Parliament and the Internet

Recently the House of Lords Information Select Committee published a report Are the Lords Listening? Set against a context of an apparent lowering of the reputation of politcians as a species, and Parliament specifically, this Committee sought to identify how the House of Lords could seek to engage with the public. In particular, the consultation process sought to address three areas:
1. outreach;
2. online communication and engagement;
3. press, media and broadcasting.

One very interesting and welcome aspect was that the Committee made use of the Internet during its consultation process. There was a YouTube page where members of the public could post their own thoughts on the call for evidence. There was also a forum where members of the public could add their thoughts to specific issues the Committee wanted feedback on.

I provided written evidence, and on the whole I find the Committee's recommendations worthy and if implemented they should be of real benefit. It scores a very credible 7 out of ten. But I also feel that they have missed an opportunity, and not fully grasped the nettle. The call for evidence made reference to how Parliament could make best use of Web 2.0 applications. This, however, provides policiticians and political organisations with a real quandry. As a concept Web 2.0 implies that visitors to a Internet presence, as well as the host, contributes. Previously, political actors have been wary of allowing full interaction online. This is not to say that there have not been exceptions, there certainly are politicians who are pioneering champions of the Internet, but most are aware of the cost in time to engage in online conversations, the potential hostages to fortune any off-the-cuff remarks might be and that there is limited evidence of the actual positive benefits.

The House of Lords clearly has clearly progressed in its use of the Internet. Lords of the Blog, for example, is an excellent blog. The use of YouTube and a Forum during the process of consultation are to be welcome, though the Forum tried to direct comments too much, and so felt more like a Government White Paper. Parliament is good at using the Internet is in providing information and education. This is clearly of benefit to citizens, and the reputation of the body politic, but is achievable with Web 1.0 applications. Web 2.0 offers so much more. The visitor to a Web 2.0 application can become a co-producer of content, not just the consumer.

It may well be that co-production of content is not what Parliamentary bodies should be about. Certainly in his oral evidence my old lecturer, Lord Norton of Louth, made reference to consultation and not conversation. He may be right, but the Committee opened up the genie of Web 2.0, and I am not convinced that they can now put it back in the bottle.