Here are a few takeaway thoughts from my afternoon.

1. I barely knew anyone

It’s years since I was a fish in a geeky pool, active in the free culture movement, the KDE community, software patent activism and other odds and sods.

For the past five years or so I’ve moved onto land, or perhaps a coral reef, to be more involved with issues around the environment, housing and pay inequality. The past two or so have been working as a local government employee at the GLA, supporting Green Party Members of the London Assembly. They have pushed for open data, but it’s not exactly a hot topic in our weekly meetings. My only remaining connection has been OpenStreetMap, my one geeky obsession.

Still, it didn’t matter, go along even if you know no-one at all.

2. It was nice to reconnect with optimistic techies

The event reminded me of one of the things I most like about these crowds: they’re all optimistic about the future and enthusiastic about the common interest.

I’m glad I managed to quickly chat to a few people I did know, sort of… Gail via Twitter, and Giles Gibson from the Herne Hill Forum, but sadly I only said as much as “hello” to people like Emer Coleman and Chris Osborne. That’s what you get for arriving late and leaving early.

3. It’s more meaty than you’d think

That’s “meatspace” as in “the real physical world”, compared to “cyberspace” online. Compared to events a few years ago on open data and technology, most of the discussion I heard was about councils and companies working on staff structures and consultation processes, and then thinking about how technology and data could help.

I used to get frustrated with discussions that started with the assumption that open data and technology was going to revolutionise the world. That seemed upside down to me. So I was pleasantly surprised at this.

4. There’s a lot of “we”

Somebody pointed this out in one session – it’s very easy to apply “we” to the wider population when you really mean “we sort of people in this room”.

Often “we” are innovators or early adopters of ideas that become more mainstream, like using a smart phone to access services. Sometimes “we” are set to be a significant minority, like journalists, bloggers and politicians who use data to enhance their investigatory work. Just as often “we” are a world unto our own.

It’s fine, innocent mostly, typical of any event with like-minded people. It just grated on me when people talked about reconfiguring public services or management around their preferences, as though the rest of the world will thank them.

I might make a badge for myself if I go again, with the slogan “we’re not normal” or similar!

5. Theres a lot going on out there

Cocooned in City Hall, working on affordable housing or the pay gap, it’s hard to keep even a toe dipped in this pool. It was great hearing from so many people in so many walks of work and life doing so many useful things.

Sometimes when I map an area for OpenStreetMap, walking down a street noting house numbers, I feel a bit bewildered by all these people living here! London feels impossibly enormous. I left UKGovCamp feeling similarly bewildered by the enormity of work going on in this field, relative that is to my own small bits and pieces in my job and my free time.

The main misconception I want to address is that all policy advocated by elected politicians can, or should, be found in our written party policy. Another way of stating this myth is to say that the policies we debate and pass at conference provide the bulk of the detailed policy used by elected politicians.

Some examples in housing policy

Housing policy is pretty complex, especially in a metropolis like London

Here are some questions that our London Assembly members have tried to answer in the past year:

• How much of the affordable housing grant should we spend on social housing and how much on low-cost home ownership products? Would we prefer to see a greater priority for social homes, even if it meant that we built fewer affordable homes overall, given that social homes require a greater subsidy?
• Should we press for co-operative home ownership to replace the main “shared ownership” offer?
• Would we rather see all social homes brought up to a minimal Decent Homes standard, or a smaller number brought up to a standard that also addressed energy and water efficiency?

Now, let us look for guidance in Green Party policy. In the section on housing we find:

HO103 The Green Party seeks a balanced mix of housing tenures, to meet the diverse needs of the community. These include individual and shared home ownership, leasehold, and others. […] The Green Party seeks to increase the amount of social housing and commonly owned housing as representing the best way of ensuring an availability of affordable housing.

In answering the first question we face a quandary. Party policy supports both social housing and low-cost home ownership (of which “shared ownership” and “leasehold” are two forms). How do we prioritise between the two?

Reading through the rest of the policy, it is clear that there is a much greater concern with social housing than other models, and with addressing housing need than demand. So it isn’t a great leap to suggest that our Assembly Members should be more supportive of social housing.

But advocate a drop in the number of affordable homes built if it means more social homes?

How about support for co-operative housing models such as Community Land Trusts? Party policy has a number of supportive statements, so we can assume that promoting them is probably OK. What about practical measures? Until the autumn 2010 conference, we only had this idea:

HO415 A new Co-operative Housing Agency would be set up to promote, support and fund housing co-operatives. It will be run according to co-operative principles with membership drawn from existing co-operatives.

So the Mayor could establish some sort of support service or agency for housing co-operatives in London. But actually when we did some detailed research into the barriers facing housing co-operatives we developed four other solid policy recommendations (along with a slew of more technical points that were pursued through committee work, formal questions to the Mayor and meetings with his housing officers).

Finally, let us turn to Decent Homes. This programme was designed by the Labour government to bring all social housing up to a basic standard – kitchens, bathrooms, windows and the like. There are also calls to include decent energy and water efficiency standards, but that would drive up the cost and so reduce the number of homes you could improve with the available grant. You might expect that Party policy has a lot to say in this area, but this is what we have for guidance:

HO417 Priority will be given to the maintenance and improvement of existing properties before new house building is considered.

HO502 All new housing will be designed for low energy use, and the same standards applied retrospectively to existing houses where practicable.

EN505 Building Regulations for energy standards to be applied to existing as well as new buildings, except where this would compromise listed buildings; Landlords will have a responsibility to ensure that their dwellings be brought into line with prevailing energy standards at their own expense.

We gather that the Party is concerned with improving existing housing, and giving a certain priority to energy performance. But on the question of how best to allocate the inadequate money provided by central Government, Assembly Members are left to come up with their own answers.

Housing is thankfully an area where our policy is relatively helpful, at least in steering our politicians in the most general sense. In most policy areas, the detail of how you insulate every home or improve cycle safety will never be the same across every local area of England and Wales. In areas such as policing, where issues burst into the political space and dissipate within a matter of weeks, politicians have to think on their feet.

The policy process

To develop new party policy takes at least one conference, and for significant changes two or three. This makes our core policy document – Policies for a Sustainable Society – too slow to keep up with the rapid developments in policy that occur in local and regional government up and down the country.

Members vote on policy at the Spring 2008 conference in Reading

What we in effect work with is a hierarchy.

At the top, the Policies for a Sustainable Society provide a sacrosanct policy framework agreed by members at conferences. No Green politician should be advocating policies that contradict it.

Beneath that, we produce manifestos for national, regional, and sometimes local elections. These elucidate a selection of policies that are most relevant to the politics of the time; they conform with the Policies for a Sustainable Society, though at times it is necessary for the member of the national executive (GPEX) responsible for policy to develop new ideas that significantly extend our policy statements with the involvement of the Policy Committee, the Regional Council, relevant experts and our key elected politicians. For example, in the May 2010 General Election manifesto we proposed to cancel all local housing revenue account debts, freeing councils up to build and maintain council housing. This was debated and agreed by policy wonks and politicians; they couldn’t wait until the autumn conference to put the motion to the Party conference.

At the bottom of the heap you will find politicians and the public servants that support them – usually employees of their local authority rather than the party. In the cut and thrust of politics, we public servants look to our politicians for policy direction and trust that they avoid erring from the Policies for a Sustainable Society and recent manifestos. On occasion we will search party policy for more detailed guidance, but we rarely find satisfaction.

So politicians and their support staff develop policies that represent a significant chunk of their work, detailed policies that you will not find in any conference motion or party manifesto.

Sometimes they find their way back, as happened with a motion on co-operative housing models that I brought to the autumn 2010 conference in my capacity as a party member. Mostly, they briefly reach for effect and then wither amongst the ephemera of daily politics.

There are checks on this. The London Federation scrutinises our Assembly Members’ monthly reports, and an Elected Members Liaison Committee provides an opportunity for further detailed discussion about any points of contention.

This process of policy elucidation and innovation enables our politicians to be relevant, to press for and at times achieve real change in the spirit of Green Party policy, as defined by its members.

Top of my list was to build a cold frame-come-greenhouse for overwintering my herbs. One salvaged broken chair, a trip to the DIY store and a few hours work later and I had fashioned the rather nice frame pictured opposite. It is sitting on our small balcony, the only space available to most Londoners. I’m not really sure which of the strawberry plants, rosemary, mint, coriander, broad-leafed parsley and the chives will survive the winter but at least they now have a cosy little added help.

In between ironing, cleaning, sit-ups and press-ups, I’ve also caught up on some of the debate following the autumn Green Party conference. No mention online of my motion introducing policy on Community Land Trusts being passed, but there is plenty of chatter on the Bright Green Scotland group blog and a very nice roundup from top blogger Jim Jepps.

Thanks to Jim I stumbled across Molly Scott-Cato’s defence of her motion on living within our means; I spoke against this, and have left a comment outlining my reasons. What is interesting is that she ascribes all opposition to “an influx of socialists who are understandably disillusioned with the Labour Party”. Now that certainly does not include me though I have noticed a growing number of self-described socialists, particularly in the Young Greens.

No, what I enjoyed about this conference was the growing number of people interested in policy relevant to our MP, MEPs, London Assembly members and councillors, not just to those who like to think in terms of broad political theory. After weeks of theory and politics crammed into my working day, evenings and weekends, some time with a hammer and saw has been very nice indeed.

Rupert Read has posted some useful thoughts on how the Green Party in England & Wales can build on the historic election of our first MP, and on the rapid growth in membership in recent years. There’s much to agree with, particularly on making the internal systems and finances work. If anything, I think he has understated the importance of finances… even to stay still and retain our two London Assembly Members in 2012, our two MEPS in 2013, our MP in 2015 and over a hundred councillors in between.

Here in London, a lot of thought has gone into our electoral strategy following the near-wipeout in May. I won’t digress into the London strategy here, but Rupert echoes comments from many party members I have spoken to in emphasising the need to blend realism and ambition.

Rupert is also right to ask how we can tighten up our policies, which needn’t amount to a removal of anything radical as Jane Watkinson has suggested. My first concern is that we need to go beyond the dry policy documents to think about how we engage those high-profile elected politicians with changes, so we don’t get (justifiably) bad press like this after so much effort improving policy.

I have provided some advice to Caroline Lucas MP and the office on intellectual property issues, but I can’t be as quick in helping Caroline as I can be in my full-time job supporting our London Assembly members. How can the party provide the politicians with swift responses and germane guidance whilst relying so heavily on volunteers? When researchers employed for the politicians are often restricted in their dealings with other branches of the political party (as civil servants), how can we ensure consistency between offices? More money for researchers in the party office would be a big help.

Though I think Jane’s worries are unwarranted, she is right to ask how we resolve radicalism with realism. My second concern in building on recent success is that our politicians are actually effective, and that we are able to tell the stories of their successes. This is an age-old dilemma for a small party in a big-media world (new/social media are still a bit player when it comes to getting the message out beyond activists).

Trying to be a party of radical politics in Westminster, and one that bucks the “green = environmentalism” label without shrugging off environmental issues altogether, is a tough job. Trying to pick radical policies to advice where there is a realistic prospect of a political gain – i.e. actually changing something – or a prospect of good media coverage to inform the public debate – only makes it harder.

Our Policies for a Sustainable Society run to thousands of words over hundreds of topics. Our 2010 general election manifesto has detailed proposals across most areas of government. Caroline will only be able to notch up limited political gains and big media hits on a handful of national topics; she is only one MP.

Take the Green New Deal, for example, which Caroline is rolling together with an opposition to public service cuts. The current government is going to appear very green to most voters. That is partly because the previous government had such a terrible record; and partly because it is inheriting some fairly radical proposals such as these on energy efficiency. Will Caroline just look like the impossible-to-please nutcase on the fringe, or will she be able to establish a credible line of scrutiny, attack or productive lobbying?

So I am looking forward to hearing at the Autumn conference what she is going to focus on in Parliament, how that will connect with the work done by canvassers and councillors up and down the country, and how the party can continue to forge a distinctive and very focused image for the next tranche of Green voters.

Foundation Board member Henk Hoff (a very nice-sounding chap) was describing the classic technocratic argument that in a “do-ocracy”, those who get on with doing things make decisions by default. Steve must have loved it, you just get on with useful stuff and avoid getting bogged down in pointless debates. Right?

Thea pointed out that in a community of tens of thousands, only a few hundred can “do” stuff like making amazing tools and creating useful maps from the tags they’ve invented. I’m in the bigger mass of people who want to contribute data, see lots of good uses and ways in which OpenStreetMap can improve, but lack the skills to “just get on and do” much that I’d like to with the data. I’ve been at it for five years.

I spend a lot of time involved in local groups trying to improve their town centre, grow food on their housing estate, represent tenants or establish a community-owned renewable energy company. They’ve come up with some great ideas for using OpenStreetMap, but none of us have the skills or money to “just do it”. I’ve tried, for two years, to get others to help with this with very little success. So is OpenStreetMap just not for us? Do I leave them to use Google Maps and miss out on the potential of such an amazing open platform?

Henk’s suggestion that the decisions of the “do-ers” are generally accepted is also just plain wrong. Nobody has ever been able to agree on the appropriate difference between marking a feature as a footway or a path, after years of debate. The same goes for wood/forest and countless other features.

That’s a pretty sad inditement as it makes for even more confusing map detail (the map key is absurdly long, and why should the average map user care if it’s a footway or a path?) that also makes applications like routing needlessly complicated.

Anarchy gives OpenStreetMap real energy and the space for innovation by the do-ocracy elite. But it leads to very inconsistent data and the exclusion of all but a technically hyper-literate few.

Most mappers come from countries run by democratic governance; they use software created by communities with clear and functional democratic structures like this, this and this; there’s a great study on Debian that drives the point home. Many mappers have engaged with the pseudo-democratic process of voting on new tagging proposals. I suspect that most mappers – if you canvassed beyond the extremely vocal elite – would support a more democratic approach to basic decisions about core tags, use of funding, etc.

That won’t stop people “just doing” what they want to do, but it will make the data more useful and the project more accessible for the vast majority of people outside of the technical elite.

Finally, just as we let people who prove their technical skill loose on the technology, why not let people with proven organisational and political skills loose on these problems? An audience member suggested OpenStreetMap was going through puberty. Well as much as teenagers hate to admit it, sometimes authority borne of experience and training is worth listening to.

For these reasons and more we need to hear much more from the likes of Thea and Mikel, and a lot less from techno-junkies like Steve.

Science and technology finally got its day, with two fringe events giving the nerd core a chance to work out how we can avoid this kind of (quite valid) coverage. I’ve high hopes that we can begin to overhaul some fairly ancient and shaky policy, not least because we got such strong and wide agreement that policy should be – golly – based on scientific evidence, as should decisions about NHS treatments. But never mind that “on the back foot” stuff, I’m most excited about the possibility of putting out some really strong messages around science and technology that should resonate strongly with scientists, technologists and the general public.

Keeping the NHS public, in the face of money-wasting PFI schemes; reforming the national curriculum to improve teaching of basic scientific and statistical methods, in the face of popular public science scares and hoaxes; using public funds to promote and expand the place of open access publishing, in the face of threats to public-interest research.

Just some random ideas there… we seem to have a great team working on this now so I’m feeling a good deal less embarassed than I was when the science bloggers pulled some of our policy apart back in May.

On another positive note the Campaign in a Box resources I’ve put together with help from Kate Hand, Sam Smith and Hannah Goudge went down a storm. All the copies that Jon Nott and I managed to bring were picked off the stall within a couple of hours, leaving some slightly sad black & white display copies. Members can grab them from the soon-to-be-overhauled members’ web site, but I am pondering putting them somewhere more public and making a bit of a splash. All rather depends on what the new Campaigns Coordinator and his Campaigns Committee want to do with them, as I might end up making this a solo effort whilst they stick to the “man the barricades” stuff.

I’m now left waiting on the internal elections results with some trepidation, hoping (with some confidence) that the Party pulls together around our 09/10 aim of returning the first Green MP to Parliament!