Time to turn open-source words into action

Without firm targets, progress is likely to be limited.

Since early 2004, it has been the government's stated policy to use open-source software in the public sector wherever possible, as long as it offers the best value for money.

To date, the policy has had little impact. So will the latest tweaks to its open-source action plan make a difference?

Software is "open-source" when the source code is freely available to be viewed, shared or changed -- things that you can't do with conventional proprietary software. Crucially, open-source is also the cheaper option in many cases.

So how good is the government's record on using open-source so far?

In its latest action plan, it gives three key examples of how it has increased its use of open-source. First, it says that over 25 per cent of secondary schools use the Linux operating system on at least one computer: small beer, given that the government first published its policy on open-source in 2004.

Second, the series of National Health Service databases known as "Spine" uses an open-source operating system. And third, Birmingham City Council has been rolling out open-source software across its library services since 2005.

These last two instances would be more compelling if they didn't also serve to show just how few projects there have been to date.

Yet according to one open-source executive, the situation may be improving. John Powell, co-founder and CEO of the British open-source content management firm Alfresco, told me last year: "The UK has always been something of an open-source laggard. But things are definitely changing fast, not least since the government published that policy document."

 

Who's in charge?

Others are less optimistic. Commenting on the most recent tweaks to the action plan, Steve Shine at the open-source database firm Ingres said: "From the outset, we have commended the UK government for its comprehensive and balanced approach. However, we still struggle to see how these latest changes will have much impact, as this policy is not being enforced.

"These latest changes still leave it unclear as to which part of the government will be responsible for enforcing these policies. We look forward to the Chief Information Officer clarifying this vital point as soon as possible.

"In our experience of working with government IT suppliers," Shine continued, "the money that has been recouped so far from open-source initiatives is just a drop in the ocean compared to the billions of pounds that could be saved if the government takes a hard line on IT procurement, which could easily equate to several pennies being carved off the basic rate of tax."

The government should be congratulated for keeping its open-source action plan up to date. Now, with the latest tweaks, particularly around what its policy means in the era of "cloud computing", let's see if its open-source words can speak as loud as its proprietary actions.

But a problem remains: so far, the government has set no clear targets for the increased adoption of open-source software.

In the action plan, it states that it "will actively and fairly consider open-source solutions alongside proprietary ones in making procurement decisions", that "procurement decisions will be made on the basis on the best value-for-money solution to the business requirement", and that "the government will expect those putting forward IT solutions to develop where necessary a suitable mix of open-source and proprietary products to ensure that the best possible overall solution can be considered".

But one wonders whether, without any firm targets, there is likely to be much progress with adopting open-source software in the public sector.

Jason Stamper is NS technology correspondent and the editor of Computer Business Review.

Jason Stamper is editor of Computer Business Review

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.