It is just such utter bullshit. "fight on terrorism". This is why I just don't do political news. No one reports on "huh fight on terrorism you say, can we shine some light on this claim? How useful has Twitter been to home security...". Why isn't that the story?
I keep seeing stories build on just bullshit. The BBC will say "And what about housing Mrs May" and she will say "My government has created a white paper...... and councils are pissed about planning permission....."
There is no answer. Over and over and over again. There is no point in the BBC reporter existing, no point in anyone's time being wasted. Just report nothing.
Giving Governments access to public data has totally changed the dynamics of politics and the public is losing everything as a result.
Government just fabricates an internal memo leak, waits 12 hours to get some data back on public opinion and then depending on that, will deny it, or will go ahead.
Time and time again you see this. Our old Chancellor had no experience with finance, and during his term, it was found that he had dodged tax.... the day after he had given a statement that he was serious about tax evasion. Then, something about an old Veteran having cake was the main story that day across the whole media board. Forgotten.
David Cameron said one evening after a COBRA meeting "Lets send dogs, and fences to Calais to stop the swarm of immigrants" - That got bad data results, so by 6am the next morning he adapted it to "We will take 10000 and send aid". By 9am, it was all forgotten.
What is happening?? Where is reality?? Is no one responsible for anything any more?? Is this a result of the fragmentation of media outlets?? Like, I grew up with 4 channels. Now I don't want TV. Therefor there is no cross reference at all. You can say what you want and like 10% of the populace will hear it. That means government has never had it so easy.
This is far from the only reason, but I think one reason is UK running a two-party system.
The proponents (sitting parties) call it first-past-the-post, to make it sound like a fair system.
But most people know that proportional voting systems are better.
With a two party system there will always be debate, but it won't be as real as it is with proportional voting. The parties run no real risk of not getting elected. It also drives the two parties to each side of the 'spectrum', which isn't very constructive.
Take a look at these lists[1][2], see any pattern in which countries are using which system?
In 2011 the UK had a referendum on whether to change from FPTP to The Alternative Vote[0].
The people voted No overwhelmingly (68% No, 32% Yes).
As with the Brexit referendum, those that lost complained afterward that the public was mislead, weren't given appropriate choices in the election etc.
The fact of the matter is that both sides believed the other side was lying during the campaign (e.g. Osborne's punishment budget, Cameron saying he'd invoke article 50, and Project Fear in general).
I find this puzzling. There are many reasons why the leader of the opposition is unpopular, but there seems to be general consensus that he's terrible at PR, and relatively anti-authoritarian, pro housing etc., and certainly outside of the usual centrist/elite bubble of people who've run for PM in the last 20 years.
He's slightly left-of-centre politician that the the media has basically painted as the reincarnation of Trotsky, and of course with Britain lurching ever further to the hard right wing the people lap it up.
The only problem I can see with Corbyn is that he hasn't spoken up over things like the Investigatory Powers Act, Brexit and (bad) education reforms. I like his policies but I do not like his inaction over things important to me, so I cannot support him.
This a great blog post. He makes a lot of interesting points and he sounds like he is in a similar state of near-despair to myself.
That said if I was to vote Labour it means I have to vote for Angela Eagle as my local MP, who I absolutely cannot stand. She didn't just remain silent on the issues I mentioned, she actively supported them and represents the Blairite right-wing of Labour that disenfracnhised its traditional supporter base in the first place.
An interesting approach is to just make government decisions algorithmic. Have people do a questionnaire during elections, and then optimise policy to maximise benefit to everyone. Try and make the optimisation process as open and explicit as possible.
That's essentially what a ballot paper is, except the questionnaire is "Which political party have the Red-top or Black-top newspapers convinced you to vote for?" - and I think history demonstrates that a population cannot reliably vote for their own best-interests - so expecting them to produce reliable aggregate data through mass surveys - with which to make major decisions, is foolish.
I have long preferred this suggestion. I know it is a bit creepy, but ultimately given the parameters, there is one optimal result. You know things are frustrating when you prefer the machine to your representatives.
But I don't know anything about economics, law, healthcare, biology, international relations, geopolitics, mathematics, history, agriculture, environmental protection, or much of anything for that matter so why should I decide?
This is what I often think. I like the idea of democracy, but in reality it just means people who don't know shit voting on things that are actually important. We don't just let anyone be a doctor, we make them do years of training first and get certified. In the same vein, maybe some people's votes should count more than others. Like if a bunch of economic experts say brexit is a bad idea, their votes have more sway...
I like when Gove, the guy who in 2015's Flagship Policy was to increase the "times table". After he was laughed out of office, he was moved into "Law and Justice". So now he is peddling similar completely irrelevant bullshit over on that side of the fence.
Meanwhile, Hunt, the culture secretary for the Olympics did such a great job that he is now the Health Secretary.
I would rather get a 1% tax increase, and pay for real people, a real NHS manager with 50 years, and pay him for his insight than pay these fucking plebs to poke around in their careers.
In practice? No, of course not. Representational democracies are all flawed more or less depending on the country. I'm just not convinced direct democracy is the solution.
Take the TPP for example. Is it a good idea? Is it bad? I haven't read it, and even if I did, I probably wouldn't know either way. Even if I could vote on it directly, I'd have to trust someone to explain it to me. And how would I know which explanation to trust? It seems that we're back to square one.
A questionnaire would give policy makers an insight into how you would feel about particular policies. It could be used to test the detail of something like TPP. Give an indication of how you would feel if you had studied the specifics.
That is what the civil service is for. Politics is really about making value judgements. Issues cannot be easily isolated and divorced from all other considerations. An expert opinion is useful, but does not tell you how to strike a balance or what is a priority.
it's important to note, (western) government decisions already are algorithmic. We simply aren't privy to many of the steps involved, and our ability to influence outcomes is limited by the elitism of representative democracy and the stifling regressive nature of bureaucracy.
Edit: that isn't "regressive" as leftists confusingly redefine it, it's the dictionary definition. Might be important to note in a political comment.
You're exaggerating a bit. Take the Cameron statement for example. He got ripped apart for that by the public, media, and other politicians and then was forced into adopting a better attitude to refugees.
>No one reports on "huh fight on terrorism you say, can we shine some light on this claim? How useful has Twitter been to home security...". Why isn't that the story?
Because it's mainstream press. It engineers the very reaction and emotions you're experiencing now. It is designed to generate anger and outrage. Keep this in mind when you look at a piece of the media the next time. You cannot overlook it anymore. Omission of facts, outrageous titles, going on without getting to the point, it is all just psychological games.
Sure, but political activists also start riots. Just because they are activists doesn't mean they aren't doing "bad" things (violence). There's huge demand from even local LE across the world to turn online postings into some form of intelligence for them.
I agree that it'll mostly be abused by government, but knowing what people are planning can be helpful. Right now there are groups of people coordinating a street battle in Berkeley over social media. Giving local police insight into the groups is almost certainly a benefit, assuming the police act to keep the peace.
So the privacy and rights of many should be violated because of the actions of a tiny minority?
I'd argue that any minute amount of good that comes from this is by far and away out balanced by the abuse of those with access (and in the UK there is a tendency for creeping escalation with such powers) and the violation of privacy of innocent people.
Sure, but the correct government response is to use RIPA and warrants, not just to demand that social media companies grant total access to everything.
Good thing the UK is not a partner of the US in intelligence sharing which just has to send a NSL to Twitter and get access to all the data they have.
/s
If you use an online service, you should just assume that whatever the company can access, the country the service is based in and their intelligence partners can also access.
This is a bit of puffy PR coup for twitter, right? It can crow about protecting users' privacy from government surveillance while continuing to allow (naturally well-intentioned) companies to pay for the very same access.
I know. I'm skeptical that this policy will be enforced consistently. I think they'll enforce it in a few high profile cases for PR purposes, then the LE agencies will get a little more clever, and surveillance will continue.
AFAIK Twitter doesn't sell access for LE purposes and has cut off people doing that. It's a huge business opportunity to sell to local police departments.
I keep seeing stories build on just bullshit. The BBC will say "And what about housing Mrs May" and she will say "My government has created a white paper...... and councils are pissed about planning permission....."
There is no answer. Over and over and over again. There is no point in the BBC reporter existing, no point in anyone's time being wasted. Just report nothing.
Giving Governments access to public data has totally changed the dynamics of politics and the public is losing everything as a result.
Government just fabricates an internal memo leak, waits 12 hours to get some data back on public opinion and then depending on that, will deny it, or will go ahead.
Time and time again you see this. Our old Chancellor had no experience with finance, and during his term, it was found that he had dodged tax.... the day after he had given a statement that he was serious about tax evasion. Then, something about an old Veteran having cake was the main story that day across the whole media board. Forgotten.
David Cameron said one evening after a COBRA meeting "Lets send dogs, and fences to Calais to stop the swarm of immigrants" - That got bad data results, so by 6am the next morning he adapted it to "We will take 10000 and send aid". By 9am, it was all forgotten.
What is happening?? Where is reality?? Is no one responsible for anything any more?? Is this a result of the fragmentation of media outlets?? Like, I grew up with 4 channels. Now I don't want TV. Therefor there is no cross reference at all. You can say what you want and like 10% of the populace will hear it. That means government has never had it so easy.