The internet and the rise of anti-politics

We all know how the internet removes barriers to entry in business and commerce.  Fewer appreciate how it is likely to do the same to politics, too.  Rob Colvile clearly does with his excellent new paper on "Politics, Policy and the Internet". 

The internet "aggregates" - brings together - likeminded people, and spreads ideas.  But more revolutionary, it democratises communication.  Its no longer some remote BBC producer who decides if I get air time, or if a story merits coverage.  For example, about one in ten households in my constituency have signed up for a regular communication linking them direct to sites like this or locally-made YouTube posted bulletins.  Perhaps, we are near the stage when you'll no longer need a big, expensive (taxpayer funded?) corporate party machine (in London) to communicate with voters. 

The mood of anti-politics, coupled with a desire for politics that is authentic, local and particular,  means that established political parties, and Establishment politicians, need to watch out ....         

Comments

[Tony Makara]

There is no doubt that campaigns of the future will be fought out over the internet, at least that will apply to those seeking political information. The disinterested voter will still have to be coaxed using more traditional methods I fear. Its interesting that the left generally has been very slow to embrace the now decade old new technology. As the political mainstream gravitates towards the internet I wonder how long it will be before dummy websites appear purporting to respresent a particular party but existing purely as a mode of disseminating false information, something that only sharp eyed people might spot. If so how would the law treat such sites, especially if they exist outside the UK?

[Machiavelli's Understudy]

Perhaps, we are near the stage when you'll no longer need a big, expensive (taxpayer funded?) corporate party machine (in London) to communicate with voters.

Are we still talking about the BBC?

[Northern Fok]

...but existing purely as a mode of disseminating false information, something that only sharp eyed people might spot.

Are we still talking about the BBC?

[David Parker]

Tony Makara makes an interesting point about the potential rise of'spoof'political
websites. To some extent this is already happening,sometimes with a humorous intent, but also, perhaps increasingly, for more sinister motives. Certainly,legally,the internet is,in practice,almost impossible to control internationally; even within totalitarian regimes such as China, (not that this would deter the EU mandarins from having a damned good try to do so!).
On the whole, I am strongly in favour of the political effect of the internet,in the interests of both voters and politicians. Obviously, it is important to engage far more public interest in politics, The opportunity to express, and publish an opinion, which may reach a far wider audience than local, or even major national publications, is certainly a strong incentive in this respect.
From the viewpoint of the politicians,for those who can be bothered to use it intelligently, the internet can also serve as quite a valuable barometer of public views and priorities.
So far as coping with malicious, false political sites is concerned, probably the best that can be achieved may be to try to foster a public culture of extreme wariness (similar to that which exists, with obvious individual exceptions, towards websites which appear potentially pornographic) towards quasi political websites which either forbid, or obviously censor and edit any form of comment or feedback to their postings.

[Alex Swanson]

Its no longer some remote BBC producer who decides if I get air time, or if a story merits coverage.

Yes, it is. The BBC has enormous clout and if it chooses to publish untrue statements in support of left-wing policy, then it can and there is nothing an ordinary citizen can do about it.