They know what we're thinking?

Speakers: Matt Grist; Brendan O'Neill; Professor Gerry Stoker; Richard Wilson.
Chair: Claire Fox.

Gordon Browns bid for re-election has included the launch of a new politics, embracing: an Alternative Vote system; new e-petitions to allow the public to suggest topics for MPs to debate and devolving control of public services to local people. This is part of a package aimed at restoring public trust in Westminster. Indeed all mainstream parties support initiatives to connect with our concerns and win our votes. While flattering us as active political subjects, though, they increasingly view us as more like objects: cross-party enthusiasm for behavioural science means our brains and psychology are studied with anthropological zeal. George Osborne enthuses about new scientific disciplines that allow politicians to to develop a new approach to policymaking, based on empirical evidence about how people really behave. But should the public be flattered by such close scrutiny of our behaviour? Is there a danger of viewing the public as lab rats in need of nudging to entice us to make the right choices, incentivised to engage more pro-socially and vote for the right parties? Isnt this view of the public patronising or manipulative? Or is such scepticism old-fashioned? Do we need to refresh our views of how to engage the majority in decision-making beyond ideological choices? How can we best restore the electorate to their rightful place as subjects and masters of their democratically elected representatives? Whither the demos?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• battle
• ideas
• institute
• politics
• debate
• 2010
• election
• behaviour

[Iggyocracy]

Quite right & we still let them flaunt their simplicity as nothing but managers of the mundane & redundant. 6000-yrs & we can't get simple management right? That we allow them any pillar & especially now get away with calling themselves "Lawmakers", these are our own crimes & self-destruction. We don't need a million laws to live & only need a single law against detriment. They aren't special, they are thieves & liars & should be treated as such, just as they treat their public...ACCOUNTABILITY.

[MrItherandom]

*** the following is a personal conclusion of the debate, please start from the first (oldest) comment so the conlcusion makes sense***

[MrItherandom]

Overall, though I may personnally have the beliefs of the opposition, I think the proposition had the strongest, most consistent and relevant arguments.

[MrItherandom]

Overall, though I may personnally have the beliefs of the opposition, I think the proposition had the strongest, most consistent and relevant arguments.

[MrItherandom]

CONT. Brendan O'neill appeared to suggest that politicans had no interest in the views of the public, and instead arrogantly used methods such as 'nudge tactics' to gain popularity amongst the public.

[MrItherandom]

CONT. He continued to state that our psycological flaws as a race mean that there are many inconsistencies with our historically tribal, over defined political system in relation to our ever-changing, undefined political instincts suggesting that parties have an argument to manipulate and simplify the views of the public to make voting for them more comprehensible.

[MrItherandom]

After listening to points made by the floor and the two secondary speakers, I think both sides of the panel have accepted that politicans have become disengaged with the public and that methods of gathering information have become more personal. However, despite the scepticism of (opposition secondary speaker) Brendan O'neill, the proposition secondary speaker, Matt Grist believes that 'nudge tactics' are not nearly as influential in shaping behaviour as what most people think.

[MrItherandom]

CONT. Richard said that he believed this was the third time in modern history that politicians had felt disengaged with the public and spent time to address the lack of enthusiasm amongst the public.

[MrItherandom]

CONT. Richard also joins the the (primary proposition) speaker in relevance to the public being sinical of politicians, he believes in order for governments to be realistically productive and positively risk taking, the public must recognize that mistakes are an invetabilty. This is likely to encourage governments to be more honest with the publice meaning they are less prone to manipulating or hiding the truth.

[MrItherandom]

Richard Wilson, the opposition primary speaker, states that there are three factors which demonstrate and determine how the public now view governments and politics as a whole; the use of the Internet, social influences and challenges and the decline of membership in the last 20 years.