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...
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
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....
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.
- 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
High turnout is bad for the right wing.
Um, exept in the previous election (here, I'm referring to the US), when it was the Republicans' ability to create a high turnout that was credited with much of their election success. Your statement assumes a steady state of context, which is nonsense.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
'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.
"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. --
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
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
High turnout is bad for the right wing.
The funny part of that is that Mr. Blair is actually a Labour party candidate....the left wing of British Politics.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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
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.
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
...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 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.
Actually, the Republicans appear to have won the 2004 election by magically creating millions of votes out of nowhere... it's probably not the best example for the point you're trying to make: The exit polls were right -- Freeman and Mittledorf.
And in general, it's a pretty well-accepted truism that high-turnouts in the US favor the Democrats -- ir appears that conservatives are better about getting their act together to fill in forms, which is not necessarily something for the Democrats to be proud of. Though on the other hand, if you're inclined to think of the Democrats as the party of the little guys, that appears to be pretty accurate -- a lot of the voter fraud exploits the Republicans were using in 2004 involved trying to disenfanchise the downtrodden (e.g. ex-convicts, black people, etc).
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.
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.
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
magically creating millions of votes out of nowhere
Really! Millions. Do tell! (as opposed to just making stuff up, now)
a lot of the voter fraud exploits the Republicans were using in 2004 involved trying to disenfanchise the downtrodden (e.g. ex-convicts, black people, etc).
If, by "ex-cons" you mean "felons," then you should understand that allowing them to vote is election fraud. Until the law changes in most places, activists trying to get felons somehow into a voting booth are the ones committing the crime.
And, "black people?" By what mechansism are you finding voter registration to be tied to race? If that's your focus, how would you explain the (primarily dem) activists who just got busted for producing thousands and thousands of completely fictional registrations in predominantly urban areas like Kansas City and St. Louis? The same people registered multiple times, dead people registered, and completely fictional people with fake SSNs, etc? All registered in districts aimed at boosting votes against more conservative candidates. "Millions" of fraudulant votes? Come on. That would stick out like a sore thumb, which isn't the same as being a sore loser.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.