Orange: The Future of Politics

Cross-posted from The Wardman Wire:

Last week, Orange launched their report “The Future of Politics”. In the words of the accompanying news release, the reports shows “how British politicians can learn from Barack Obama and embrace technology to bring public involvement back into UK democracy.”

The launch press release picked out five main themes from the report:

  • A challenge to UK politicians to keep up with a new generation of ‘digital natives’ who expect MPs to get up to date with 21st century technology so they can have two-way meaningful conversations with the public and not just a one way online presence through a static website.
  • Citizen politicians could be at the heart of the political process, both on the internet and in Parliament. In the future Prime Minister’s Questions may allow a regular slot where the public can ask questions about the issues of the day.
  • Wikilaws will allow the public and experts to have their say on legislation. MPs and the public will be able to keep in touch with debate and scrutiny in real-time.
  • MPs can matter more, leading online campaigns and bringing government direct to the public. Digital technologies will place MPs at the heart of their constituencies and allow instant multichannel communication between constituents and public services to solve surgery problems.
  • The political long tail must be grabbed. Obama raised $280 million in small donations under $200, demonstrating the dramatic impact new technology has on the political process. British political parties will have to follow this lead and rely once again on mass participation not a few large donors.

But what the report doesn’t do is really examine the question of why these opportunities are not being taken. Somewhat cheekily, Liberal Democrat MP Steve Webb pointed out how the launch itself was a meeting with four talking heads at the front, followed by questions. As Steve put it, if all these technology opportunities the report talks about are so good, available and effective, why was the launch meeting itself so old-fashioned?

None of this is about technology that isn’t already widely available at reasonable cost. So is it just the case that the political process is just stuffed full of Luddites who don’t get it? Or is it the case that the technology zealots are failing to understand the structural issues restricting better use of technology? Practical limitations in terms of cost and effort which perhaps also explain why the launch meeting itself was so decidedly old-fashioned?

There is certainly some truth in the Luddite point, but to my mind as important (and more interesting, given how rarely it is talked about) are the structural issues.

One of the hurdles is simply time. Typically an MP will have an electorate of 80,000 or so (and that is ignoring those under 18, those not on the register, and anyone outside their constituency who they might sensibly want to interact with such as fellow MPs and so on).

Let’s assume the MP works every day of the year, only getting a one-day holiday in leap years. That means that even if they want to engage with all their electors just once a year, they need to deal with 220 of them each day. Give them 8 hours off for sleep, eating and washing and you have to get through 14 an hour – or just over four minutes each. And that doesn’t leave any time to do anything else that being an MP might involve, or any time to go shopping to buy food or update their website.

And that’s the problem. For all the talk about the possibilities of direct communication, one-to-one dialogue, listening and not just broadcasting and so on in a sea of enthusiast clichés, the underlying situation is one where MPs simply don’t have the time to directly engage with a large proportion of their electorate. They have two realistic choices: either to specially privilege a very small minority and leave out the rest, or stick with largely using methods of mass communication.

This reality is one reason why Facebook has proved so popular with MPs. It lets MPs communicate in a bulk fashion (I update my status but hundreds of friends see it) whilst giving the recipients a sense of relatively personal and relatively direct communication.

There is, I am sure, plenty of scope for clever use of technology to allow this to be used more widely. There are some restrictions of course. You can imagine the horror stories if an MP got in an artificial intelligence email reply system to automate responding to most of them emails (‘LAZY MP GETS ROBOT TO ANSWER EMAILS WHILE THEY GO ON HOLIDAY’ might be a headline). But it’s surprising that a report from Orange – a technology company after all – explores so little the role for technology in dealing with this underlying issue.

Although there is much to admire and learn from the use of the internet in US politics, it does also point to a rather less happy possible future in some respects too. For the big dirty secret of American political campaigns and the internet is the huge volume of emails that go completely unanswered by campaigns across parties and across different levels of election. That is a very crude and undesirable way of dealing with the problem of more people wanting direct communication than you can cope with, and it’s a stark warning of how far from improving politics the internet may make matters worse if it raises expectations and inbound communications, via whatever channel or technology is in vogue, that cannot be met.

Aside from technological answers, this raises questions about funding (is the answer to give MPs and others more resources to deal with this greater volume of communications?) and also questions about the extent to which it is practical or appropriate to outhouse responses to others. If I contact my MP via a comment on his website, should I expect s/he to respond or is it ok for them to have a team of keen supporters who pick up on comments and respond?

There is much more that can be written on any of these points, but unless technological visions for our political future tie together some mix of these and other ideas, they risk trying to chart a course for the future that is bound to fail.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Online politics.
Advert

5 Comments

  • Or, Mark, is it just that British people have lives and don’t just live through the Internet.

  • Hywel Morgan 16th Dec '08 - 12:23pm

    “Wikilaws will allow the public and experts to have their say on legislation. MPs and the public will be able to keep in touch with debate and scrutiny in real-time.”

    How meaningfull will this be? MPs already fail to adequately scrutinse legislation – eg:

    Large chunks of the Companies Act didn’t have an Parliamentary scrutiny.

    A national database (which we’re opposed to when it comes to ID cards) was introduced in the form of a national electoral register without any questions or debate (Electoral Administration Act)

    When I looked I was unable to find any Parliamentary debate on the sections of “terrorism” legislation used against Iceland recently.

    Numerous clauses were tabled to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 at a very late stage prompting Baroness Kennedy QC to say “Many changes to the law take place without the proper scrutiny of Parliament”

    My local MP criticised the introduction of legislation which (it was claimed) would outlaw lead organ pipes. However she hadn’t done anything when that piece of secondary legislation (implementing an EU Directive) was going through Parliament.

    Allowing the public to have greater say on legislation would be a good thing – but if our MPs are not doing part of their core job – or are not being allowed to do it by the executive – then it won’t have any effect.

  • Huh?

    Does this report mean to suggest that if only John McCain had been able to coordinate his website campaign better than Obama he’d have been able to raise more money than him?

    So, technology dissolves any philosophical differences – I don’t think so!

  • Problem as I see it at present, is that this new technology is counterproductive.
    1) helps people get involved in the political process in a positive light, that they can and do see a positive respnonse to their actions.
    2) Swamps the political process with the mundane, the independent Politician cannot win. As always a detractor can attack the process depending on who controls the editorial content.

    Not sure if I correctly made the point here, that this technology is negative for political process to operate. The Money, even especially today, will run rings around the democratic process leaving us to subsidise the largesse of excess enjoyed by the 1%.
    I am fortunate as I am not a Politician.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJeanette Sunderland 16th Oct - 12:40am
    How disappointing that you referred to the colour of Joe's dress before you commented on what she said.... So disappointing.
  • User AvatarRoland 15th Oct - 11:01pm
    @Ross - Its probably more to do with peoples understanding of UK English grammar and thus the correct usage of Licence and License.
  • User AvatarTonyH 15th Oct - 10:17pm
    David Evans - "Ryan didn’t have any experience of UK politics." I was actually thinking about one E. Pamplin, but maybe that's ancient history now....
  • User AvatarPaul Barker 15th Oct - 8:14pm
    While I understand some of the concerns expressed in this thread I disagree about the threats facing us. Right now, it seems to be that...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 15th Oct - 8:09pm
    @ Katharine, I did think twice about including Guy Verhofstadt. I haven't done an extensive background check on his views, but I did turn up...
  • User Avatarfrankie 15th Oct - 8:05pm
    It also increases Iran's influence. Right next door to Israel sits an ally of theirs. Syria has a battlehardend population and army, with no fear...