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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.