In a variety of different ways I’ve been working with politicians on the net for more than a decade now. At one level it’s fine work – everyone knows the future is going to be online, right? It’s cheaper to communicate online than it is through traditional media, so the potential amount of work increases.
Yet all these years something has been nagging at me, and I know I am not the only one thinking about this. Why are politicians not better at communicating online?
There’s a legendary story for those of us that look at political activity on the web that concerns change.gov, Obama’s platform to allow the public to put forward their political ideas that went live the day after he was inaugurated. Give the people a platform, so the argument went, and excellent ideas for future legislation will emerge.
Not so, or at least not in the way anyone expected. And there are parallels for today’s European Council Twitter experience.
The whole Wikileaks saga has left me torn and confused. My automatic reaction is to welcome the leaks, to welcome the fact that we know much more now about how the wool has been pulled over our eyes as citizens about matters ranging from the hopelessness of the war in Afghanistan to the dodgy behaviour of Prince Andrew.
So why then have so few of the main left leaning blogs in the UK said anything thoughtful or positive about Wikileaks? The establishment, as represented by the political blogosphere? Continue reading
There seems to be a fundamental misconception at the heart of the ‘debate’ about Cameron’s Big Society ideas. This misconception is fed both by the discourse used by the Tories themselves, and the media reaction. Take this piece in today’s Guardian for example – councils are wondering whether some sort of reward scheme might prompt people to do more volunteering. It probably won’t work, as giving payment (or quasi-payment) for something that should be a selfless task is a sure recipe for not motivating people. Tory policy makers should read Daniel Pink on that, or watch this excellent RSA Youtube film that’s based on his ideas:
Going further, is there some sort of civic engagement that is just waiting to be tapped?
The press coverage of Big Society is dripping with scepticism about this. But I’m not so sceptical – if use of the internet is to become an integral part of the Tories’ plans. As Clay Shirky argues in Here Comes Everybody, the net allows activities that were previously unviable (under the Coasian floor as he terms it) to actually happen. Essentially the dramatic decline in transaction costs made possible by the internet makes social collaboration possible even in areas where it could never previously have been envisaged. It’s explained more here, 3rd paragraph. Is it just understanding that is beyond the imagination of our politicians and press?
Attending Personal Democracy Forum, re:publica and other equivalent events has – both directly and indirectly – opened my eyes to the writing and thinking of a whole group of US public intellectuals. I’ve had fun meeting Jeff Jarvis, have heard Lawrence Lessig, Clay Shirky and Cory Doctorow present, and have subsequently come across the writing of Daniel Pink and Richard Florida.
All of these individuals have in part built their reputation online, and use the web (and in some cases especially Twitter) to enhance and promote their work. Their follower numbers and, especially for @DanielPink and @JeffJarvis, their degree of engagement via Twitter is impressive.
Aside from that all of them, except Doctorow, are American. Doctorow was born in Canada and lives in London, although how ‘UK’ that makes him I am not sure.
Essentially my point is this: where are the UK and European public intellectuals either active in this space between the internet, politics and society? The only person getting close in Europe that I am aware of is Markus Beckedahl @Netzpolitik with 33000 followers and considerable interaction. In the UK @RichardDawkins has more than 100000 followers, but all the content there seems to be an auto retweet of work of his foundation – what an opportunity he is missing!
I tweeted about this issue earlier, and the suggestions in reply were @crookedfootball @philipjcowley and @stephenfry. The first two might be intellectuals, but are not exactly stellar on Twitter. Fry might have 1.8 million followers, might be an intellectual, but is not best known for that.
So the search goes on… If you have any good suggestions please tweet them to @jonworth or comment here.
[UPDATE]
@simonblackley has pointed me towards @edyson – born in Switzerland, one of the few women in this bracket, 10k followers.
[UPDATE 2]
More excellent work from @simonblackley has found @MarcusduSautoy. And I had somehow managed to forget @bengoldacre – surely with 60k followers he’s the best match yet?
[UPDATE 3]
Some further suggestions from @amonck: @georgeprof @charliebeckett @martinjemoore @arusbridger @emilybell
[UPDATE 4]
This is getting a bit long now! @evgenymorozov and @sambrook to be added
[UPDATE 5]
A slight tangent, but nevertheless interesting from @klang67 – a list of UK female science bloggers
[UPDATE 6]
Finally the European answer – step forward Brit Sir Ken Robinson, speaker on this tremendous RSA Youtube film, has 33k followers @SirKenRobinson. I’ve also just come across Nicholas Kristof @NickKristof- 969k followers – incredible, even for an American in this sector!
Jon Cruddas - CC/Flickr
On October 19th Jon Cruddas delivered the Aneurin Bevan Memorial Lecture, entitled ‘Taking back the Big Society”. The text of the speech is available at Liberal Conspiracy here and if you’ve ever heard Jon Cruddas deliver a speech live you can almost imagine how he would have delivered it (I wasn’t present at the event itself).
I like Cruddas, and he’s one of the most thoughtful politicians Labour has in its ranks. But the speech he delivered showed an awful lack of forward vision. In short the speech was fit for 1990, not for 2010.
For me there are two aspects to the Big Society, as defined by David Cameron and the Tories. The first (and alarming) aspect is the notion that society can in essence take over roles previously carried out by the state – essentially getting third sector (and often religious) groups to run services previously provided by the public sector. Against this process the Labour critique must be robust.
Conversely, there is a side to Big Society rooted in social entrepreneurship (some of it online) that Labour seems to have largely failed to grasp, and doesn’t even warrant a mention from Cruddas. If the Tories take this seriously enough to take on Tom Steinberg as an advisor then Labour has lessons to learn (and those lessons are more profound than just criticising Tom). Government itself would never have dreamt up Fix My Street or even The Open University – the latter often now cited as an example of a radical policy of the Wilson administration, but actually the brainchild of Michael Young, the foundation bearing his name being one of the cornerstones of social innovation in the UK today.
Beyond that, the Cruddas speech makes no reference whatsoever to how society is changing, and, importantly how technology is changing society and politics. As Clay Shirky documents so comprehensively in Here Comes Everybody (on Amazon here) our capacity for collective action – for good or bad – is irrevocably altered thanks to the net. Unpaid volunteers can build an encyclopedia, angry passengers can organise against the airlines, and a journalist and a blogger can organise to raise £154000 and change the face of atheism in the UK.
In essence for me no coherent vision of the future of the Labour Party, indeed any progressive party anywhere in Europe or beyond, cannot be divorced from the debate about how the internet is profoundly changing the way our societies work, the way we organise ourselves. It’s about time the leading intellectuals in Labour started to understand that.
If you’re an elected representative, what does an e-mail mean? If it’s from a constituent, individually written, it’s clear enough. But what about if it’s part of a campaign? In the clip above Clay Shirky argues that the predictive value of an e-mail for a member of Congress is zero, and with e-mail campaigns its impossible to rescue the signal from noise. Have we put the barrier to political engagement so low that it can cease to be meaningful? I can’t claim to have the answers, but watch the clip and have a bit of a think. The clip starts at the best bit of the presentation, but the rest is worth watching too.