Community and democracy

[MrGongGong]

I don't see how you can expect to be involved in any serious decision-making if all you want to contribute is a click on the Like button, or offer a bit of abbreviated textspeak. If you can handle online social media, you can use existing websites.

YIKES

SO a bunch of bigots tick "Yes I want to kill disabled children" (Cornwall councillor anyone ?) and because it's "democratic" then it must be "right" ??

Maybe we should make it HARDER to participate ?, personally speaking, I have never felt REALLY involved by sticking a tick in a box every 4 years or so, it's pretty meaningless ........ drunk people deciding to invade other countries by "liking" it on Stalkerbook is hardly the best way of making decisions is it !

[Beef Oven]

I don't see how you can expect to be involved in any serious decision-making if all you want to contribute is a click on the Like button, or offer a bit of abbreviated textspeak. If you can handle online social media, you can use existing websites.

I think like you, and I hate abbreviated textspeak.

But the point is to understand how people respond. They don't want to join parish councils or use existing websites. That's not how people behave.

There is no point in setting up processes, structures and facilities if people don't engage.

Erdogan protested about the 'proper way to protest' and kiboshed the TV, papers and radio.

He was thwarted by postings and hundreds of thousands of 'likes' on social media. Now that is what I call serious involvement/impact on decision making.

[MrGongGong]

I guess some of this comes down to whether you believe that because lots of people think something is a good idea then it must be so ?
Which obviously applies to music as well ? doesn't it ? Surely Simon Cowell is a more important judge of quality than Henry ?

(not to my ears !!!!)

[teamsaint]

I would suspect that if a lot of people want to do something really daft, EG invade North Korea, then this ought to be regarded as a symptom of the malaise in the way we run our country., and the way we educate people.
Maybe its precisely because most people are so far divorced from political responsibility and decision making that there are a lot of dubious (?) opinions out there.

Most people in this country think that, for instance, becoming a councilor is something that other (probably well educated middle class) people do.

People from the right side of the tracks, and the successful products of a disastrously warped education system do not always, in fact far too often dont, make good leaders, good representatives, good decisions.

Undue deference, and the failings this can lead to can take many forms.

[french frank]

He was thwarted by postings and hundreds of thousands of 'likes' on social media. Now that is what I call serious involvement/impact on decision making.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. I can see that a 'mass' of people all saying the same thing (e.g. 'No to the closure of 6 Music') can make the powers/authorities think again. But I don't think that, in general, you can run, for instance, public services, in that way.

Social media can also be used to manipulate the results that are wanted by/in the interests of certain groups (e.g. Facebook Likes or the Christmas No 1). They can't always be relied upon to be a genuine Vox Populi (leaving aside whether, as Gongers said, the Vox Populi should always be the final arbiter).

[Beef Oven]

Up to a point, Lord Copper. I can see that a 'mass' of people all saying the same thing (e.g. 'No to the closure of 6 Music') can make the powers/authorities think again. But I don't think that, in general, you can run, for instance, public services, in that way.

Social media can also be used to manipulate the results that are wanted by/in the interests of certain groups (e.g. Facebook Likes or the Christmas No 1). They can't always be relied upon to be a genuine Vox Populi (leaving aside whether, as Gongers said, the Vox Populi should always be the final arbiter).

Ignoring the Lord Copper jibe, the impact of the people in Taxim Square and social media cannot be seen as anything other than major.

This was a salutary lesson for a leader who thinks he can do whatever he wants. A major victory for democracy.

Of course you can't 'run public services in that way', but part of running a public service must include engaging the public in how the service is to be run, which is something we don't do very well. Social media represents a major breakthrough here, and for example, many organisations are changing their work-based policies to actually encourage social media as a means of engagement, rather than trying to limit it.

And let's not leave aside the question as to whether the Vox Populi is the final arbiter. It is. Who else would it be in a democracy?

[MrGongGong]

Who else would it be in a democracy?

Does your concern for "democracy" extend to abolishing the unelected House of Lords and replacing the monarchy with something else (and please none of the "president Blair" nonsense that we always get , it's SO unimaginative ..... we could have President Johnny Clarke or President Lumley or President Maxwell Davies ........ ;-) )

[french frank]

Ignoring the Lord Copper jibe

I don't think many people would regard it as a jibe - merely a commonly used literary reference meaning I hesitate to disagree.

the impact of the people in Taxim Square and social media cannot be seen as anything other than major.This was a salutary lesson for a leader who thinks he can do whatever he wants. A major victory for democracy.

That was my point - exactly - in the follow-up statement about 'the masses' all saying the same thing and making the authorities think again. I covered that point. Though I'm not sure whether it would have been impossible before the arrival of social media.

Of course you can't 'run public services in that way', but part of running a public service must include engaging the public in how the service is to be run, which is something we don't do very well. Social media represents a major breakthrough here, and for example, many organisations are changing their work-based policies to actually encourage social media as a means of engagement, rather than trying to limit it.

And let's not leave aside the question as to whether the Vox Populi is the final arbiter. It is. Who else would it be in a democracy?

As I've already pointed out, in very many cases people can be involved - if they're prepared to give up some time to it. And as I've also pointed out social media can be manipulated so they aren't necessarily the Vox Populi anyway.

[Beef Oven]

I don't think many people would regard it as a jibe - merely a commonly used literary reference meaning I hesitate to disagree.

That was my point - exactly - in the follow-up statement about 'the masses' all saying the same thing and making the authorities think again. I covered that point. Though I'm not sure whether it would have been impossible before the arrival of social media.

As I've already pointed out, in very many cases people can be involved - if they're prepared to give up some time to it. And as I've also pointed out social media can be manipulated so they aren't necessarily the Vox Populi anyway.

I am only vaguely aware of Lord Copper as a bumbling Waugh character - feigned offence duly retracted.

Erdogan would have been home and dry without social media.

Regarding people being prepared to give up time - we agree they aren't. But, what do we do? Just shrug and say 'oh well'?

I believe not. Social media can be used in a very simple way to get the engagement that is the life-blood of true democracy. It's just a different method.

And, it is no more at risk of manipulation than anything else.

[Beef Oven]

Does your concern for "democracy" extend to abolishing the unelected House of Lords and replacing the monarchy with something else (and please none of the "president Blair" nonsense that we always get , it's SO unimaginative ..... we could have President Johnny Clarke or President Lumley or President Maxwell Davies ........ ;-) )

Of course the House of Lords should be reformed/abolished/sold to the US. It has no place in a modern democracy.

The Monarchy? Well, that's different. It's a tradition, cultural. Part of the British identity. The British people on balance want it. Johnny Foreigner's damn keen on it too!

You and I might not be fans, but it doesn't mean we should impose our minority view.

We might prefer Can to Abba but the truth is, most people won't, and it would be wrong to force our opinions on them.

[MrGongGong]

The Monarchy? Well, that's different. It's a tradition, cultural. Part of the British identity. .

Indeed
like Bear baiting, you mean ?
Why is it different ?
You either believe in "democracy" or not surely ?
No one asked me whether I want to pay for the Royal Family ?
Why is it right for people to force me to pay for something I don't want ?

[amateur51]

Ignoring the Lord Copper jibe, the impact of the people in Taxim Square and social media cannot be seen as anything other than major.

You chose a distant example (Turkey) of social media having influence when there are more domestic examples, such as 38 degrees UK and Avaaz UK who create petitions that MPs have admitted cause them a great deal of discomfort; and of course the August riots in which there was some evidence of social media involvement.

[ahinton]

Reply to ahinton's OT post #35 on the Iraq damages thread.

You may not have explicitly stated that you advocate a world or European government , but your assertion that there is a need for a higher authority when sovereign governments suffer 'laxity' (your term), means the same.

I certainly do not advocate a world government. I do not necessarily endorse a European government either, even if for no better reason than that, were one such to expect and deserve to be taken seriously, it would need to have and merit jurisdiction over Europe in its entirety and, since there are many opinions on what does and does not constitute "Europe", this would seem, at least for the foreseeable future, to be an improbable goal to achieve, particularly in the light of the vast diversity of economic structure and wealth amongst the countries that may be regarded as European.

The point at issue here, however, is that the considerable international reputation for justice that Britain has long enjoyed will continue to be damaged - perhaps irreparably - if it continues wilfully to allow more and more gaping holes in its judicial system that admit of unfair disadvantage to certain of its citizens, most especially in the cases of those who serve the country in its armed forces at their and their families' peril; this is why there needs to be the overriding authority of a legal framework that is not unduly beholden to individual nation states. Had you personally been a bona fide no-fault victim of shortcomings in the British judicial system, would you nevertheless be happy - albeit reluctantly - to accept that this is where the buck not only stops but should stop and that, accordingly, you would neither deserve nor expect to seek due redress from a higher authority?

[french frank]

And, it is no more at risk of manipulation than anything else.

No, but in a democracy which recognises the rule of law, such manipulations as electoral fraud, intimidation, impersonation, are against the law. I'm not sure that manipulating social media is illegal, as yet, because it isn't used for purposes that are viewed as important (Justin Bieber fake accounts? Facebook fake 'likes'?). How far could it be regulated without destroying its very purpose and appeal?

[Beef Oven]

Indeed
like Bear baiting, you mean ?
Why is it different ?
You either believe in "democracy" or not surely ?
No one asked me whether I want to pay for the Royal Family ?
Why is it right for people to force me to pay for something I don't want ?

Should the time come that, like bear baiting, the consensus is that people do not want a monarchy, it will be abolished.

The monarchy has nothing to do with the running of the country and has no representation in parliament. There is no reason why one cannot be an ardent democracy supporter and monarchist.

You have not been directly asked if you, for example want to spend money on:

# Foreign aid to a country like India that has a space programme, nuclear weapons development, more billionaires than the UK and can't be arsed to inoculate its children against basic diseases

# Mick Philpot's house, living allowances, council tax, children, partners etc etc

# Illegal wars in countries like Iraq, dodgy wars in countries like Afghanistan

# The Royal Family


Now it would take me too long to explain why you haven't been asked directly but, there are three books that I'd recommend which will set it out for you.

They are each as relevant today as when they were written some hundreds of years ago:

# Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

# John Locke - Two Treatises of Government

# Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right