Slashdot Log In
The Web Fueling A Crisis In Politics?
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:37 PM
from the maybe-in-britland dept.
from the maybe-in-britland dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:5, Funny)
And, they are not?
What an interesting proposition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are "some" politicians that can resist and for the most part do a really good job, the problem is they are in the minority and end up having no "real" power to effect change.
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And there is your problem - ask why it takes $500,000 to get a seat.
Because people vote for a face they're familiar with, regardless of how well they know them; and because $500,000 is how much buisnesses are prepared to pay for the ammount of power they can get from this person.
Not an easy problem to fix, but the best one I see is either make publicity cheaper with the internet, and/or remove the ammount of power those people have and spread it aro
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, there's the initial filing fees, the campaigning inside the party to get the nomination, the TV time at $10,000 for a single 30 second advert, the campaigning against other candidates- democracy in a free market is expensive even if your main form of advertisement is just handbills (printing costs money!)
Because people vote for a face they're familiar with, regardless of how well they know them; and because $500,000 is how much buisnesses are prepared to pay for the ammount of power they can get from this person.
Yep- and unfortuneately the salary-to-campaign-costs is a logrithmic scale- the higher up your are, the more the corps are willing to pay your challenger, so the more you have to spend to get the seat.
Not an easy problem to fix, but the best one I see is either make publicity cheaper with the internet, and/or remove the ammount of power those people have and spread it around a bit more.
Unless someone has a better idea?
Not better, just different- how about removing personhood, and therefore free speech rights, from the corporations? Then at least you're down to individual private contributions instead.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, that sounds snarky and cynical.
I challenge leadership to:
- Point out where the opposition has been correct
- Admit uncertainty and mistakes where obvious
- Give speeches that are written for an educated audience. If the nintendo generation finds itself feeling disadvantaged by coherent speech, it's simply going to have to take a hint and learn something for a change. Edify me, leadership.
- Consider a planning horizon beyond 2008. Notwithstanding the apocalyptic wishes of some, there may be a sunrise beyond the next election. Really.
OK, back to being snarky.Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:4, Insightful)
The corporations shouldn't be allowed to solve the problem at all- individual people should instead. We've given the corporations entirely too much power.
In a slightly more controversial/real situation. You are a corporation that disposes of toxic waste. While nobody would argue that having legislation that encourages lessening the environmental impact of industry processes is a good thing. If your industry is affected, then that additional legislation adds additional costs. Does that mean that you should resist the legislation? If you do, are you evil (for supporting the "destruction of the environment")? If everything was black and white, laws and life would be a lot easier. But as the saying goes there are two sides to every coin.
I say the living, breathing human citizens should have *SUPERIOR* rights to the invented imitation corporate citizens. And that merely giving corporations a form of personhood invites such evil.
Parent
Better ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Once qualified by signature count to run, govt supplies X dollars from the pool, which you can use any way you like. Every candidate gets the same amount."
The problem here is that a 2nd party, say a PAC or the party's national committee go out and raise their own funds for your election. They can say they have the right of free speech to advertise on your behalf. This ultimately is the same as if you'd gotten the money yourself. "Support our project an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:4, Interesting)
A friend of mine ran for congress in the election just past, on almost no money at all. She was able to get the nomination largely because she's a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, so the heavy hitters weren't interested. Even when the race got unexpectedly close, the party refused to assist her in any way - not even returning phone calls - on the basis of historical voting patterns in the district, completely ignoring the problems that her Republican opponent was having. In the end, she was outspent something like 100:1 (refusing to accept corporate contributions), and lost by something like 4 percentage points.
I'll never know if she would have been "incorruptible" in office had she won, or if she'd ever have been able to get anything done there, but it would have been interesting to see.
Parent
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:5, Funny)
True - I always vote for the dead politician when presented with the opportunity.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yeah? (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Wahhhhh... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Almost got it (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
All politicians are corrupt... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Problem Solving (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Problem Solving (Score:4, Insightful)
Like "free" healthcare, including batteries of medical tests using equipment and services that costs thousands per patient, per event to operate/provide... while in the same breath demanding subsidized college tuition, tax credits for everything under the sun... all of that nice have your cake and eat it too type stuff.
Like, freedom from violent fanatics without any inconvenient actual action that might be required to actually deal with such people.
Like magical minimum wages provided to employees of small businesses without the necessary consequence of the small business hiring fewer people or raising the prices of what they provide.
Like demands that Wal-Mart be somehow less damaging to higher-priced local businesses, without actually running Wal-Mart out of town, because gee, it's sure nice to be able to go in there for lower prices.
Like demands that students not be "socially promoted" through public education without basic education skills while also demanding that substandard teachers and administrators not be let go, and students not be expected to comprehensively read and write.
Like demanding that when choosing to live below sea level in the direct path of recurring hurricanes, that the government take care of the costs of the inevitable messes without expecting the residents to recognize that they've chosen (for as long as they can get the government to keep bailing them out) to lead a more expensive life on other taxpayers' pockets.
You said "honesty." So, yeah, honesty would be calling that sort of stuff like it actually is.
Parent
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
Voters want results, but not costs:
Better schools without raising taxes.
Cleaner power... but Not In My Back Yard!
Cheaper housing, but no more construction
Et cetera
At least in the real world, if you want to make those gripes, you have to write in to your local paper, or attend a town hall meeting... where the politicians can respond to you directly.
Parent
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
The politicians have _vastly superior_ platforms than the average blogger to explain themselves, their ideas, their situation or in your examples the concept of public taxation to support the public ventures, with which the government is tasked to carry out.
And as for your last point, response doesn't have to be immediate or direct in order to be a response.
Parent
"how is that bad thing?" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
He has a Point (Score:3, Insightful)
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....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And politicians have forever been promising us everything, and telling us that they need the fruit of our labor to deliver. All of a sudden they can't deliver what was promised and it is our fault for expecting too mu
Re:He has a Point (Score:4, Interesting)
The things you're citing from the article are high-level problems that actually could have used government intervention to guide a common effort into a better place for everybody. They have been identified for a long time as something that needs real leadership on (energy sustainability, equity of opportunity for economic advancement of the young and poor, etc.) as these issues require concessions to be made on all sides and real leaders to broker a compromise between the competing interests. Sadly, we get none.
These people are there to serve the public interest, and not line their pockets in a perpetual job. They have lost sight of this.
For the author to essentially complain that "They asked us for transparency, and then bitched and moaned because what they saw on the inside was rotten to the core," is absurd. Of course we should complain! We aren't and weren't normally afforded the insight and oversight to make sure the current state of affairs never came to pass. We elected our representatives and expected them (naively) to do their jobs. And many of those representatives have had their positions for longer than much of their constituency has been alive (hyperbole, but not by much), at least here in the States. I'm not sure how easy it is for an incumbent to be re-elected in England but if it's anything like the States then said representative complaining that the constituency is restless probably is/was/has been part of the problem to begin with.
People say you get the government you deserve -- I believe this is true only if the government is truly accountable to the people. In the US, for at least as long as I've been alive, this has not been the case.
C
Parent
Great Spin (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, deal with it.
What ? Did Politicians do anything to solve - (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
How Dare They! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
He's kind of out-of-line here (Score:3, Insightful)
translation: criticize politicians for abuses by the politians and demand that they actually act in good faith in regards to keeping the public trust.
Given the security state Britain has become.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
That's right - blame the voters (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
High voter turnout is a bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [pollster.com]
Missing something (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The web could revolutionise politics (Score:3, Informative)
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 [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 [mysociety.org] and a web service too [theyworkforyou.com]. A few days ago, the same team [mysociety.org] launched an open-source online petition system [pm.gov.uk] backed by the UK government (sign the "fair use" petition [pm.gov.uk]). The same team also have a number of other projects [mysociety.org] in the same vein, such as mailing lists for MPs [hearfromyourmp.com]. Some MPs now have weblogs [tom-watson.co.uk]. Across the pond similar work is being done in the USA [slashdot.org].
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 [theyworkforyou.com] "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.
Now That's What You Call Ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Civility and substance (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The Main Problem with the Web and Politics... (Score:3, Insightful)
no, it's you fueling the crisis .. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me a Clinton having a BJNDO anytime .... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Teenagers eh? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:High Turnout (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [inthesetimes.com].
And in general, i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 committin
Re:High Turnout (Score:4, Informative)
The funny part of that is that Mr. Blair is actually a Labour party candidate....the left wing of British Politics.
Parent