2020 Vision - 2 comments

I once published a bleating post that, rather than stating explicitly what my concern was, ended up sheepishly calling for "a debate" on said issue, thus avoiding having to express my own view, dodging criticism from one side or the other, and consequently failing to frame or inform the debate in any way.

Just like this, in other words. OK, that's harsh - some people do nothing else, and who can honestly say they haven't pulled this trick once in a while? If anyone had indeed taken up my call on those terms, they'd have found it a pretty unfulfilling experience. For one thing, how can anything be resolved if every view is valuable, as good as any other, there are no wrong answers, and no prospect of the hypothesis (supposedly) under discussion being applied in the real world?

This only worries people who aren't interested in answers, or in truth.

Anyway, back to 2020 Vision, launched today, and backed by Charles Clarke, Alan Milburn, and several Labour MPs and Lords. I'd certainly class it as well-meaning (but helpful?), and there are some good sections in the various launch statements, but here are some of my issues with it:

It's yet another web-site, professionally executed, upon which a fair amount of money will have been spent, but developed in secret, and launched upon the world without any clear idea of its place, its role, its competitors, and so on.

We have blogs (in the UK) by the million, we have sites produced by professional think-tankers, plus endless talks and pamphlets. Can we really expect another site seeking "progressive answers" to find a niche, rather than distracting energy and attention from others? Like Progress, for example, or Compass (aka the Programme for a New Swedish Century - only kidding, guys).

Haven't we reached the limits of the comments-box model of democracy?

You only need to see a small selection of the comments at 2020 - or indeed any high-profile political discussion site - to realise that:

• The motives of commenters are probably evenly distributed from helpful and positive at one extreme, to downright mischievous at the other, with a good range of pedants and grandstanders throughout. Some sifting has to be done.
• People are wrong, illogical, incoherent, and inconsistent about so much. Comment boxes aren't good environments for arguing to a conclusion, minds are closed, and it's embarrassing to have it shown that you're wrong.

Ultimately commenters bear no responsibility for the policies they advocate, and those they shoot down. Talk is cheap and easy, and without solving this problem, these web-sites and the noisy debates they produce seem to me to be a complete dead-end for democracy. I don't think it matters whether a million people leave comments, and Tony Blair is at the other end, scribbling ideas down on a pad as they seep through - without involving people directly in the making and application of policies that affect them, in a decentralised way, the problem of alienation between politician/provider and citizen will remain, and people will continue to be moderately disgruntled about their lives and expectations. This sort of politics has to die.

Perhaps economics has the answers we're looking for?

Update (March 1st). A large collection of articles on the same theme.