and APIs there will be no need for people configuring different systems to go through the pain of trying to make the public-facing versions of those systems look the same - and then have to update them all when the main council website gets a site refresh, because the data from the LoB system can be surfaced to the website via JSON or another technology. And of course a digital service designed and built in a modular fashion able to easily recieve the data from open APIs doesn't just need to be restricted to other council systems, it could receive relevant data from central government systems, it could receive data from any other system.
Since the council knows that I already pay my council tax automatically by direct debit, there should be no need for the council website to encourage me to pay my council tax every time I go to it. Since the council can see that I look like I live outside the borough rather than in it, it doesn't need to promote so heavily all the services directed at residents, it can instead prioritise showing services directed at visitors. Since the council website is anonymously tracking my user journey behaviour anyway, why not introduce the option for it to explicitly track my personal user journey behaviour, so that over time it can learn which pages I access the most and offer them up to me in the home page top tasks area, rather than offering the top tasks everybody else apparently is interested in? And give me the option to add my own shortcuts on the home page. Why do I have to login to access some of this personalisation, if the personalisation is not personally sensitive - why can't there be an option for some of those preferences to be stored and available to me without an explicit login? And since the website can be configured to receive data from external sources via open APIs, why not enable me to configure the data I want to see myself on the home page from internal and external sources, so I can build up my own local portal?
If we make people go 'wow!' when they come to do something trivial, and make people go 'wow!' when they come to do something important, then they'll tell their friends. Their friends will tell their friends. The local media will tell its readers how good the council digital service is and how well the money is being spent. We'll achieve our channel shift and savings goals because people will not want to interact with us any other way - for those people, the council website will indeed become the council.
If we limit our ambition to getting more people to pay their council tax online, then we'll probably struggle to even achieve that. Let's raise our ambitions to create digital services which make people go 'wow!'.
#localgovdigital #localgov #manifesto
In group Public / Third Sector Digital
The Crumbling of Parliament
So everybody laughed yesterday at the House of Commons being suspended yesterday because of water gushing in through the ceiling. But here's the thing.
The Palace of Westminster is an historic building, part of our nation's heritage. Like all our other historic buildings it's supposed to be held in trust and protected, just like the buildings and monuments from ancient history have been by their civilised custodians.
The occupants of the Palace of Westminster have know for years that the building is literally crumbling around them - not only do all the utilities within a working building need upgrading, the masonry itself is falling apart - on a near-monthly basis a piece of the stonework will fall off and come crashing to the ground. But the elected occupants have for years prevaricated about coming to a decision on what to do about it. Everybody knows what actually needs to happen is they all need to decant to somewhere else entirely for a couple of years whilst a relatively short and relatively cheap complete repair and upgrade job is done, all in one go. But a sizeable number of MPs don't want to do that, they want to instead spend a couple of decades, and considerably more money - your money and my money, which could be spent on the NHS instead - on a bit by bit repair and upgrade programme, closing off sections of the building and re-opening them bit by bit.
So because they've been unable to agree on how the major repair works get done (hell, they only just managed to agree to start the repairs to the Elizabeth Tower in which the clock is kept, and there were plenty of them who opposed even that), they've not done anything beyond the odd urgent patch here and there. Leading to what happened yesterday.
Not only are they pissing about whilst the nation falls apart around them, they're pissing about whilst their own workplace falls apart around them; if they can't even be trusted to fix their workplace, how can they be trusted to fix the nation?
It's not just time for a General Election, it's time for a General Election in which every single sitting MP has to contest an open primary to be selected as their party's candidate. Or not be permitted to stand at all - we need a fundamental restacking of our democracy.
Brexit, omelettes, and eggs
This, by or via Facebook user Jane Cody, is currently being widely shared around Facebook; reproduced here as fair use to allow people to see it without having to login to Facebook.
LEAVER: I want an omelette.
REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.
LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]
REMAINER: They’re in the cake.
LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.
REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake.
LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.
REMAINER: Icing is good.
LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.
DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.
DAVID CAMERON: OK.
DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.
LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette?
REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.
LEAVER: Well, get them out.
EU: It’s our cake.
JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.
REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out?
LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.
REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought?
LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now.
THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it.
THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.
REMAINER: Yeah, but…
LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like.
EU: It’s our cake.
REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.
LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible.
REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.
LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.
REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?
LEAVER: You lost, get over it.
THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this.
REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?
THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.
REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?
JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.
EU: It’s our cake.
LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette.
REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.
LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.
REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.
LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.