MPs' money to boost understanding of political process - 3 comments

Paul Evans, transpero.net, and Designing for Civil Society have already covered the vote (a fortnight ago, I admit) by MPs for a £3 million allowance to boost the "public understanding of Parliament" through web-sites (and other things). Still, here are a few thoughts of my own.

Firstly, as for the amount of money on offer, £3 million would be a bargain if it really did improve the public understanding of Parliament, or at least, the political process, the making of policy, the scrutiny of bills and government business, etc.

Expressed, however, as £10,000 per MP, it does sound high. Perhaps I'm missing something, but if I can host Bloggers4Labour (at a pinch, I hear you cry) for £1,000 per year, why should the running costs of any single MP's site be so very much higher?

I'd like to criticise the idea that the £3 million must be divided equally, rather than invested in a system (which, in the guise of TheyWorkForYou, already provides a sound basis for future development) upon which all MPs could host their presence. This has the following advantages: first and foremost, it reduces the amount of money spent on web design/web-development: on the wages of those who offer money for old rope, as well as the evenings and weekends of keen youngsters.

This isn't simply about the costs of web development: there should be a strategy - or, at the very least, guidance - on best practice in civic and political engagement. What the online civic/political world is crying out for is a mechanism through which electors and elected can maintain an informed, committed conversation as equals. The vast bulk of web designers, in my experience, know about CSS, graphics,"web usability", and perhaps how to embed a video widget or integrate a blog, but they lack a vision of how a site can, or should, be used to boost popular engagement. MPs are more likely to have a sense of that vision, but are constrained by their inability to speak the same "technical" language as designers. Furthermore, by being placed on a level playing-field, MPs could receive instructions together on making the best of the facilities provided.

I do have a few ideas for what a new-look, hosted, MP web-site would offer (DfCS offer six, most of which I'd mildly go along with), which I might talk about in future, but such a site would be blog-based, albeit with a narrower audience, and much closer interaction and commitment than is usually talked about. I would also try to work around Jack Straw's concerns that sites would simply turn into advertisements and exhortations for the MP and/or party in question (helped, perhaps, by the fact that such things would probably carry little weight with the public), so that the planned restrictions that Paulie rightly decries could ultimately be lifted.

In the meantime, surely organisations like TheyWorkForYou and MySociety should be lobbying in a similar kind of way to convince the government/individual MPs/groups of MPs to make the very best use of this opportunity, and the money as/when it arrives?

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.