While it is nice to see government trying to engage citizens in various ways, I disagree with your conclusion that the politicians are key to good crowdsourcing. The politicians are the root of the problem.

The saying “power corrupts” is not idle speculation. It is very real, and politicians have very little incentive to hand over control. So we see approaches like the ones you list, where the politicians ask the people for input on decisions. Crowdsourcing, right? But who makes the decisions in the end? The politicians, and nobody else. They are trying to write crowdsourcing into the process without out injuring their own lofty positions.

I invite you to take another look at the Metagovernment project. We’re sticking with our bottom-up approach: ignoring the politicians and the formal government structures, and building tools for communities to develop their own forms of governance. We don’t have massive government or corporate funds, but our member projects are coming up with some really innovative and new approaches. I’d encourage you to look at the cross-project free-range voting project (see specific proposals).

Of course, everyone is welcome to participate, contribute, and yes, even control the process.

Because the habit was already there, it was the natural place for official party bodies to make a quick, ad hoc appeal for members’ views during the unfolding coalition negotiations. And the other day this article went up from an MP who is a backbencher seeking to hold the coalition to account on behalf of the party in one policy area (health). He was seeking feedback “especially from those who have a bit of hands-on experience with the NHS”.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/john-pugh-mp-asks-for-members-feedback-on-health-issues-20260.html

At the moment, all this is obviously tilted towards “feedback” rather than crowdsourcing, but I suspect the difference is only really one of emphasis, and due to lack of familiarity with the difference between them.