Tech Expert Urges Politicians to Embrace Policy Iteration Over U-Turn Criticism
A leading product manager has called for a fundamental shift in political culture, arguing that policymakers should adopt the agile methodologies common in the tech industry rather than treating policy adjustments as embarrassing U-turns.
Recent Commons Exchange Highlights Problematic Approach
The comments follow Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch's recent criticism of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak during Prime Minister's Questions regarding potential changes to digital identification plans. Badenoch suggested that adapting the policy represented a lack of clear direction, echoing a common political narrative that treats flexibility as a character flaw rather than a sensible response to evolving circumstances.
Alan Ogilvie, a Manchester-based product manager with extensive experience in software development, contends that this rigid approach to governance is fundamentally flawed and counterproductive.
Learning from Tech's Evolution
"In technology development, we abandoned the rigid 'waterfall' approach years ago," explains Ogilvie. "That outdated method required everything to be mapped out in minute detail before any real progress could begin, often leading to expensive failures when circumstances changed or new data emerged."
Instead, modern tech companies champion lean and agile methodologies that emphasise continuous improvement through feedback and adaptation. "This doesn't mean starting without direction," clarifies Ogilvie. "You still need a strong vision of what you're building and why. But you build, listen to feedback, and pivot when evidence suggests a more efficient path to your goal."
Bipartisan Problem with Political Culture
The criticism of policy adaptation is notably bipartisan, with opposition parties historically quick to weaponise the U-turn label against governing administrations. Ogilvie suggests this political culture has been fuelled by media narratives and public expectations that demand unwavering consistency from leaders.
"In any other professional field, refusing to adapt to new feedback or technical reality would be considered a failure," argues Ogilvie. "Why do we insist our politicians remain lashed to underperforming policies just to avoid negative headlines?"
Proposed Shift in Parliamentary Dynamics
Ogilvie proposes that Parliament would function more effectively if opposition parties worked collaboratively to help governments refine policy "products" rather than simply waiting for opportunities to criticise adjustments.
"We should be far more concerned about a government that refuses to listen than one willing to refine its plans based on evidence," he states. "A change in course shouldn't signal weakness - it usually indicates a working brain processing new information."
Broader Implications for Governance
The digital ID proposals themselves become almost secondary to the broader methodological question about how policies should be developed and adjusted. Ogilvie's argument suggests that treating governance more like product management could lead to:
- More responsive policymaking that adapts to changing circumstances
- Reduced political stigma around evidence-based adjustments
- More collaborative parliamentary dynamics focused on improvement
- Better outcomes through continuous refinement rather than rigid adherence
As political debates continue to frame policy evolution as inconsistency rather than intelligent adaptation, voices from outside Westminster are increasingly questioning whether the current approach serves the public interest or merely perpetuates unproductive political theatre.
