If only all decisions were made by jurors, right....? (Click image for credit)

Like a minority of people who have watched what will surely be 2009’s official leitmotif - the demand for full disclosure from MPs – play out,  I’ve wondered when similar demands will be applied to those who rival MPs for power.

This phrase of Larry Elliot’s – explaining the roots of the current economic crisis – underline the problem here:

“But there is a motley band of discontents for whom business as usual, in whatever form, means that another crisis will erupt before too long. They argue that the exiguous nature of current reform proposals is explained by the institutional capture of governments by the investment banks, the world’s most powerful lobbying groups.”

Certainly, politicians have been teed up so that they can be whacked squarely whenever they get ideas above their station. Right now, it would be hard to make the case that MPs are the right people to take on Tom Wolfe’s over-powerful Masters of the Universe.

In the same way that the Ross-Brand affair was used to tee the BBC up by politicians who don’t wish the corporation well, there’s an argument that demands for transparency rarely come from an organisation’s friends.

Much of this has been led squarely from the political right. The Taxpayers Alliance and a range of right-wing anti-BBC bloggers have worked in tandem with media owners that have been frustrated with what they see as the BBC’s anti-competitive influence on the media landscape. Certainly, at this moment, the libertarian right is the key mover behind the UK’s anti-politics campaigns on MPs expenses for reasons that have more to do with a pro-direct democracy position than more short term party political advantages. The current scandal has, after all, hurt the Conservative Party as well as Labour.

It’s hard to seperate this question from the differing political attitudes to the decline of newpapers. In no less a place than The Washington Post, we see this:

“For the first time in American history, we are nearing a point where we will no longer have more than minimal resources (relative to the nation’s size) dedicated to reporting the news. The prospect that this “information age” could be characterized by unchecked spin and propaganda, where the best-financed voice almost always wins, and cynicism, ignorance and demoralization reach pandemic levels, is real. So, too, is the threat to the American experiment.”

From the left, there appears to be an emerging response. The first is to harass the newspapers, those who use the libel laws to suppress inconvenient truths and other pedlars of perverted science. Jan Moir, Trafigura, and the British Chiropractic Association have all felt the sharp end of this kind of crowdsourced hostility in recent months.

Over on OpenDemocracy, Tom Griffin wants to see lobbyists put more firmly under the spotlight. Certainly, this idea has some traction with the liberal centre, and in the US, the Sunlight Foundation is at least as concerned with transparency on the question of lobbying as it is on the personal conduct of politicians.

It’s hard to see where this will end. There is a case to be made for…

• Significant reforms to media ownership rules to ensure that the media is sufficiently pluralistic
• Similar reforms that ensure that commercial lobbies can be uncoupled from self-serving media interests (I argued this point in a good deal more detail over on Left Foot Forward)

I would suggest that this argument has a long way to go. The left doesn’t appear yet to have recognised the importance of rescuing journalism in the way that the right has embraced it’s decline, otherwise the NUJ’s Jeremy Dear wouldn’t be struggling to raise his arguments for new forms of journalistic funding to a level where anyone would hear them.

And if you’ll forgive me further self-linking, there are a number of posts here that raise the question of what happens if we treat politicians as jurors. If MPs are only really allowed to meet advocates in a recorded way, that would surely be the consequence of Tom’s proposal?

Either way, I’d suggest that advocates of transparency from all sides need to spend more time outlining what they think is permissible and desirable in representation, campaigning and media behaviour. We all seem to know what we’re against, but the interesting question, for me, is what we are in favour of?

Wonder if he’ll stand for election?

The biggest words are, on a quick skim, “prevent, save, reimburse, make, oppose, charge and introduce”. With my local government head on, all of those words, except charge, are “spend” words. Save this thing the council want to close, introduce a new service, put more bobbies on the beat to prevent crime.

I don’t have a problem with people saying that they want the council to spend more money – people do that all the time. It’s just very likely that the appeals to spend more money will push for higher and higher spending at a time when there’s less money than ever for doing new things.

Easier petitioning means councils will need to get (even) better at saying no.

Sidebar: Interesting research project for someone: take the most recent 100 petitions on the Number 10 website, and work out the net cost of accepting them.

Dr John Pugh, the analogue Lib Dem MP for Southport, has a motion down condemning the growing tendency of hon. members to text, e mail and twitter their way through parliamentary debates. According to his motion “greater interest is shown in e-mails and messages than in the contribution of parliamentary colleagues”, although he admits the practice is “at times quite understandable”.

I suspect that this is more of a topical debate than something Dr Pugh would die-in-the-ditch about, but it’s worth breaking down anyway. Does he have any valid arguments here?

Firstly, if MPs are sitting there gardening their inbox, then there is no question that he’d have a point. And if a bunch of MPs simply thumbing lengthy responses to emails into their Blackberrys during PMQs, it would soon take the life out of the whole spectacle. It would lead to the suspicion that they were in the chamber simply to be seen to be there.

Certainly, the body language around the chamber during PMQs doesn’t suggest this.

The other question is whether MPs are paying more attention to what their peers on Twitter are saying than what is said in the chamber. Leaving aside the fairly boring point that Dr Pugh is asking (we would surely expect MPs to be able to multi-task), the question of whether it is proper to tweet from the chamber rehashes some old questions raised elsewhere on this blog. For example…

• Would we allow a juror to tweet during a trial? And isn’t an MP supposed to be a bit open-minded in the way a juror is?
• Surely parliamentary debate is a closed system that relies upon a voter-mandate? You need to get elected to take part – not just qualify by thumbing 140 characters into a text message?
• Is tweeting really a recreational activity? And surely MPs should be sitting on very uncomfortable chairs plainly not enjoying themselves whenever we are looking at them
• Does it slightly damage the image of parliament by showing MPs engaged in a slightly trivial pastime?

… and there are plenty more similar questions whose answers would reveal what kind or representation we really want.

Then there is the question of how this improves the quality of thinking. On the one hand, Twittering – like getting involved in comments boxes on blogs – leads one into multilateral conversations of the kind illustrated on this old post of David’s – better than the very orderly (!) unilateral conversations that dominate parliamentary debate. Anyone who has used Twitter at a conference to conduct wider conversations will know the value that this can add. This must be a good thing, no?

On the other hand, there is the question of quality. Dr Pugh would have an open and shut case in arguing that conversations on Twitter involve snatches of commentary that are taken out of context. It would be impossible to offer much by way of context in 140 characters.

Critics of twitter characterise it (usually from a distance) as a confederacy of airheads. It would be hard to treat Twitter as a sober academic conversation. It is, however, a bubble of noise that one can tune into. It’s a way of keeping lots of people in your peripheral vision, and of being able to get an instant catalytic reaction out at the right moment.

I’d be interested to see if there are any examples of an MP either reacting to something in Parliament on twitter in a way that game-changed the debate (in the way that a good parliamentary heckle can). Or, failing that, has an MP picked something up from twitter that they then used as an effective heckle?

Another question: Has anyone had a Parliamentary question suggested to them on Twitter and then used during a debate? If an MP could illustrate that their performance as a questioner improved because of Twitter, then it would be a slam-dunk of an argument for Kerry.

Then there is the question of demagoguery. The pro-Twittering MPs argument is that it’s a good thing that people who make decisions are reacting to debate in a very candid way. This bespeaks a certain honesty and a willingness to justify oneself. But does it also leave the way open for demagogues to provide a populist running commentary on Parliamentary proceedings?

The allied question is the one about the use of reason. MPs are supposed to be open to debate. Does Twitter have the potential to reinforce popular mandates – particularly on totemic issues?

Leaving aside the rabble-rousing potential, this candid exchange is surely a good thing though? There have long been suspicions that elected representatives have been ‘captured’ by pressure groups. Moreso in the US, but it is still an issue here. MPs have sometimes had their offices staffed by willing ‘interns’ supplied by lobby groups, and this has stretched as far as having MPs using pressure groups to co-ordinate the conduct of a debate.

Twitter is much more candid than this, and any MP who is plainly dancing to a pre-determined tune would be less able to get away with it if s/he were twittering at the same time. Twittering is antithetical to opaque arrangements where the decision arising out of a debate has been pre-mandated either by a pressure group or party whips. It also allows MPs to illustrate the fact that most of these big arguments aren’t the binary questions that are presented by party spin-doctors. There’s often a much more granular discussion going on in the corridors and Twitter surely has the potential to reflect this? Especially at a time when the mainstream media are determined to conceal it as part of the process that Pierre Bourdieu described as ‘demagogic simplification‘?

But on the wider question, I’m finding it hard to be even-handed here. Surely Twitterers are being more interactive and conversational? How can this be anything but a good thing? And surely they are likely to be a bit more human and less narrowly dogmatic? They are plainly answering to a wider constituency by using social media tools. And surely they likely to be a bit more ironic in their detachment on big issues? Are they likely to be less prone to ‘the lust for certainty‘? Elsewhere on this blog, I’ve argued that these human traits in themselves provide important arguments in favour of representative democracy?

By Twittering, they are less unreachable and rare in their appearance. They may be more approachable as a result and enjoy a less adversarial relationship with local pressure groups?

And lastly, by using Twitter, MPs are staying in conversation with the people who elected them. They are showing their personal complexity to their constituents. If you would like the personal vote to become more important than party-voting (I do) then this will surely help in that direction.

On balance, I’m with Kerry on this one.

Update: Here’s Ton Watson on Twitter: @maggiephilbin As a minister, not a day went by where I didn’t glean insight from my Twitter community. As a backbencher it’s more fun too.

Supports Kerry’s point, doesn’t it?

Mr Davies brings Weber, Hayek, Weinberger, Arendt and even Habermas to bear on the question of whether decentralising information through online services like data.gov.uk can offer us good government.

He concludes that while it may provide transparency and even accountability it can never sustain the legitimacy that a democratic state provides.

He offers a dense, complex argument, written for an audience familiar with the thinkers he refers to.

Davies’ writing is not for everyone, but it should be essential reading for anyone who wants to develop a sound understanding of the implications for society and political structures of the technological change that we seem to have accepted as inevitable.

It is the sort of thinking that we desperately need if we’re to understand the technological future being offered to us by politicians of all major parties – and in all developed countries – as they are seduced by Google, Microsoft and Facebook into thinking that search, social networks and software can help us to solve the world’s many problems.

A hole in the road. From the Digbeth hyperlocal site. Published on a creative commons licence (click for credit).

So: It’s now official. Local authorities are going to be obliged to promote democracy (and the bill is quite prescriptive about the role that the internet will have to play in this). It should make for an interesting seven months.

There is often something of a dialogue of the deaf between those who have spent some time thinking about social media in some depth, and those who are in the day-to-day trenches of local government communications.

Certainly, most of the conversations I’ve had around how the internet will impact upon democracy have been around the use of the council website, the need to capture emails for mailing lists, increase traffic to the council site, how we can get our councillors to tweet or blog or other, understandable immediate questions.

People have a job to do. They are finding that all of these annoying geeks are making it more difficult for them with their FOI requests, their defamatory blogs, and so on. They feel that they’re in an arms race that they can’t win. They want to recruit some of these tools and methods to work in their favour: The most common question is a telling one: “How do we use Twitter to get our message out?”

Social media people, on the other hand, have a slightly different definition of democracy. They talk in abstract terms about the need for open data. The need for net-neutrality and the importance of community building. The potential for crowdsourcing intelligence, the need for creative commons resources and so on. They don’t want to read your website – they want to write it. It’s an interesting twist on the idea that government should do nothing about us without us.

I would suggest that there is a real need for local government policy-makers to engage with this subject a good deal more than they do, and to start to model how it will effect councils and the work they do in the near future. The thing is, doing so may solve all of their problems.

I’ll illustrate this point by looking at the vexed question of local newspapers – the need for them to improve, and the widespread belief that this won’t happen.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

“If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn’t hesitate to choose the latter.”

Yet councils are often in a position where they believe that they may have to choose the former. Many are beginning to despair of ever having responsible local reporters to bounce off, they are – in the short term – increasing their communications budgets and beginning to print their own. On the one hand, they can deal with overworked / lazy (delete as applicable) local journalists who aren’t capable of portraying local issues in a way that is of any use to local people or politicians.

On the other hand, they have to tread a fine line where they have to present the work of the council in a way that doesn’t compromise their obligation not to spend public money promoting incumbent councillors. They have to get further into this constipated argument the hamstrings so much local government communications (none of this is a new theme here). And its all a problem caused by the perfect storm of declining print-profits and competition from the Internet.

But will this always be the case? Journalistic doyenne, Tina Brown thinks not. She believes that the Internet is about to deliver a golden age in journalism – one that she is hoping to mine with her Daily Beast.

Is this true? Well, firstly, the lack of a business model for The Beast does slightly undermine this claim, but – like Brown – I’m inclined to the view that high-quality news coverage may be facing the death knell that the music industry thought I was looking at when it saw the first Rio Diamond MP3 player in the mid-1990s. I suspect that new ways of financing content may create profits that dwarf those that were enjoyed by print-media in its heyday, and a glance at the rubber newspaper may offer a clue here?

The two big questions for me are these:

1. Will this result in a greater degree of centralisation? Will the big media groups that have the muscle to invest in freemium services rapidly steal a march by focussing on high-traffic offerings (International football instead of Accrington Stanley) – thereby concentrating on the very profitable at the expense of the slightly profitable local coverage?
2. Will this benefit the current local media monopolies? Will it create new revenues that will largely fund shareholders dividends without halting the decline that these (very profitable) businesses have already allowed journalism to decline to?

It’s a hunch, but I’d answer no to both of these questions. But to fully explain the reasons behind this, I’d need to write an essay on net neutrality, open source software, open data, creative commons resources and the crowdsourcing of intelligence.

But as a stop-gap, I’d urge anyone working in local government communications to think about the emerging local information hubs such as those promoted by Talk about Local or Nick Booth’s Help Me Investigate - I suspect that they are far more important than they appear to be at the moment.

It’s been around for a while, but here’s Will Perrin’s pitch here – well worth a look:

It’s been done as part of the Europetition project, but most of it is UK-applicable.

I won’t spoil the surprise. It’s over here.

“Indiana Univeristy’s Elinor Ostrom focuses her work on how people can go about creating rules for transactions around shared resources, or “commons,” that make collective action rewarding (enough) for everyone involved. And where she added a particularly new way of thinking to economics was to zero in on the economic transactions that take place in ad hoc organizations. Her work is part of a body of knowledge that underlies what people are looking for and considering as they design Gov 2.0 systems of participation and new models for democracy, which makes her of particular interest to those of us interested in thinking through a distributed view of the world.”

“There is no questioning the good that transparency creates in a wide range of contexts, government especially. But we should also recognize that the collateral consequence of that good need not itself be good. And if that collateral bad is busy certifying to the American public what it thinks it already knows, we should think carefully about how to avoid it.”

The whole thing is worth a look though.

“The threat of violence was thinly veiled: One agitator held aloft a tombstone with the name Doggett. Screaming, “Just say no!” the mob chased Doggett through the parking lot to an aide’s car — roaring with approval as he fled the scene.

Conservatives were quick to insist that the near-riot — the first of many town-hall mobs that would dominate the headlines in August — was completely spontaneous. The protesters didn’t show up “because of some organized group,” Rick Scott, the head of Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, told reporters…..

In fact, Scott’s own group had played an integral role in mobilizing the protesters. According to internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights had been working closely for weeks as a “coalition partner” with three other right-wing groups in a plot to unleash irate mobs at town-hall meetings just like Doggett’s. Far from representing a spontaneous upwelling of populist rage, the protests were tightly orchestrated from the top down by corporate-funded front groups as well as top lobbyists for the health care industry.”

Here’s the question that’s being asked over at the Personal Democracy Forum:

Let’s see what answers we get here.