http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/04/96bb195c4c37548e51827c677c588e78374618a3.html en-gb 30 Sat 26 Dec 2009 15:39:50 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/04/96bb195c4c37548e51827c677c588e78374618a3.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/04/96bb195c4c37548e51827c677c588e78374618a3.html?page=10#comment1 Thank you for responding to my questions. Continuing the threads...1) Do you believe the local collective knowledge and connections of a constituency (as a result of the internet) are superior or more sophisticated or knowledgeable than the local conduits a single politician can create?2) Why do you think tangible evidence of decision making does not come directly and clearly from an individual politician but from a third party site such as theyworkforyou.com? Why don't politicians articulate decisions and changes in a tangible and efficient form directly? Recording this in a blog is now trivial process. 3) So politicians have failed to keep up with the transformation of society associated with the internet because of their demographic (age/income/ethnic origin). Do you have confidence that this demographic can grasp other new societal transformations and not be a late adopter in recognising or responding to other changes? or will failure to solve a problem be just due to this narrow demographic?4) So the main difference here between real and online is that the internet has provided the communications glue to make the aggregation much quicker and probably more precise in its direction. You keep focusing away from technology, but technology is the enabler for this expression. Why do you think that the example of the war march failed to secure the desired result, even though it appeared to represent a significant view?5) Do you value the government's views above the collective view of its individual citizens? Why?5a) Ok, so the main reason that has prevented politicians adopting new ways of working is because the new model is so new and different to the old ways of working! Why does it have to be a balance? Why do politicians have to hang on to elitist and inward looking practices? Why can't they just choose a better way of doing their business? Typewriter to word processor? 6) I don't really understand this, how is it deterministic, a flawed argument? People includes people's ability to communicate, so this use of technology blurs into a person's identity. I just see your comment as mildly technophobic and resulting from a need to comfortably separate human from technological. Change occurs because of technology e.g. global satellite navigation. Are you saying that you are only influenced by people? A volcano erupts and people run away. Are you arguing that geology isn't affecting people's behaviour?7) So the problem is really being able to do new things. Why does the culture have to remain the same with things having to be contextualised within the existing culture? All you're saying is that the civil service is reluctant to change. How then can it reflect and be sensitive to people's views and opinions?8) The new "process change" is to actually choose to use the internet! So politicians can't see the benefit of using technology to improve the political process? or the benefits haven't been demonstrated enough? Politicians are lacking motivation? What is the main inertia in the current processes?10) Doesn't the reluctance to show tangible individual views/decisions/changes demonstrate that a politician values securing re-election above improving lives etc. Blog technology devalues the skill of generating spin.11) This proximity of access does not seem to apply to politicians. Repeating my secondary question: Has the social status, education and wealth of politicians been a barrier to internet use such as posting opinions on a blog, or creating a blog? Why?12) "Influence" should be loosely implied in "represent".13) There seems little investigation of the correlation between public opinion and policy during a term of office.14) You have commented on, classified and validated the question but have not answered it. Specifically are politicians more/less/or at about the same level of objectivity where views of the public are concerned? Why?Some extra questions:a) Can you list things that have been important agents or direct causes of cultural change, perhaps the top 5?b) How has lack of transparency helped politicians in the past?c) What do politicians make that people use?d) Is the average self interest of a group of politicians less than the average self interest of the electorate? Mon 05 May 2008 16:57:50 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/04/96bb195c4c37548e51827c677c588e78374618a3.html?page=0#comment0 theyworkforyou is indeed a great site. It needs more publicity. Though I'm not sure I'd use the anti-toll-road petition as a great example. Since its not people thinking about what might be best for the country or others, merely that they don't want to pay themselves. ps/ this is my fourth try at posting... it just pops up a window telling me how to post??? Tue 29 Apr 2008 13:30:30 GMT+1