Culture Of Cynicism

[Albert Tatlock]

But he was prepared to stand up in front of his critics (Albert take note)...

Boo hoo - you're on ignore

 

Excuse me, I always stand up in front of my critics and fight my corner thanks - if you haven't realised that over the past couple of years on here by my posts then you are the idiot some people assert you are. Give me specific examples where I haven't please.

[P.K.]

I meant Blair, not you.

 

A little tetchy this morning aren't we?

[ai_Droid]

Adult Posters - 28 Dickheads - 0

 

Huh?

 

We've just seen an election where the main focus of the battle was online, the internet was hugely influential in the US presidential election not only keeping people better informed than the press and television but also giving them access to comment and opinion that nobody would have access to in the past. I'm amazed you can claim people aren't better informed after what we've just seen.

[Albert Tatlock]

A little tetchy this morning aren't we?

Yes I am this morning.

[Skeddan]

A few thoughts...

 

- much of the 'real' work of Parliament in the UK goes on in Select Committees. There there generally much greater scrutiny to matters than in debates in the House. (which often is teh kind of grandstanding debate that Jimcalagon noted).

 

- politicians are indeed very adept at evasion, and media is not always the best at calling them into account. However the role of the media shouldn't be under-estimated. If Manx Radio were less 'cosy chat' and 'understanding' and questioned critically then even evasive politicians would be exposed as such.

 

- the possibilities for the interface between public and government with communication technologies have changed, and how this might be used to positive effect is something to be considered.

 

I watched the UK Treasury Select Committee sitting recently:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fl...ttees_08112008/

 

Two things stood out. First as noted by its Chairman, this was a 'groundbreaking evidence session' (1:13 in the video). For the first time a Departmental Select Committee invited members of the public to submit questions ahead of the evidence sessions.

 

Secondly was the fact this was televised. Nothing particularly new (for the UK). However it conveyed a lot more than a transcript or sound recording only.

 

This illustrates simple possibilities for enhancing communication channels between government and public. (The 'interface' has to work both ways) It does not require 'science fiction' radical measures. Some simple and very achievable steps of this kind could go a long way to greater public involvement and government transparency and accountability.

 

By contrast the IoM political system has made relatively little progress towards public service government, and still favours the kind of patrician politicians and patronage of the horse transport era, particularly given the lame tame media.

 

There may be useful analogy with distinction between open source and proprietary systems, but considered on a scale between 'proprietary government' and 'open government'. In terms of stability, reliability, bug-fixing, cost, trust and so on there are advantages to a more open-source model.

[P.K.]

Two things stood out. First as noted by its Chairman, this was a 'groundbreaking evidence session' (1:13 in the video). For the first time a Departmental Select Committee invited members of the public to submit questions ahead of the evidence sessions.

 

Secondly was the fact this was televised. Nothing particularly new (for the UK). However it conveyed a lot more than a transcript or sound recording only.

Agreed. I watched it as well and found it a lot more interesting than I was expecting. However I wonder just how "non-partisan" the members are and if the fact of the broadcast modified their behaviour in any way.

[ai_Droid]

By contrast the IoM political system has made relatively little progress towards public service government, and still favours the kind of patrician politicians and patronage of the horse transport era, particularly given the lame tame media.

 

There may be useful analogy with distinction between open source and proprietary systems, but considered on a scale between 'proprietary government' and 'open government'. In terms of stability, reliability, bug-fixing, cost, trust and so on there are advantages to a more open-source model.

 

Think you're being a touch unfair. It's a mixed bag, but we don't do so bad for a small government. The Govt RSS feeds are pretty good, Tynwald is digitally recorded these days and broadcast live online and on the radio, income tax and other services are online.

 

Hardly cutting edge, but to say there's been no progress is incorrect.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV I agree with you that traditional media is often quite suspect. It needs as always to be read with a large degree of detachment. As mentioned I aso know from Australia that politicians receive extensive training in how to manage 'the media' - often from media people doing some freelancing - a truly holy alliance. But I do think that the last 5-10 years has seen enormous advances in non-conventional communication through blogs, forums, social networking etc...and I expect that this will increase significanly in the future as the technology and ways of using it continues to improve. This is what I feel politicians like Hazel Blears are out of touch with. When they talk about lack of respect and cynicsm they either are out of touch with emerging trends or fear them. Better informed may well mean access to more information. At a basic level we now have the ability to use the internet to look at a wide range of alternative newspaper reporting of the same issue - not perfect balance but better than using the Daily Wail as a sole source! But it also means - as you mention people sharing their thoughts on line - something politicians cannot control. This does not mean that these comments are always right but it does mean that they are unfiltered by the established communication channels from politician to media to the public.

 

I agree with your opinion on the benefits of communication and sharing of information via the internet. I am only pointing out that it is not enough to be simply informed because there are some very well informed people in society but they have received their information from the papers and from the tv news. The problem is that we live in a society where from an early age we are indoctrinated to hold particular views and accept the current system without question. And then we are bombarded with information that the government wishes to portray. Hazel Blears would naturally oppose those sources which the government has no control over, as the Labour party members and all politicians would not want to receive criticism of the political system is does so well in.

 

Have you read Noam Chomsky before? I seriously recommend reading about his criticisms of the media if not.

 

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost."

-Aristotle, Politics

 

And in a liberal democracy (or polyarchy) such as the Isle of Man and UK we are very, very far from the idea of government that Aristotle refers to.

 

But isn't there a need for the politicians to ignore the press and popular public opinion?

 

Of course there is, but I don't think the politicians ignore Joe Public because they feel they are better informed. The example I'm thinking of here is Capital Punishment. The Dreadful Rag Brigade (Wail, Excess etc etc) scream for it. Pollsters frequently report that the majority of the great unwashed want it. The HOC then votes against it, which I think it absolutely should.

 

Nowadays most people get their news from the telly - snippets and soundbites. You have to read a newspaper (or e-version) for comment, background, depth and so forth. You only have to look at the tabloid circulation figures to be dismayed at what's happening. These days some folks are definitely better informed than they used to be, but the majority aren't.

 

In fact P.K. the governments of liberal democracies (and other forms of state) depend on this ability to ignore the wishes of the public. If they could not then the government would not be able to fulfill the wishes of the elite.

The problem in all liberal democracies is that the form of education that people receive is very specific, authoritarian, and incorporates indoctrination.

 

The greater public are not enquiring enough, not critical enough, not interested enough in the workings of the world and how things affect them. From an early age and throughout ones life peoples minds are shaped so that they do not feel a requirement to question things which to them seem like 'givens', such as politicians making decisions over the life when the only mandate from you for the government to make such a decision is a vote. People do not question who the government truly serves because you are told that the government is there to serve the people. Basically, the states legitimises itself constantly in many ways and constantly manufactures consent.

 

One of the best ways of allowing the government to crack on with serving its own interests is to reduce the public to an apathetic mass. This is very easy to do. You create the idea that the liberal democratic is the best system, say voting is crucial, object to criticism of the system, criticise other systems, and lie about the ability of the public to effect change via some minuscule participation. But the results never meet the needs of the public and their expectations. So left with the idea that they have no other choice but accept the system people either become 'apathetic' or fool themselves into still thinking they can effect change.

 

The lack of education and information that is filtered down the public and is kept hidden by politicians allows the politicians to make decisions in their interests, and leave the population ignorant about many things. Though most people form opinions on matters they rarely have facts at hand. So people are far more willing to give those educated bright-sparks in government a free hand to do as they wish. Control is effectively removed from the people.

 

In terms of Iraq it was enough to know that many civilians are likely to die in any war and that there was no clearl cut connection with Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that Britain and the USA are hypocrits to deny Iraq WMDs when both these countries have them. In this case, people knew enough in my opinion. But even with a misinformed or ignorant populace, when public opinion is so so strong, but the government ignores the wished of the people you have to ask who the government serves and what its role is.

[Albert Tatlock]

Ah, the Interweb. 25% rumour, 60% inaccurate, and where 110% of all dodgy statistics are to be found.

[P.K.]

In terms of Iraq it was enough to know that many civilians are likely to die in any war and that there was no clearl cut connection with Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that Britain and the USA are hypocrits to deny Iraq WMDs when both these countries have them. In this case, people knew enough in my opinion. But even with a misinformed or ignorant populace, when public opinion is so so strong, but the government ignores the wished of the people you have to ask who the government serves and what its role is.

Britain and the USA haven't used WMD's on their minorities yet, well, not that I'm aware of anyway!

 

Absolutely agree with most of your excellent post.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In terms of Iraq it was enough to know that many civilians are likely to die in any war and that there was no clearl cut connection with Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that Britain and the USA are hypocrits to deny Iraq WMDs when both these countries have them. In this case, people knew enough in my opinion. But even with a misinformed or ignorant populace, when public opinion is so so strong, but the government ignores the wished of the people you have to ask who the government serves and what its role is.

Britain and the USA haven't used WMD's on their minorities yet, well, not that I'm aware of anyway!

 

Absolutely agree with most of your excellent post.

 

 

I don't see the point you are making about WMD. The American government decided to use nuclear weapons on another country's citizens, never mind killing its own citizens.

If you are implying that the British and American governments had some humanitarian aims when they decided to intervene I would very much disagree.

[P.K.]

I don't see the point you are making about WMD. The American government decided to use nuclear weapons on another country's citizens, never mind killing its own citizens.

If you are implying that the British and American governments had some humanitarian aims when they decided to intervene I would very much disagree.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Hiroshima bomb was necessary. The Nagasaki one I am less certain about.

 

Yes the US and the UK have WMD's but also democratically elected governments that are accountable, not only to their electorate but also to The Hague. Iraq used WMD's on it's own minorities at Hallabja and also used them extensively against Iran. So I don't view the US and the UK as hypocrites on this issue.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't see the point you are making about WMD. The American government decided to use nuclear weapons on another country's citizens, never mind killing its own citizens.

If you are implying that the British and American governments had some humanitarian aims when they decided to intervene I would very much disagree.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Hiroshima bomb was necessary. The Nagasaki one I am less certain about.

 

Yes the US and the UK have WMD's but also democratically elected governments that are accountable, not only to their electorate but also to The Hague. Iraq used WMD's on it's own minorities at Hallabja and also used them extensively against Iran. So I don't view the US and the UK as hypocrites on this issue.

 

It matters little whether Hiroshima or Nagasaki were necessary, such weapons were used. The British and Germans used poison gas in WW1. I do recognise that international law has been formed since.

Those who say it was necessary would be the victors of the war. It did shorten the war. I don't see it as necessary from the perspective of the need to preserve life. The Islands could have been embargoed indefinitely. Although I recognise that unwelcome involvement of the Soviet Union were the war not to end as it did, nevertheless, I would have to put the lives of innocents above this.

 

I don't see the exact point you are trying to make? I am saying that the US and British governments are hypocrits because they have nuclear weapons and prevent others states from having nuclear weapons. So what (in a sense) if Iraq has used chemical weapons against the Iranians or the Kurds, what does that have to do with the superpower and a dwindling medium power country's interests? The government's of these countries feel no sense of threat from Iraq; the Iranians were always far more likely to hand over weapons to terrorists than the Iraqi government; and the UK and USA governments do not go to war for humanitarian reasons.

 

But to invade a country will involve the deaths of innocents and will bring much greater hardship than that already suffered to the people. I cannot condone this. It is a reality of living in a world of nation states with different groups of elites aiming to control resources and people, but I would want rid of these nations and their governments.