Politics, Policy and the Internet
Meeting arranged by the Centre for Policy Studies and the Telegraph
Group
Held in the MacMillan Room, ****tcullis House, London SW1 6.30-7.30 pm
on 31 March 2008
Speakers
All the speakers were brief - questions began at around 7.05. The
speakers were:
Jill Kirby , Director of the CPS
Did little more than introduce the other speakers.
Robert Colvile - Author of Politics, Policy and the Internet (CPS
pamphlet)
A bright eyed young man who was the sort of unquestioning enthusiast for
the potential of the web one found circa 1998, just before the DotCom
crash.
He had the curious idea that blogs are "one man's voice without spin,
while politicians are always spun.".This is simple nonsense because
blogs are just as susceptible to the ills displayed by professional
politicians including towing the ideological party line in many
instances.
He also believed that politicians could present themselves as "more
human" through the web by revealing details of their hobbies and
interests. The fact that they do this in a calculated way to persuade
the public they are human (spin) seemed to escape him entirely.
George Osborne Shadow Chancellor
The most impressive of the speakers. He got to the heart of the matter
which was is the use of the Internet a new approach to politics or
merely the transfer of the old politics from one medium to another? He
offered no certain answer. Happily, I managed to help him out when it
came to questions - see below.
He promised that the Tory Party would create websites which would allow
voters to check government expenditure at both national and local
government levels.
Iain Martin - Group Executive Editor, Politics, Telegraph Media Group
Said little of significance, his talk consisting largely of statements
of the blindingly obvious ("The use of the Internet by political parties
is evolutionary not revolutionary") and clattering banalities. The only
issue of any interest he raised was the use of the Internet to raise
funds for political parties, something which has scarcely begun in
Britain but is already big in the USA.
Tom Steinberg - Founder and Director of mySociety
mySociety is a project of UK Citizens Online Democracy mySociety runs
many "democracy" websites in the UK including WriteToThem.com,
PledgeBank and TheyWorkForYou.com. The funding for the charity is
varied but much of it is public money. mySociety is very heavily
dependent on public money, viz:
"mySociety was founded in September 2003. We spent the first year
raising money, getting a substantial grant from a Government department
called ODPM, in partner****p with West Sus*** County Council. The money
actually arrived in September 2004. We raced along for a year, building
all of our launch projects. Since then we've been improving our existing
projects, and starting new ones, some described in this post on our
developers' blog. We're getting money from various foundations and bits
of government....." Taken from mySociety website.
Steinberg previously worked as a policy analyst in the Prime Minister's
Strategy Unit. The various websites he runs are funded through a charity
In short, mySociety is a vehicle being used by the elite to manipulate
public opinion and give a spurious appearance of "new" democratic
involvement.
Steinberg's main declared interest at the meeting was in making
legislation accessible to the general public by putting it on the web in
a form the public can understand - he is presently lobbying government
for funds to do this.
I spoke with Steinberg after the meeting - see below.
Questions to the panel
When questions arrived I managed to be the first one up. I addressed
the question Osbourne had raised, namely, is the Internet resulting in
a new kind of politics or is it simply the present politics transferred
to a new medium.?
I proposed that it was simply the old politics transferred to a new
medium. My reasoning was as follows: the mainstream media still controls
what reaches the general public. Whatever is put out on the Internet
by those outside the mainstream media remains very much a minority
interest until it is taken up by the mainstream media. In practice that
allows the mainstream media to control the information flow to the
public, for they can decide what is and is not to be taken up.
In addition, I pointed out that the mainstream media and politicians
collude in deciding what information is released. I cited as examples
the mass censor****p by the British mainstream media of Prince Harry's
deployment in Iraq (which eventually came to public light when the
mainstream media decided to publicise the story which had broken on an
obscure Australian website) and the attempted suicide of Blair's
daughter in April 2004 (which has never been brought to the general
public). The mention of the latter brought a most satisfyingly sick
look on the faces of all of the panel, especially noticeable in the
cases of Osbourne and Martin.
However, unlike at previous meetings when I have raised the question of
media suppression of , the four panelists did address the question.
Interestingly, none questioned the veracity of the Blair daughter's
suicide although only and Martin overtly acknowledged that the story was
true ue. Martin's "justification" for the media's sitting on the Blair
daughter was a simple assertion that it had no public interest (these
people have to be seen to be believed).
On the question of Prince Harry all the speakers sung form the same hymn
sheet, namely, it was justified by cir***stances, the ever ready excuse
for every censor who has ever lived. None of them expressed any concern
that our mainstream media is some obedient that some 50 news
organisations in this country remained silent in both of the examples I
gave.
The only other question of real interest was one on the question of
Internet voting. Although the speakers were not wildly enthusiastic
about it, none raised any qualms about the ability of those in charge of
such voting to manipulate votes - there would be no way any meaningful
check could be made on the results by anyone outside of the process,
unlike our present system where votes are counted manually in each
constituency with plenty of people around and involved in the count.
After the meeting
Tom Steinberg
It was clear he did not have much of a clue about the task he has set
himself. I asked him these questions:
1.Most Acts of Parliament, namely, that they contain references to
previous Acts along the lines of "Section 4, paras 1-9 of such and such
an Act are incor****ated into this Act". The details of what the part of
the previous Act says are not included in the new Act and consequently
the reader of the new Act does not have a clue what the Act says unless
he then refers to the previous Act. How will you overcome this
difficulty?
Steinberg hmmed and hawed and eventually said that he would link the
parts of the previous Acts to the new Act. I pointed out that this would
scarcely be making legislation readily understandable and suggested the
better way of doing things would be to incor****ate the full wording of
any parts of previous Acts into the new Act. This produced a shrug of
the shoulders from Steinberg. .
2. How will you deal with secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments,
Orders in Council, Orders of Council)?
This seemed to take him aback and I suspect he had not considered this
aspect of the law. He eventually made vague noises about linking those
to the primary legislation.
3. How will you deal with the case law which affects the way the
legislation
is interpreted?
This met with a blank stare.
4. How will you deal with the need for those interpreting a law to
understand general points of law, for example, the implications of the
general law of confidentiality on the FOIA?
This met with a blank stare.
5. How will you deal with official guides to legislation produced by
Government for the general public, guides which not infrequently
contradict the legislation?
This met with a blank stare.
6. Who will you get to do all this work?
Steinberg said civil servants. I pointed out that they would be unsuited
to the work because only a lawyer experienced in the area of law
covered by an Act would be able to understand the law in its entirety.
Steinberg looked very uncomfortable.
7. Do you understand the amount of legislation you would have to deal
with?
He appeared to have no idea of the sheer scale of the legislation which
he was proposing to make more accessible. Even if lawyers were employed,
it would be quite impossible to find sufficient to work through the
existing laws and keep up with new legislation.
Iain Martin
Martin looked distinctly uncomfortable when I went through the reasons
why the Blair daughter's attempted suicide was im****tant - the need for
the public to know the PM's state of mind, the possibility of blackmail
while the story was suppressed, the fact that politicians are of
necessity professional moralists who are only too fond of telling the
public what to do and thus need to put their own personal cir***stances
out for public scrutiny and so on. I reminded Martin that the media had
had no difficulty on re****ting on the suicide and attempted suicide of
a pair of girls years younger than the Blair girl who entered a suicide
pact around the same time as Katherine Blair's attempt.
Martin's only response to my questions was to keep repeating that he
thought the silence was justified.
RH
..
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/
blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
|
