Smeargate - the last word on it from me!

The consensus on the ongoing Smeargate debacle is that politics has lost out, its reputation further tarnished by this fresh evidence that politics is a dirty game. One voice that stands against this is Conservative MP Douglas Carswell who writes on his blog quite rightly that "Politics in Britain is fundamentally broken. The Internet is merely helping to expose the bogusness of what we currently have to put up with" - in other words this is really little that is new. However he makes the further assertion that: "The web will break the predominance of corporate party machines, the corporate media and corporatism - each of which helps currently sustain the SW1 class. Politics will have to become "open source" and more democratic"

I found this a really interesting argument, and one that would be a very positive development, but I worry if this really will be the case. My problem is that I doubt that currently the right people are influential in the blogosphere to hold SW1 to account. My take, disagree if you like and I am sure some will, is that Smeargate is a symptom of something that is endemic in modern politics, that campaigns are as likely to be fought on negative grounds and what often predominates is the personal attack. And perhaps Smeargate provides evidence that rather than being a feature of party machines it is actually spilling over into the blogosphere. Smeargate is the latest instalment of a battle between two egos. This was not a revelation exposed by a blogger wishing to scrutinise the actions of those in politics. It appears to be more the case that the underlying desire was that of Paul Staines to did dirt about Derek Draper, to undermine Labour's rather brash and artificial attempt to have a grassroots online presence and to score party political points.

The blogosphere seems to currently reflect the pattern of the mainstream media. What predominates is bias, with even the BBC being accused of favouring parties and ideologies (usually those in government). Bloggers have no regulation and so, rightly, we can say what we like, that is the idea after all. But if it is biased opinion following party political lines, whether this can encourage democracy in anyway is a very big question. What seems very rare is good, objective political blogging that is not out to score points or cheerlead for one party or another (not a call to read my blog by the way but an observation of what is available). The problem is that much also purports to be independent, both from parties and politically. Thus I share the despondency and am much more pessimistic than Douglas Carswell I'm afraid. Evidence suggests that petty squabbling and point scoring does not encourage engagement in politics, if this is to spill over into the blogosphere then it will keep it as a forum for the few and not the many. Just my humble opinion!

If Mr McBride had been a better adviser...

One of the most prescient comments, one that all political campaigners should read, was made with reference to what is now known as #smeargate, in an Observer editorial: "The command-and-control approach to information, mastered by New Labour, looks outdated in the digital age. If Mr McBride had been a better adviser, he would have told Mr Brown that long ago". It has become increasingly impossible to subdue any information and emails are far too easy to leak - often by accident by the originator. Government needs to be open, not just in releasing information on cumbersome websites, but accessible to the citizens. Some are hailing what Obama is doing as a move in the right direction, maybe that is something our governments can learn from but, independent of the current scandal, governments current and future need to respond to the way society is communicating and leave behind the notion of central control of information that only works in societies that have a similar system of control in all walks of life.

A New Era?

It would perhaps be fair comment that of all the things the new regime in Zimbabwe needs to do, providing a website is a low priority. However Morgan Tsvangirai knows he is talking to a range of audiences and that change is often as much about symbolism as it is about results (often it is purely symbolic as results take time). What makes the Tsvangirai website interesting is that it is not only the traditional information heavy, top-down communication tool common across most democracies. What it attempts to do is firstly inform, so the home page is dominated by Tsvangirai's inaugural speech, but alongside that (see below) is the opportunity to say what you think the top priority of the government should be: the question with that is who is it aimed at? Who has access to the Internet (as of March 2008 only 10.9% of the population) and who is most likely to respond?

Similar questions relate to the forum that has been created. It is entitled 'Your Forum' and the language suggests it is the hope that the people of Zimbabwe will get involved. There are a good amount of posts, a small amount of replies but views for the popular ones into the 200s, so perhaps it is getting some attention. Below is a shot of just one series of threads, ok the viewers may all be foreign correspondents and the four replies may be from emigres; it is perhaps a start.

Change in Zimbabwe is going to be a slow process. Perhaps currently Tsvangirai is in the process of trying to both symbolically and actually build the new brand for the government, one that fits his tag-line of 'A New Era of Democratic and Transparent Leadership'. If the government are bold enough to listen to those posting and to post ideas themselves, if conversations develop then more may be encouraged to take part, and if the people who have access are not too scared to share their personal information and log in perhaps word will get out that there is a new style of government. A lot of maybes and perhaps in that, but symbolically it says a new era, the question is whether this can help usher that new era in.

Politics 2.0

Already labelled DD2.0, David Davis for Freedom is now up and running (finally). He links to Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. A key aspect seems to be donations, though on that page less of a case is made of how the money will be useful to promoting the anti 42 days campaign. However the site is clearly geared to addressing issues relating to civil liberties and is maybe building a grand alliance: Tony Benn joined Davis in a debate, which seems an unlikely combination prior to his stepping down. Benn's endorsement: "This by-election will give the voters in that constituency an opportunity to register their view on this issue, through the ballot box, which is, and always will be, the ultimate guarantee of our fundamental freedoms in a free society" can do Davis' case little harm. How this hub will develop will be interesting, particularly interesting will be the extent to which the public and other interested groups participate. Opportunities are currently limited, I note one comment on his blog post; is this the start of a Politics 2.0 with this issue as a focal point?

Good idea or pointless?

Here is an interesting video, uploaded to the parliament Youtube channel and and attempt to answer and so alter negative perceptions of politicians and in the case of this video those sitting in the House of Lords.

While including elected members may have strenghtened the case, but well made and designed to be persuasive; it puts the uninformed but negative position first and then unravels it slowly before putting a case for 'why politics matters'. It does seem to jump about a bit but a reasonable attempt. Whether it has any impact will depend on if the disengaged are among the 2,360 viewers since may 8th. However this is unlikely, those who believe politics is irrelevant and politicians are self-seeking are hardly likely to dip into the parliament site on Youtube: the web can be used to communicate with young voters but you got to have something to attract them to your site.

The digital politician?

Gordon Brown, in launching an online 'Question Time' via Youtube, argues it is time the public had a chance to ask him questions. He invites anyone to submit videos and promises to respond.

While a little bit like a video answer-machine message, he looks a lot more open in his manner than his usual appearances, talking to the camera in a very sincere way. The rules of engagement are interesting, firstly it is clear what he does not want "Videos should not contain any references to political parties or commercial endorsement, be aggressive or offensive" and one imagines any that do not conform here will not see the light of day. However, there is a further inference of wanting a different type on engagement: "Be original, use your creativity and your imagination. Make your video a success. Think outside the box!" This perhaps hints he wants to follow a different agenda to that of the media, and in his video this may well mean those big issues he talks of: "globalisation, climate change, housing, jobs and public services", issues which are of concern to the predominantly young Youtube user but that national politicians are often accused of ignoring. Will he get interesting and creative questions? Will he in turn provide interesting and creative answers? Or is this purely an exercise to prove he is not an "analogue politician in a digital age"? Clearly he recognises that the Internet is a key political battleground and one which Cameron has had to himself for a long time; can he make an impact here?

Penn not working with Paddick

Despite PR Week reporting Mark Penn was to advise Brian Paddick, which I repeated, I am reliably informed this is inaccurate; actually American web strategist Jerome Armstrong of the WebStrong Group are his team. And they are innovating. Using Ustream.TV, the live video webcasting site, Paddick will tonight (7.30-8.30 pm) answer questions in a live hustings. Campaign Manager Andrew Reeves said: “The live webchat will allow Brian to hold a virtual hustings with Londoners from the comfort of their own home. Using the Internet as a new way of engaging with Londoners will help Brian reach out to larger audiences and have a one-to-one dialogue with voters who would not otherwise attend political events. “Our Ustream.TV video webchat is a pioneering first in British politics and the next step in our ambitious web campaigning programme to promote Brian’s message of change and serious solutions for London.” Used widely in America, and part of a trend that utilises web technology to allow citizens to interact directly with candidates, it seems this is becoming more common. Key questions for me are: how many people will participate; will access be unregulated and if so can opponents hijack the questioning; will different people participate and engage, not just the already engaged and active? Sadly I will be on a train and unable to watch but I await the postmortem with interest. I do think that the Mayoral election is a testing ground for the next UK General Election, which wil also draw on the lessons from the US this year, if it works Ustream may get busy!

is this interaction?

In a party political broadcast tonight PM Gordon Brown invited viewers to text Gordon to 60022 and send a question that he would then answer via the Labour website. The answers are by way of a badly produced video where sound is a little all over the place but who cares about those fine details.

The key question is, are these real viewer questions or the ones GB wanted to answer? Is this an opportunity to appear to speak to viewers while answering the questions he wants to answer, so making statements by the back door? Or is this real interaction between the nation's leader and its people on the issues that concern the latter? Finally why is GBs mike so far away???

P.S. love the way the 'tough', 'people's' interviewer backs up GB, especially on how good policing is in her area under Labour!!

The Online Environment - Transforming Politics

Robert Colvile has produced a very interesting report for the Centre for Policy Studies entitled Politics, Policy and the Internet it makes a number of interesting claims:

• Just as television and radio transformed the way politics operated in the twentieth century so in the future will the Internet have a profound effect on the language and conduct of politics and policy. This will be a gradual and inexorable phenomenon.
• The Internet has already had an impact on politics. But in the UK, it is underdeveloped compared to many other countries, in particular the US.
• In particular, British political parties have failed to embrace this new opportunity. The British National Party website has the same market share as all of the other major political parties combined.
• The parties could reverse this by altering their mindset from “send” to “receive”, by learning the lessons of unofficial organisations such as bloggers, activists and campaign groups which have exploited the potential of the Internet.
• The Internet will bring a far greater openness to politics. The power of search will enforce consistency and depth in both policy and communication of policy. And the tone of debate will, at least in many cases, remain lively, anti-establishment and original.
• For the activist and the citizen, the Internet will increasingly be used to hold politicians to account and to enable like minded groups (such as the those opposed to road pricing) to develop potent single-issue campaigns.
• The web could also re-empower MPs, by linking them far more directly to the concerns of their constituents. Most have, so far, failed to grasp this opportunity.
• For policy development, the Internet will bring greater scrutiny; and greater access to official government data could revolutionise the way policy-making works.
• Should the vision of leading thinkers on both the Labour and Conservative sides be translated into reality, then the Internet should become the key forum for proposing and organising support for new policies.
• The most subtle, but perhaps most powerful, change, will be to the public’s mindset. As we grow used to the instant availability of information online, we will no longer tolerate delay and obfuscation in getting similar information from government. The individual, and not the state, will be the master in the digital age.

Share of voice online is an interesting statistic, Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale have 45% of the market share in terms of readership and so presence and perhaps influence: though there is no direct correlation between readers and influence some can be assumed. Sites such as LabourHome are far behind as are MPs blogs, but the total hits for party sites is minuscule: "Hitwise calculated that there was an online market share of 0.00012% for the Green Party website, 0.00018% for Labour, 0.00043% for the Lib Dems and 0.00051% for Labour. The Conservatives had double the visits, with 0.001% per cent – but the BNP was double their level again, on 0.0022%" (p. 13). While this is as a percentage of web users there is a suggestion in this that the parties are not offering the sort of content visitors find attractive.

But Colvile calls for the potential of the Internet to be harnessed in a way suggested by David Cameron in a paper entitled “Power to the People”, he argued that:

“I would like to see a system whereby, if enough people sign an online petition in favour of a particular motion, then a debate is held in Parliament, followed by a vote – so that the public know what their elected representatives actually think about the issues that matter to them.”

This in essence is something that the web community has been arguing for and criticising politician's use of the Internet for. Given that the Internet is increasingly constructed around virtual communities of participation, who can debate anything from the highly philosophical to the mundane, there is clearly potential for politicians to build an online political public sphere. The problem is getting a wider public to join in. A review in PR Week talks of Boris Johnson using the Internet for borough-based campaigning, but will this translate into trust and support for him as a Mayoral candidate. Does the share of voice and hits identified mean anything in terms of share of vote or actual support?

While there is potential, politicians cannot just create a blog, build a website or join Facebook and expect to reap rewards. Perhaps Johnson's bottom-up approach is best for creating engagement but putting existing bloggers on party staff is not an answer, neither is appearing 'palpably human' online unless the image is consistent offline and via the media. There is potential but engagement with Internet user must be entered into wholeheartedly or perhaps it is not worth considering even as "repositories of press releases and propaganda".

Real democracy?

Based probably on the success of the petitions that anyone is able to post on the 10 Downing Street website, and the support given to the petition opposing road pricing, David Cameron has suggested that a Conservative government would roll out the scheme to allow citizens to comment on policy proposals. His rationale is:

"I would like to see a system whereby, if enough people sign an online petition in favour of a particular motion, then a debate is held in Parliament, followed by a vote - so that the public know what their elected representatives actually think about the issues that matter to them."

The plan has the backign of Ken Clarke and is designed to reinvigorate the relationship between peopel and their political representatives, as well as the power of parliament as a legislative body.

While the details need consideration, given the fact that the public are harnessing the power of the internet to express their views already, and currently petitions gain significant support this has to be a logical step forward in re-engaging the public in the dmocratic process.

By the way for those who agree that pubs should not all be forced to switch from glass to plastic, independent of whether they actually have fights on the premises, sign the petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/plasticglass

Shovelware seems de rigeur

Just as US parties and candidates are embracing all communications technological, and Labour leadership hopefuls are experimenting with social media, it seems the Liberal Democrats are in retreat away from the Internet. Dizzy bemoans the death of another blog and I agree, but also note the lack of enthusiasm within the party to keep it going. Rob Fenwick, who runs the Liberal Democrat Voice, says in his post that he no longer has time but no-one else has come forward, so the e-presence is simply their website and the Lib Dem blogs network. The loss of 'the voice' is that central place where many news and views were collected and disseminated, so in terms of creating an online supporters' community this is a backwards step.

Similar negatives can be levelled at the Ming Campbell blog, started with little fanfare on Feb 10th 2006, but which is only really a blog in style. The entries are impersonal, slightly more attractive than press releases (they include videos etc) but seems to attract very little in the way of comments and does not offer dialogue to visitors. 'LibDem blogs' still collects various postings together but it is simply a database that takes visitors to the host blog. So it seems, despite the potential the Internet can offer to parties with limited funds that the LibDems are missing the same tricks as their larger counterparts, more shovelware anyone?

The e-campaign comes of age?

Candidates in the primaries and the parties themselves are increasingly utilising the Internet in their bid to win the US presidency, with the Democrats leading the race in building up a community around their social networking activities according to an article published today. The activity on their open threads does not suggest a party talking to voters, but evidence that there may be strong public engagement and cross-contributor horizontal dialogue; is this the e-public sphere that many academics of public discourse suggest the Internet can facilitate? Two observations here are very important, both made by John Durham the Internet strategist behind the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Firstly that a candidate going online "needs to cede a certain amount of control for a certain amount of visibility", and when "Every vote is going to be necessary... [the] undecided group of voters [must] be reached in non-mass ways". British counterparts need to take note of this, and the level of interactivity French presidential candidates engaged in; being online is not sufficient, but creating a real dialogue and so building relationships requires a degree of openness and interactivity. If positive and fresh perceptions of politicians is to be built online then it needs to adopt a different model of political communication than the simple repeat-remind, one-way push communication! While Howard Dean did not change the face of political communication in 2004; the forthcoming contest could see the candidate with the most interactive web presence win the primary and the election - it is possible!

Since When?

The political editor at the Swindon Advertiser reports the following with a tone of surprise:

"It seems voter apathy has engulfed the town just 10 days before residents are
due to go to the polls for the local elections... None of the 30 people
questioned... knew who their current councillor was or who else was standing for
election. In the straw poll it was found that just under a third surveyed said
they would be voting."

Well to be fair 33% is about average for turnout, knowledge about local representatives is always low; lets face it on average less than 40% can name their MP, so why the surprise?

The positive aspect, however, is the debate raging in the comments between those like 'Fed up' who ask "why bother to vote" and 'I too could be a councillor' who argues "not voting at all indicates that you think everything is hunky dory and you're perfectly happy". Habermas would be proud of the reinvigoration of the public sphere, at some levels admittedly, ICT offers.