Slashdot Mirror
The Web Fueling A Crisis In Politics?
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that Tony Blair's outgoing chief strategy adviser fears the internet could be fueling a crisis in the relationship between politicians and voters. 'Mr Taylor said Mr Blair's online grilling from voters — and other initiatives such as environment secretary David Miliband's blog and Downing Street's new online petition service — showed the government was making good progress in using the Internet to become more open and accountable. But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.' 'But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or mendacious by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage." Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you.'" Some credit was given to the Internet for high voter turnout in this month's elections ... how is that a bad thing?
And, they are not?
What an interesting proposition.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Well give us something to make positive comments about then...
Seriously, transparency within the government for example, will cut down on a lot of wasted money as people become outraged at where their money goes.
That might be a bad example - just causes more rantyblogs...
High turnout is bad for the right wing.
Politicians are having their dirty laundry aired to the world and they are complaining. What a suprise.
Honestly they brought it upon themselves.. The dirty spear campaigns have existed since the civil war and they will continue, the net is simply a new tool they realize they can use.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Is it any surprise that people in power are unhappy when they no longer control public opinion? When the people have sources of information that run counter to the corporations that control both government and the media?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you'."
Sounds about right to me... When a new laws are passed that mandate life in prison or the death penalty (for countries that do that) for taking political bribes, THEN I'll start looking at them more objectivly. It *should* be next to impossible for those in power to abuse that power to the detriment of the people who elect them... But the way the system works now, it's almost impossible NOT to become corrupt.
But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.
Incommensurate demands? Like what?Honesty?
Free Speech?
Free Internet?
Please the only thing politicians want to do with the internet is censor it, own it, and tax it.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Perhaps if said politicians weren't totally power-hungry fucking assbags this wouldn't be so much of a problem for them.
"To err is human, to mod Funny divine."
Because the traditional methods of influence and control are not standing up to what the web has made available. It's an easier and more effective mechanism for criticizing your leaders, as well as organizing against them.
Bottome line: you have slightly more control now, and the leadership does not like that a bit.
>>"They wanted "sustainability", for example, but not higher fuel prices, affordable homes for their children but not new housing developments in their town or village. "
A lot of the political posts on this form fall into this category. Nobody in the US wants coal-fired power plants, but they don't want the price of electricity to double. They want energy conservation, but they want their server farms burning enough electricity to power 10 homes. On and on....
its still true.
politicians are out to line their pockets, by any means necessary. and if that happens to screw over their constituents, then grab your ankles and grit your teeth.
This looks like another case of political spin attempting to fix the symptom and not the problem. If you're a politician and the internet reveals that the people you represent are angry at you, it's not your job to block that anger or try to make them express something else- it's your job to find the source of that anger and make it right again. The "Damn The Man" mentality doesn't arise spontaneously on it's own, there's always a reason fueling it- wether it be obscure or not. And hey, when you're in a position of power as great as Tony Blair's, this kind of thing should be expected. Complaining about it seems to be to be the equivalent of a construction worker complaining about all the noise or a pianist complaining about the number of notes on his piano.
Basically, deal with it.
LARRY KING: On your blog you write, "Bush is going to declare war on China next, I swear."
ROSEANNE BARR: I was so scared because I woke up and there was the Drudge, you know. I always read the Drudge Report and it said on there that the Chinese were like, you know, spying on our subs or doing something with our subs and I was like, "Oh no, he's going to think that's an act of war and then we're going to go over there next." I mean we're everywhere. We're everywhere.
KING: The Internet as a political medium viable?
BARR: Yes, it's like the only one left, absolutely, and that's not just me saying it. That's everybody saying it.
KING: But there's 80 billion things on it.
BARR: Yes, but if you know where to look, you know, it all can come together. When you're looking for the particular information that you're looking for after you do the big search, this is what I found out by going on there, it just takes your mind and then you live in there forever. You can never come out.
KING: I've never done it, never gone searching.
BARR: Oh, my God! It just opens up the whole universe. It's so awesome. You would love it.
KING: No, I wouldn't.
BARR: Anything you want to know.
KING: The wife loves it. I wouldn't love it. What do you punch little buttons and things?
BARR: You just click on this thing. The thing is you got to be able to read, so you have to have strong glasses when you've over 50 and then you just scroll down and click. It's not that hard. I can show you how to do it.
KING: No, thanks.
- problems so that people will be obliged to try to solve problems between them and polticians ?
you have sucked people's blood for over centuries. very little 'people's men/women' have been able to pass through your elite circle and become heads of state/ministers.
go away pal. no can do. internet is a new thing, it is 'us', and 'we' are going towards direct democracy step by step.
Read radical news here
What the heck is this "Experimental threading one two three four"? I looked in the FAQ but couldn't find it.
more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to 'solve problems' rather than simply abuse politicians or make 'incommensurate' demands on them.
I had a few ideas about that. I put together a few ideas for Internet based direct democracy. It is a system I call DDD. Hopefully in the next few months I'll be able to get started on creating a prototype.
The crisis is that the internet gives a voice to everyone. Now, not everyone is articulate and not everyone has interesting things to say. But if john q public says something in his blog that resonates with a LOT of people - for example, a critical look at some politician - and gets noticed, it makes the politician look bad. So good for john. If the people in power are more accountable for the times that they make mistakes, they'll have more motive for change.
A written documentation of this thats one-click away is an easily accessible public record unlike newspapers which requires going to a library and digging up archives or microform.
Times change, and this is a good thing.
'a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage'
h n_murtari_receives_feeding_tube.html
I went through this.
Growing up, in a public school: Government works for our benefit
Then, as an adult I came to understand: Government works for its own benefit
I understand that we VOTE for the government: Government works.
Or as Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
This is not to say that there is no injustice.
Just because I want our government to:
Free John Murtari! In jail and on hunger strike Since July 31st, 2006!
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/52668/jo
Doesn't mean that I don't love my country.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
> "But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or mendacious by the media, which he described as 'a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage'."
Yeah, that's right, it's a conspiracy!
Honestly, is it any wonder we regard them as out of touch? They think it's anyone's fault but their own.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
'But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or mendacious by the media, which he described as 'a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage'.
- Matthew Taylor, former Chief Strategy Advisor to Tony Blair, November 2006.
Is this the same Tony Blair whose political party has been responsible for the Cash for Honours scandal which is currently being investigated by police? I think we should be told.
(For those who don't know, seats in the second house of parliament in the UK used to be got from either inheriting a lordship or being granted one by the Queen. These days, they're all appointed by the Queen - on the basis of the government's recommendations)
"simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.'"
translation: criticize politicians for abuses by the politians and demand that they actually act in good faith in regards to keeping the public trust.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I don't think any media conspiracy or otherwise is necessary to induce rage and contempt for politicians from the public. Just looking up at any street corner to see the CCTV cameras of the state watching you (what's the ratio these days? something like 1 camera per 7 people* in London?) would be plenty enough to enrage me. Or how about Blair's lapdog-to-Bush style of international relations? The concessions to the US on international plane traveler privacy laws? Forcing a massive upgrade to passports that turns out to be flawed and insecure? I mean, hell, I'm not even a British citizen or even traveled there for that matter and these things have me pissed off!
;)
Let's face it, the internet can be used to help the public suggest changes and work with their representatives to improve the situation. But is it any surprise that the overwhleming volume of comments and the like are nothing but complaints? Maybe when some of the glaring abuses of government and invasions of privacy start to be addressed people will be more willing to calm down and discuss things with a focus on solutions. I agree, suggesting solutions and working to fix things is a better idea than just ranting and making unfeasible demands. But then again maybe if the government had listened to salient points of contention in the first place, or put people's privacy, rights, and well being ahead of politics then it wouldn't be so bad right now.
* I don't claim this figure to be accurate, might be off by an order of magnitude, take it with salt.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or mendacious by the media
Since Blair's government is currently under criminal investigation, it's a viewpoint which is entirely sustained by the available evidence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/11/17/npeers17.xml
remind's me of the report by the trilateral commission http://www.trilateral.org/projwork/tfrsums/tfr08.h tmThe Crisis of Democracy"
Dear Matthew, (can I call you Matthew?)
Your government is elected by a minority of the electorate using a system that gives it an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. Your Members of Parliament say their first loyalty is to the Party and the manifesto, not to the electorate. You ensure almost all votes are whipped through Parliament with fearful penalties if an MP disobeys the Party line. You have changed your Party conferences so that votes by the members have no bearing on policy making which is performed behind closed doors. You refuse freedom of information requests that would allow the electorate to see that policies are enacted according to regulations. You take money from multimillionaires and do not declare it to the authorities; coincidentally, all of these donors then become members of the House of Lords where they become law makers. You pass legislation that require people to get police permission to protest outside of Parliament. You rip up ancient laws that regulate the power of the State over the citizen and propose to take more for yourselves. You politicise the intelligence service, getting your spin doctors to sell a war planned in collusion with a foreign power.
You shouldn't be so much wondering why voters feel alienated, as be amazed that we haven't dragged you out of Downing Street and strung you up outside of Parliament.
It's a bad thing because it means that merely relying on a party's base to come out and vote isn't enough. In the most recent election, the Republicans had a higher number of their people turn out than did the Democrats.
However, the large independent vote is what turned the tide. Independent voters turned out in higher numbers than in previous midterm elections and voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.
So yes, high voter turnout is a bad. But only if you're one of the two major parties because it screws with your polling numbers. Witness Karl Rove's pronouncement that the entire media world was wrong when it was saying there would be a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate because he, Karl Rove, was looking at 68 polls a week and he had "THE" math to show that Republicans would hold onto both houses. Partial transcript
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
He has a point here, of course (though I don't see what the internet has to do with this). If you look at the referrenda in California state, the voters are up to their old tricks of approving bond issues and turning down tax increases.
This is rich. The role of the free press was and IS to cast a skeptical and critical eye on the government. In recent years, at least here in the United States, the corporate media has either been complacent or cowed into not fulfilling its journalistic responsibility. We are told the "news" through their filter, and then we have an echo chamber of talking heads which tell us what to "think" about the news. You have certain media outlets that are essentially tools of a particular ideology, echoing talking points and spin by the party in power. Then you have other media outlets who are treading on eggshells because they don't want to upset their corporate masters who are afraid of the impact on the bottom-line when the government tells them they are unpatriotic. It is a real scary slide into fascism, and the media has got to grow some balls. You have certain media outlets that are cheering the government on at one step, quashing dissension on the other hand through their editorial spin, selling fear fear fear, and if all of that fails, trotting out a feeding frenzy over a missing blonde, or a sex scandal, to keep the populace's attention. The media is broke. The web steps into the void and offers a lot of unfiltered information. The saavy consumer of information can gather information from a variety of sources. There are still some problems that arise, but if anything, politicians are less able to rely on the short attention spans of their public.
I think one point they're really missing is crucial.
There are a lot of us that are just so tired of "business as usual." We are sick to death of the war on this, the sanctions on that, the backdoor business deals, the pandering and "moral outrage," the manipulation... all of it. The Internet gives us a way to:
- Communicate (with each other) outside regulated channels- Disseminate information around the world (ie. cameraphone pics - see recent UCLA tasering incident) without censorship
- Effectively inform the busy, everyday, "influenceable mass" when reality is inconsistent with the dominant political opinion
As a simple example - 10 or 20 years ago, very few westerners realized what was happening in the Middle East. We all saw the reports on CNN, or the blurry graphics as American tanks rolled through the desert. Now, we have camera phone pictures coming back from places like Lebanon, showing the devastation caused to people just like us, by our weapons.
The Internet brings people together from places around the world. It makes us, as individuals, realize that we're all the same. We all want to live productive and enjoyable lives in peace, without the overburdening influence of others. When you talk to someone from Iran, and realize that they're basically just like us... it gets difficult to swallow the "end of the world" scenario, used by our governments to justify mass killings.
Mr. Taylor, people are waking up. It's only going to get worse. You will either learn to deal with the fact that lying and manipulation is going to get harder every day, or you will be replaced.
Ironic, isn't it, that the tool that can ultimately be used to control and restrain our governments was created by a government agency.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Next thing you know he'll be saying that 911 was done by Bush and that governments should disclose all they know about the aliens' zero-point energy. Put his loony ass in a padded cell!
Maybe it's good that Blair is dreaming up conspiracies against himself. Maybe showing that the government is starting to fear the people as it's supposed to be rather than the people 'making up' the conspiracy theories.
its a bad thing in that its yet one more thing for people to consider, and think, 'i have a choice in how this country is going to operate, i have a choice in deciding the policies that will be applied when i cast this vote'.
in a sense, its still the american dream -- you idiots are asleep if you think your vote is going to make any difference.
the difference, sadly, will never be made by casting a vote. it will be in the form of the american people actually being united with one another in bringing a radical change to our government. not with votes. with bullets.
sadly this will never happen, because americans are too unaware of the real reasons for the problems we face in america, and the world for that matter (the international bankers, the money changers.)
we, as a society, have been convinced that our enemy is eachother (fox vs cnn, republican vs democrat, etc) rather than the seeing through the smokescreen into the real causes of our wars.
So instead of asking them to do what we want, as you would typically do when writing a letter to your local MP, we should look to find compromises between what we want and what they are willing to do, and what we want and what the rest of the country wants?
Sounds like they want us to do their job for them....
One of the big problems in politics is communicating with and informing the general population. Not only does the Internet itself make it easier than ever to do so, but offshoots like mailing lists, wikis, etc help to organise people and information. We already know these things have the ability to coordinate efforts to build things as complicated as operating systems. Why not apply that experience to other problem domains?
We've already seen the beginnings of this. TheyWorkForYou.com publishes and indexes what MPs say in the Houses of Parliament, and notifies people when something they are interested in is discussed - with all the source code for the website available and a web service too. A few days ago, the same team launched an open-source online petition system backed by the UK government (sign the "fair use" petition). The same team also have a number of other projects in the same vein, such as mailing lists for MPs. Some MPs now have weblogs. Across the pond similar work is being done in the USA.
The real problem is that current MPs mostly grew up without the Internet and haven't gotten to grips with it. This is why MySociety's work to get them on board is so important. For instance, it took me thirty seconds to find out that my MP "replied within 2 or 3 weeks to 73% - 96% of messages sent via WriteToThem.com during 2005, according to polling data -- well above average amongst MPs," and I can sign up to get an email every time he speaks in Parliament.
Far from fuelling a crisis in politics, I think the web can be incredibly beneficial. Unfortunately, there is incredible inertia amongst government to adopt new strategies like this.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Tony Blair is such a fag. He's soo deep in GWB's ass... he's even talking English.
... oh..
What was the question?
YES! Because screaming at the radio or the TV set isn't as funny as having a blog (But that's only relevant if you live in 2006).
Politicians being ignorant of voters and technology might be fueling what politicians think is a crisis.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Unfortunately, in the US, a relatively recent effort by politicians to organize and fight media oversignt was highly successful. Most people still do believe in an inherent liberal bias in mainstream media, since it was the conservative party that was the promoter of this thinking at the time. (The exact same arguments can and have been raised by liberal interests at various points, but not with as much success. Studies on bias in the media are completely inconclusive, either proving or disproving it, largely depending on who is funding the study. I tend to believe that the media is just inherently anti-government, regardless of party, because of its duties as the fourth estate.)
Nowadays if the media isn't sacrificing objectivity or factual information to provide a "more balanced" product, it is either completely asleep at the wheel, or purposefully distorting information in the other direction...yeah Fox News, I'm looking at you disapprovingly right now. Is it any wonder that there has been a migration of the press to the internet, since there are so many legitimate complaints against the mainstream media these days? This is nothing more than a deliberate (and smart) strategy by government to further shield itself from scrutiny.
The so-called 'Iraq War', where no one in Britain wanted our soldiers there, no one saw the need to have our soldiers fight and die 'for their country' there and where politicians repeatedly lie bare-faced to not just the country but the families of those who've given their lives. And they wonder why there's rage? Wow. What a closed world those Downing Street thinktanks are.
The rage has absolutely nothing to do with a conspiracy by the media or people on the internet. It has everything to do with politics and democracy simply being less and less relevant to getting anything done or sorted out these days. If they want a right-wing party like the BNP or someone else to come to power then they're going the right way about it.
Errrr. Well what are people supposed to do? Paint over the wrongdoing, corruption and utterly silly ideas flowing out of government? Pretend that none of this stuff ever happens? This just sounds like someone who's frustrated that there isn't a controlled media and where they can't control what people write and what they see.
Might I suggest that the government, heaven forbid, does something good that people can blog about?
Never was anything truer said. It also matches up to reality as well.
The high turnout is consistent with the points made in the article.
It is arguable that most voters are voting against politicians rather than for any. It is an old political trick to imply that every vote for a certain politician automatically translates to support for all his policies. How many Americans thought that voting against smarty-pants sigher Al Gore would be interpreted as a desire for a wholesale give-away to the super wealthy and an endless religious war?
Abusive politics is, I am afraid, the wave of the future. The folks in the UK just aren't accustomed to it yet.
I remember reading one UK analysis of the midterm US elections in which the commentator remarked on the difference in the level of civility in the US election. He said something to the effect that, "If elections in Britain are a walk in the park, in the US a candidate must carry the One Ring to the Land of Mordor".
It has been long said that freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one. With the blogosphere, any knuckle scraping blockhead can set himself up as a news source. This pretty much means that whispering campaigns have become shouting campaigns.
There is good and bad in this, but trying to contain the bad is worse than returning to the status quo. And wishing the situation would be other than it is is pointless.
Instead, we should try to make the most of the developments in communication, by giving people something worthwhile to talk about. Let's really make our government transparent.
I'll give you an example of non-transparency. Recently, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction was secretly abolished. The way this was done was that the provisions extending the office were secretly stripped from the authorization bill at the last minute. Thus the Senators who voted for the bill had no idea that it was changed.
When word of this got out, the senate reversed itself on a voice vote. But it raises questions: how many other things are put in and taken out this way? Do we really want anonymous committee staff have ths power?
Why not make a legislation tracking system where every addtion or deletion from a bill is digitally signed by the person doing it. A Senator voting for a bill could call up a list of differences between the bill he is voting on and the bill as it was last week. Then make the entire history of every bill available on the Internet.
The principle I am working from here is this: it is a good thing that people want to talk about politics. What is bad is that they are not talking about substantive things. So: given them something real to talk about. Let them scream and holler, but at least give them the information they need to do so usefullly.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you'."
And this is a crisis? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure everyone was thinking this WAY before the internet. The idea that the average person thinks "Politicians are crooked" only since the internet came about is ridiculous! The only difference is that the internet makes that more visible. The same thing with the "incommensurate" demands of Joe Sixpack. Of course we all want to pay no taxes and receive a ton of money in Social Security when we retires, but a lot of people don't understand that it's impossible! But now because of the internet the average person gets heard. It should be obvious that what is on the mind of the average voter is actually a very good thing for a politician to know, even if it is ridiculous demands and distrust of leaders.
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
Some credit was given to the internet for high voter turnout in this month's election/em
Actually, the credit should go to both sides for their scare-mongering... which somewhat counteracted the negative campaigning by both sides which tends to keep people away from elections. It's a fine balance, but this time around *both* sides managed to convince their base that the fate of modern civilization rested on the voter.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
"Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you'."
Could it be because its true?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I recently finished writing an essay about political weblogs for a collection about genre theory and the web, and one of the most important exigencies (reasons for writing) that I found after exhaustive narrative and discourse analysis was the need to be involved. The MSM frustrates political bloggers because it acts as a culturally accepted regulator of public discourse: an editorial board (controlled by a corporation) can deny access to opinions or questions it finds unacceptable. This conflicts with a socially ingrained belief - instilled in citizens of any democratic or republican form of government from early grade school through young adulthood - that each citizen has the right and the privilege to enter into a public debate. Thus, those denied access who feel a need to participate in public life will blog, which they know offers them a chance - however slim - that someone, somewhere, will read their opinion.
They're right to do so. Politicians have, for too long, been shielded by a mainstream media that is unwilling to go too far because the corporations controlling them don't want to be denied access to any future "behind the scenes" interviews or juicy bits of gossip. This has given pols the sense that everyone with a criticism must have a suggestion for an alternative, and must state it in carefully controlled language. Blair's statement is a case in point: you can't criticize us unless you're polite about it and can suggest a reasoned alternative.
This belief is illogical, and stems from the increasing phenomenon of the "punditocracy," that group of reporters who feel that they're experts about everything: public debate involves give and take, and the job of a critic is to examine and report, whether the report is positive or negative is determined by the potentials and effects of the policy. The public does not create policy, it hires politicians (think of the root words) to do so; however, like any employer, the public does have the responsibility to ensure that its employees (politicians) are doing their jobs according to company (public, national) standards. If the employee does poorly, he or she receives criticism: "do your job or we'll find someone else."
Somewhere along the line, though, this idea of politicians as public employees was lost. Again, the corporate media, with its fear that it might lose a scoop, panders to the concept of the powerful (congressman, senator, president, governor, legislator) individual who determines a course of action. Longtime politicians, or even worse, those who were born into political families, often forget that their first responsibility is to those they represent because of this pandering. For too long, there were no alternatives, and this alternative just happens to allow any nutcase with computer access to enter the public sphere, an idea that is completely contrary to long-held political beliefs developed through centuries of one-to-many (newspapers, television, etc.) media technology.
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
the government was making good progress in using the internet to become more open and accountable.
No. Governments have used the internet to make it easier to pay my taxes; to report my neighbors as potential terrorists; to avoid printing costs for things that really should get mailed out.
Governments have conspicuously not used the internet for anything even remotely resembling making themselves more "open and accountable". Simple example - After seeing what happened to Clinton, Bush publically declared that he would not use email as president (Too easy to audit).
the internet could be fueling a crisis in the relationship between politicians and voters.
The internet comes the closest we've ever had to attaining the ideal of truly "free speech", and semi-anonymous at that. Politicians thrive in an environment of public disinformation and fear; The internet basically allows hundreds of millions of fact-checkers to criticize every falsehood uttered by the parasites that "lead" us. Of course that doesn't help the "relationship" between politicians and voters - Because it exposes that relationship as identical to that between predators and their prey.
...is that the web makes EVERYONE who buys in feel like they are "informed voters" no matter how misleading and self-serving the web resources they access may be. Higher voter response is NOT a good thing when the majority of the mobilized voters are voting simply based on emotional reactions rather than looking at the real issues and analyzing the impact of a vote for a candidate or issue. On the left you have people reacting to information stating that voting for issue or candidate X is a vote against the environment. On the right you have people reacting to the "OMG teh gheys want to get married and it will make my marriage worthless" propaganda without thinking about how it really affects real people (yes gays are real people). For the third parties, they all have their echo chambers telling them that "this is the year that the third party candidates will take the world by storm"!!! So everyone votes for or against things without really understanding the implications.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I, for one, welcome are new political...
Oh..
Nevermind..
The very idea that the population (any population) could arrive at a consensus opinion without the involvement and influence of their 'leadership', whether political, corporate, or religious, scares the hierarchy to death.
After all, they would be even more useless than they are now and no longer 'entitled' to their privileges.
Dear Rabble,
All you do is attack the [government|crown]! Instead of working with officials, you use [the internet|pamphlets] to anonymously attack the government. By [blogging|writing anonymous pamphlets] you are acting like teenagers. [Blogging|Anonymous pamphles] are not mature discourse!
Signed,
Your patronizing British Government
...I think there is something to learn from Mr. Taylor's comments. Squeaky wheel syndrome: its easy to focus on what's not working and forget about the things that do.
Roads get paved, mail magically shows up, and this mysterious place called the library buys books so we don't have to. If something unjust happens to us, there is generally a method of recourse.
How much of these services we need can be debated, but its pretty great in general.
Elected officials definitely seem like the worst offenders, and something needs to change, I agree. But there's a whole underbelly of people in government who take their job fairly seriously and do a lot of really beneficial things, all to our benefit.
Tony Blair naturally knows best - he wont even tell his solidiers in Iraq where the wmd is.
Does this pass the duck test?
rgds
Close, but I think it would be more correct to say that they don't want coal-plants and can't bear the thought that they were wrong about nuclear plants.
But even that's not quite right, it's more like they want to reduce emissions of "green house gases" and think they can do that somehow by switching to electric vehicles, when really that'll make the problem worse if they don't replace the coal plants with something else, but they don't exactly understand that half of their electricity is coming from coal plants, and that coal power is an astoundingly nasty 18th century technology (even if you don't factor in "global warming" concerns) --
And maybe they should've started working on solar power sats thirty years ago when we were telling them to, but hey, what do a bunch of techie-nerds know about anything, eh?
But perhaps I digress.
Honestly, is it any wonder we regard them as out of touch? They think it's anyone's fault but their own.
It is a wonder, because that's what we think too!
ACMD eht detaloiv evah uoy
it's a more honest term. As has been pointed out, it's the Internet's fault. Bad, bad Internet.
(Is there a straw dog of self-responsibility hiding around here some place that I could use?)
Yes, I have a better idea.
This evens the playing field such that people who are probably electable (demonstrated by signature gathering) all have equal access to media, etc. Those who manage that access best and send the voters the most successful message are elected. No "sideways" moneys may be used at any time, including moneys from the candidate's own fund EXCEPT if the candidate wants to opt out of the govt pool, in which case the candidate may spend up to the amount the other candidates get from their own pocket. This amounts to a nice civic gesture, but cannot affect the amount of marketing available to the candidate as it does not result in a difference in the amount of funding. As a registered voter, you could sign one or more "I want to run" lists; that way, if there are two candidates you'd like to see run, you could help get them both on the ballot. This in turn would do away with the two party system (because political parties would not be allowed to market themselves in any way that involved spending money, only individuals would and even then, only when they have enough certified signatures.)
With the political parties gone, two thresholds have to be set. One to pass laws; another to disenfranchise them. My thought is that about 80% should have to vote for a law to get it operative, and about 40% should have to vote against an in-place law to knock it out. 30% of the representatives asking for a vote on an in-place law forces a vote. This biases the system towards only passing, and keeping, laws that really apply to the population in general instead of one group of loud crazies. If something turns out to be a social fad (like these idiots who are voting "defense of marriage" into law) then it is relatively easy to retreat from such a stance, just a small change in outlook, one vote, and bingo, it is gone.
Anyone caught taking bribes or falsifying a signature on a vote-for-me list goes to jail for life. Or we can shoot them. Just so long as they don't get to spend the bribe, run for office, or otherwise continue to screw up the system.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Human's have an illimitable amount of desire. Since humans are physically limited, their desire will always be greater than their ability to satisfy it. Therefore, humans will tend to perpetually be in a state of dissastification. This dissastisfaction will tend to be blamed on those in society that wield more power. In a sense, this is justified. This is why we have always hated our leaders, have a tradition of regicide, and everyone hates their boss.
We humans have always hated our leaders. The Internet has not amplified this, it has only made the voices that were previously silent, heard. This is the price that leaders must pay. If they want to lead, they will have to endure every insult, and be able to deal with the fact that pretty much everyone will think they suck.
The internet isn't making people perceive these politicians as corrupt, it's the decisions and actions these politicians make that leave people to perceive them as corrupt.
It's very similar to hollywood vs. internet piracy. It's not the internet or piracy that is making movie ticket sales dive, it's shitty product.
They need to take a whif of the stuff their shoveling!
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
That is what the media is for.
[Left wing struggling to be an individual but branded Irish by birth, does not stop me holding a British passport though - whatever you can work to your advantage. The Good Mathematician I knew at University who happened to be a Jew slagged off Nationalists, maybe he was taking a side swipe at me. One person does not a poll make, he was based in England]
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
high voter turnout may be contributed to the internet, but I think it's just that people are FINALLY realizing that we need change, and the election most certainly showed that - power to the people :-)
You can smile and say "yes we can!" and win the contracy.
Because if you don't, the other sales guy who DID lie wins the contract. Same shit, different profession. (I think it's a variant on the Prisoner's Dilemma actually)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
The less respect politicians get the better. If smart people are discouraged from government, and end up in the private sector, that's helps us all in the long run, since the private sector is the origin of real solutions.
In fact, I've always thought it would be interesting to do an index that tracks the number of people who work for government and their respective ability levels (degrees held, etc.) and compares is with the overall work force to see what percentage of human resources are wasted.
(This post dedicated to the late, great Milton Friedman.)
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
"The BBC is reporting that Tony Blair's outgoing chief strategy adviser fears the internet could be fueling a crisis in the relationship between politicians and voters. 'Mr Taylor said Mr Blair's online grilling from voters --"
No it's you politicians fueling the crisis by lying to us about WMDs in Iraq, by removing peoples right to peacefull public protest, by scaring us with fake terrorist reports, by falsely claiming there is huge public support for ID cards when we all know it's your best buddy in Washington is behind it. Bush orders Tony to go to war and Tony does what he's told by the US president as all UK PMs have done since WW2.
davecb5620@gmail.com
So the bar to be a "good" politician has been raised? About f*cking time, says I.
All this extra openness that the internet is providing will at least force a smarter breed of politician to develop. (All the dumb ones will be "raked over the coals" by the blogosphere.) There will still be occasional bad eggs that will be smart enough to school the system, but hopefully the ability for outright slimeballs to walk into office is lessened a bit.
Honestly, anything my politician says or does should be available publically with three exceptions:
1. Personal Matters - Family issues, etc.
2. Political Strategizing - Don't want the other side to hear our game plans.
3. National Security - Don't want the "Bad People" to hear our battle plans.
And I think exception #2 is less important (even if the other side hears the plan, they'll probably think it's dumb). I should be able to see a politician's daily calendar, who they met with, and potentially what they said (technology permitting). They're a public servant, and we're their boss. How many employees that you know of are allowed to hide their job activities from their boss?
Anything a politician does on behalf of the people, or by employing the government tools available to him or her should be public record, no exceptions.
I am uncertain that the input I am attemptng to apply with the "experimental" whatever is observable . It taint from 'ere .
"You rip up ancient laws that regulate the power of the State over the citizen and propose to take more for yourselves. You politicise the intelligence service, getting your spin doctors to sell a war planned in collusion with a foreign power"
Also using fake terror reports to distract from inconvient news reports. Shame on you. It's ironic that the party that was formed to champion the people is the one that has so much to destroy democratic freedoms hard won over centuries.
from: georgew@whitehouse.gob
to: Tonyb@tendouningstreet.co.uk
Yo Blair,
Fire up a fake terror scare in the UK and then use it to justify canceling democratic rights and bringing in mandatory ID cards. Use some Islamist fantasy web site as evidence. Put out reports of 'hundreds' of potential attacks. At the same time shut down air travel and cause as much panic as possible.
was Re:That's right - blame the voters
davecb5620@gmail.com
Well, they're out there to shaft SOMBEBODY.
The function of government is to get people to behave differently than they really want to. Those are the people who get the shaft.
One problem with campaign finance reform is that it can have the unwanted effect of protecting incumbents.
Your existing Congressperson can get on TV for free in zillions of ways. Name recognition follows. Votes follow, because the natives of this planet confuse familiarity with trust. Challengers can't match that without spending money.
This will be less of a problem if more people quit watching TV and spend their time on the net instead.
I suppose I could add notfud.
I mean, who serves these days, because they care ...
except selfish concern for an excessive share.
Most politicians (secular and religious) globally are worthy of the citizens/public disgust. It was not the news media, movies, or a friend that provoked cynicism in government, politics, and/or religion. Skepticism comes very naturally to any observant human wanting to be objective about what they are monitoring in their day too day life and having confirmed by additional reliable sources on the Internet.
Mr. Taylor and all other politicians should take note that politicians are not aristocrats and they do not have any god-given birthrights to any position in any government.
As I have said for years now give me a Clinton having a BJNDO over a flaming-Bush NDO anytime.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
So, the electorate in the UK are like 'Teenagers' who make 'demands' but refuse to 'be governed'. What an arrogant statement. Democratic governments work in the interests and by the grace of electorate, not the other way around. The electorate is fed up with virtually no accountability from the leadership. Countries with a first-past-the-post voting style are going to increasingly run into this problem. The average Joe has issues that he wants addressed with but no one listens to him, so why should he be required to worry about someone else's problems as well? In my experience whenever the government talks about tradeoffs, they generally look like this: Company X wishes something. People complain since it offers them no tangible benefit, often the opposite. Government then 'compromises' by giving company X some of what it demanded. People lose.
For too long politicians have had the luxury of campaigning on the interests of the electorate then flipping and governing in the interests of those who fund their campaigns or have the money to lobby and make connections. Times are changing, and peoples interests are more diverse. This means that government must become more representative of a diverse range of interests.
Most of the responses on this topic in /. do more to support Matthew Taylor than refute him. Mr. Taylor never said that using the internet to find and stop corruption is bad. His complaint was that the internet is used to make demands without actually creating a political discussion.
I can start up a blog, and make endless demands on the government. For example:
- Lower my taxes! Provide better schools!
- Protect the environment! Don't regulate business!
Many of the major issues today require balancing competing interests. Instead of using the internet to foster a discussion and raising the level of understanding for everyone, politicians are simply getting strident demands. At least prior to the internet, citizens making demands meant at least a face to face meeting, so a politician could at least try to explain the competing interests.
Personally, I don't think the internet is so much to blame as MTV and microwaves. Until citizens are willing to put some intellectual effort into their politics, politicians are going to be left with trying to navigate complex issues using 30 second sound bites.
...they could have gotten it. Debates and advertising are for the most part about trivialities and smear campaigns, with not enough of an attention span to deal with the issues they raise substantiatively (when they are actually dealing with substantive issues and not lies parading as truth). In the US, politicians have focused on hot-button issues that can't be substantively addressed or debated. In either case, anyone that might ask questions that would demand substantive answers or offer solutions isn't going to be able to get their concerns heard by their government.
They have spent large sums of money to exclude any reasoned and substantive discussion of issues because such doesn't constitute good soundbyte. Now the same politicians complain that people bring up issues with either no solutions or no intention of solving the problem on the internet. They strived to change the political arena into a winner-takes-all, lowest common denominator game while they act in secret on behalf of political, corporate, or organized sponsors, and now that they have gotten what they wished, they dislike the game they have created, particularly when they lose.
The people want everything and want someone else to pay for it. Politicians have spent their careers telling the people that they can have precisely that, and now when said politicians might be held responsible for their dishonesty, they are unhappy at the complaints and wish the complaints would just go away. They had the power to do something about it, but chose not to, and now they can reap the whirlwind.
GBrown is mainly whingeing, but there really is a Big Issue here. News is not entertainment, but nobody pays attention to it if it isn't, so it's turned into entertainment and stops being news.
Think about the differences. We don't see sober reports of the facts on the news very often. They're no fun. The problem is, news isn't (necessarily) fun. Sometimes nobody's a bad guy. Sometimes somebody did something right. There's no story in that either. So the more a news outlet depends on numbers of viewers, the bigger the entertainment aspect gets, and entertainment requires a villain(s), good guys (usually the viewers...), a story arc, and a satisfying ending. News requires the facts, ma'am, just the facts. With maybe some analysis thrown in to make our lives easier. News can be interesting, but the minute someone starts trying to make entertainment out of it, the problems begin.
So the Big Issue that needs to be explored is: how do we reliably distinguish news from entertainment? How do we make sure news is news? If that were solved, then GBrown might still complain, but at least we'd know it was all whinge and no substance.
'leaders are out there to shaft you'. is the first law in my Bible. I would doubt gravity before I doubted this.
Maybe the idea that humans need government at all is wrong from scratch. Maybe we just never had such self-sufficiency before. certainly, a need to have some degree of regulated peace and minimal protection from crime is necessary, but would we really need leaders for that?
Personally, I've been ready all my life for the utility-bill government. For a tax fee once a month, be there to arrest crooks and put out fires on my property, and then leave me the fuck alone.
"In fact, I've always thought it would be interesting to do an index that tracks the number of people who work for government and their respective ability levels (degrees held, etc.) and compares is with the overall work force to see what percentage of human resources are wasted."
no you wouldn't, because I can garuntee you it would not meet your expected criteria.Therefore, you you claim it was invalid.
After 20 years in the private sector, I am now in the public sector. My current coworkers are harder working and more productive then I have ever seen in the private sector.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Nah, never happen.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
They think there is a media conspiracy (no, it is just a ratings conspiracy) and we think they all have a corruption conspiracy simply by being in office.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
After reading the comments here I wonder if anyone here would want to run for office. I sure wouldn't. Everyone automatically assumes you are a crook, puts your past under a microscope and every decision you makes pisses off some group.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
abuse and incommensurate demands are what makes the internets great. read *any* website with a comments section and you will see enough abuse and incommensurate demands to last you a lifetime. if you don't like it, then perhaps the 'tubes are not meant for you.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Politicians have been complaining about increasing cynicism amongst the plebs regarding their behaviour but they already know what's wrong they're just unwilling and/or unable to do anything about it.
Years back before the onset of globalisation, politicians actually wielded real power and could make decisions that would have real effects but the world has changed to the point where elected representatives have been demoted to the effective status of middle managers within a global corporation.
In the UK, the national Health Service is considered sacred by the population but is also pretty much illegal under world trade law as its public ownership status excludes foreign companies from getting a slice of the cake. Any UK politicain knows that saying "sorry we're going to have to flog the NHS off to the private sector due to the WTO" would be political suicide so they disguise the sell off as "modernisation" claiming it's all for the public good. Similarly, the UK govs building schools for the future program basically involves floggin ICT provision and many other educational services off to large corporations a move they know would be unpopular so don't mention.
Add to this the insane and often pathetically sad levels of political correctness, the willingness to dive into a war that the British public wanted nothing to do with, lying to the public on all fronts and refusing to apoligise when caught out, the creation of 3000+ new mainly ineffective laws, ID cards that no one wants, surveillance on a scale that Stalin never matched and all the other arrogant, pig headed behaviour that Tony has pulled off in the last ten years and I would think that the internet is the last thing to blame for the breakdown in public trust; In fact, I would go as far as to say that the internet is probably the one thing that is propping up what's left of democracy and free speech.
Historically, the British have been a people tolerant of their rulers poor behaviour but when pushed the backlash is rarely pretty. Maybe that's the reason we're the most watched people on the planet and when calling Tony Blair a twat, it's important to realise that it's the twats like the one who's quoted in the TFA that give him his ideas.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
"high voter turnout in this month's elections ... how is that a bad thing?"
;-)
well, this social + Internet stuff is exactly what I am into last years (after free software heat dissipated somewhat).
It is very interesting material, in this post, actually - in the other corner of Central Europe, I am experiencing very similar tendency to rage at politicians. Everybody DOES receives signals about corrupt politicians very well these days, and part of those signals are due to media readyness for SENSATIONS, nonetheless. While freedom of communication makes people ABLE to STRIKE BACK. While politicians IN GENERAL do not practice hanging on the net. You see?
Therefore, high voter turn-out (in case that means high participation), does NOT mean they were better informed, than media SENSATIONS let them be. And, thus, we really have spot to pay attention to, and title of post is not that far from the truth: we are experiencing phenomena in politics, caused by new qualities of new media.
Anybody to raise my karma for this insight?
>>> I DO HATE THAT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, THEY PRACTICE ON SLASHDOT!!!
Servant of karma
Ah, the dictator Pinochet's favourite economist
Fear breeds anguish.
Anguish breeds anger.
Anger breeds revolt.
Revolt breeds fear by who bred fear first.
Enough fucking said.
P.S. Search YouTube for "warren25smash" - this guy is a poster child for the online revolt against the fear Politics and politicians have pressed on us around the world.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Because 75% of the stuff you read on the internet is as phony as this statistic that I made up.
The free press is great, but the problem with a totally free press is that people can spread lies with virtual impunity.
To me it seems to be a mostly American problem. Not that politicians in Europe are saints, but the deeprooted mistrust and sometimes even contempt towards all politicians you have in the US is not common in most European countries, as far as I know. Several of the Amercan readers have already commented on how expensive it is to become a politician, let alone campaigning; I think I can see why the situation is so bad in America.
Compare to my own country: Denmark. To become a politician you simply take part in the debate, basically. If you have something to say that people want to listen to, you are well on the way, first on a local level, later perhaps nationally. We have a lot of controls in place to try to ensure that political parties are not heavily funded by commercial interests; during elections each political group is allotted a certain amount of time on tv to air their views - and it is not possible to buy more time. Etc etc.
That is one reason why politicians in Denmark are generally well respected. The other, I think, is that it is considered very bad form to attack other politicians personally. Politics is about your ideals and what you stand for, what goals you will work for when you are elected.
The problems in America, if I may comment on that - I mean, you guys really hate it when outsiders give an opinion about American affairs, but you seem to consider it your divine right to throw around opinions about everybody else, don't you? Anyway, I can see at least two big problems:
1. Your political system lends itself to corruption very easily - is there any limit to how much a party can receive from businesses and churches? Is there any limit to how much air time and advertising a party can buy? How about restrictions on what can be said in a campaign - such as minimal standards for thruthfulness and relevance? Money and religion have far too much influence on politics in USA - therefore the interests of commmon people are not represented.
2. Voter education. You have been educated to believe far too much in authority - the military, the church, patriotism; and you demand that everything should be entertainment. So politics becomes a form of showbiz, where the actors try to pose as big authorities: 'war veterans', 'regular churchgoers', 'big patriots'. But of course you all know they have their filthy little secrets and it's just a lame show anyway.
I think you need to learn to respect yourselves and take politics serious. It is YOUR country, after all, it doesn't just belong to the 2% who are either filthy rich or belong to some odious church (funny how those two often go together).
Margot Wallström is a good example. She is EU Commissioner for communication and runs a weblog. But as she fails to properly communicate with citizens, properly use her weblog. Citizens get upset plus a lot of eurosceptics use her weblog as a garbage can.
Now Margot even considers to put a ban on email and internet communication.
Should we NOT care what our politicians are doing? B.F. Skinner writes in "Beyond freedom and dignity": "To refuse to control is to leave control not to the person himself, but to other parts of the social and nonsocial environments." This piece is just plain irrational. It's B.S. from politicians unable to cope with the demands of the people.
When the Constitution was written, each representative had around 50,000 constituents. Today it is roughly 600,000. Why? Because in 1911 Congress passed a law limiting the size of the House to a fixed 435 representatives. Prior to this, the size of the house was determined by the size of the US population.
Since 1911 the US has more than tripled it's population, yet the size of the House of Representatives has remained fixed.
How has Congress managed to keep up with the work load? simple: unelected staff members. The size of the House staff has increased since 1911, going from around 2-3 per house member to around 40.
People like to talk about solutions to this problem involving complex databases and citizen oversight, but we can accomplish much the same thing by reducing the number of unelected staff, and increasing the number of elected representatives while decreasing the size of their districts.
Such a move would also impact gerrymandering of districts, and campaign financing by forcing representatives to talk to the people rather than simply running television spots.
So I agree, we don't want anonymous committee staff. We want elected officials we can hold responsible.
The size of the House should be tripled to accomodate the growing population.
What? I'm confused. I mean, part of your post seems to be a reply to the previous. And the rest is a rant directed against... umm... who?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?