Baby P: The Untold Story

5 years ago I wrote about the Baby P scandal and how it related to Interactive Democracy. Now there's a new TV programme from the BBC, "Baby P: The Untold Story". I found it a depressing insight into British politics, media and culture.
Perhaps the wisest comment in the broadcast was that a series of small mistakes across multiple organisations caused a failure to protect Baby P from his mother and her boyfriend. Yet it also points out that David Cameron misinformed parliament about the age of Baby P's mother. A small mistake. The Sun newspaper misinformed the public about the number of social service's visits. A small mistake. The media reported that a doctor had failed to diagnose a broken back. Probably a small mistake (his back was unlikely to have been broken at the time of the examination according to a pathologist). Ed Balls expected an emergency inspection and report to take just two weeks when normally it would take months. A small mistake. A significant part of a Great Ormond Street report didn't reach inspectors. A deceitful mistake. Ofsted rated Social Services as good and then changed their minds, possibly after political manipulation (the report was edited numerous times by senior management not directly involved in the inspection and in consultation with Ed Ball's office). A worrying mistake. They then destroyed the evidence supporting their own study, as they do as a matter of course. An admin policy mistake. Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed and was subsequently awarded damages of nearly £680 000. A costly mistake.
According to the programme, since Baby P's death 260 other children have died. 26 of them were known to social services. These aren't mistakes, they are murder or manslaughter.
All mistakes should be corrected if we are to improve and I believe we should have laws against lying in public life. Incorrect statements should be corrected with as much 'volume' as the original error. I wrote about how this could work, here.
(You can read my original Baby P post here.)

Politics: The Art of Best Compromise

Politics could be seen as trying to satisfy as many people as possible by constructing the best compromise. The government that achieves this assuages fears and provides hope, and has the greatest chance of winning the next election. They know that causing a little pain for some voters can be soothed by other beneficent policies and balanced by the approbation of other groups. Pain at the beginning of a parliament fades over time if the opposition don't rub and needle. It's a messy business. More art than science.
Direct Democracy is different. Each referendum is decided to benefit the majority. But it can also incorporate compromise if the best policy is designed through debate before being sanctioned by the electorate. Interactive Democracy allows voters with a wide range of experiences to be involved in the development of policy, perhaps creating solutions that politicians may not have considered, but at the same time being guided by their expertise. Such a system may provide even better compromises, empowering and educating the electorate, too. It is transparent instead of opaque; immediate not cyclical; accurate not doubtful; incorruptible not dubious; democratic not for sale; technological not archaic... More scientific.

Funding Bias

Ed Milliband is seeking to disentangle the Labour Party's financial links with the unions. He proposes that the automatic contributions from union members should become an option. Perhaps he hopes that this will allow the Labour Party to engage more directly with union members, circumventing the union leaders and diluting their power. It highlights the funding bias of political parties in Britain.

In her article on the subject, Polly Toynbee writes
"... democracy can't function with only 1.1% of the population participating. Parties need members and the clean money they bring."

Polly Toynbee, The Guardian, 8/7/13

But the Conservative Party may have just as much funding bias:
"Wilks-Heeg and Crone found that 15 of these families or "donor groups" account for almost a third of all Tory funding."

Aditya Chakrabortty, The Guardian, 8/7/13

I suspect that Interactive Democracy would boost political participation in many ways, including recruiting more party members. But it also encourages wealthy political donors to spend their money on persuading the electorate of the benefits of their views and is therefore far more transparent than today's shadowy world of political puppet masters.

The Swedish Theory of Love

This episode of the BBC Radio4's Analysis, Cameron's Swede Dreams, describes comparisons between various economic systems and political cultures and provides an analysis of the successful Swedish Model. Apart from covering individualism, society, capitalism, unionism, homogeneity, immigration and eugenics, it also mentions the Swedish theory of Love: that you can only be sure that personal relationships are loving when the individuals are economically independent and free. The programme also briefly delves into history to explain the idea that the Swedish state is seen as a protector of individuals, not a tyrant: in ancient times the King supported the land owning peasants against the demands of the Lords. It provides an interesting view of political culture and change.

Science and Politics

On the BBC Radio4's Start the Week Andrew Marr asks how far scientific evidence can influence the political agenda. Professor David Nutt is a respected researcher working in the field of drugs, but is best known as the government advisor who was sacked by the Home Secretary for comparing the risks of horse-riding with taking ecstasy. He argues for a rational debate on drugs policy based on objective evidence. Mark Henderson despairs that this will never happen while only one of our 650 MPs is a scientist. But the former Labour minister, David Blunkett, defends his profession, arguing that even evidence-based policy must take into account public opinion and perception.
One of the dangers of all forms of democracy is that it ignores evidence. Or that only the evidence that supports a preconceived policy is used. Interactive Democracy has a number of ways of dealing with this problem:-

1. It provides an open, free and fair forum for everyone, including all the scientists in the country.
2. It allows leaders to emerge from all fields, not just from the political class.
3. The debate provides the opportunity to change people's minds, raise questions, challenge and clarify.
4. The system gives the opportunity for all to rank the type of evidence presented, from heresay to empirical and everything in between.
5. Contributions to the debate can be filtered by the type of evidence and by demographics, including the qualifications of the contributor. This provides both citizens and politicians the ability to filter the debate as they see fit, for example by those holding PhDs.
6. Politicians can both contribute to the debate in its early stages, in order to shape opinion, and analyse the debate in order to help formulate referendum options, request further study or instigate limited trials and experiments.
7. New laws and policies should have clearly defined measurable objectives, reviewed by the Office for National Statistics. Progress against the objective would be published on-line as part of the ID site, which would highlight failures of policy for reassessment.
8. This should all be done under the umbrella law against lies in public life.

Such a system may not be perfect, it may be quite a 'bun fight', but it goes some way towards counteracting today's problem of politicians wielding the power to silence evidential truth.

(Further news of Prof. Nutt.)

Politics is more like Religion than Shopping

Jonathan Haidt, professor of psychology at New York University's Stern School of Business and author of The Righteous Mind, writes in The Guardian"from the point of view of moral psychology: politics at the national level is more like religion than it is like shopping." He explains how our political views are based on our deep seated values.
He also writes "One of the most robust findings in social psychology is that people find ways to believe whatever they want to believe." Which leads us back to the important role of accurate evidence in the decision making process.
The Interactive Democracy system must integrate and clarify the evidence from a wide range of sources. But government should also monitor the effect of each decision and new law, to see if they are achieving their objectives. (This is the C in the Six Sigma DMAIC process: Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control.) Policies that are failing shouldn't be hidden in fear of damaging the governments credibility but celebrated as opportunities to learn and improve. To this end, a web page report for each decision should be added to the Interactive Democarcy site, with peer reviewed data showing how policies fair compared to their objectives.

Link to The Righteous Mind

Prejudice in People and Politics

It is perhaps a normal human trait to judge people based on their first impressions. It's a type of prejudice that maybe integral to politics.
Instead of face-to-face debates or personal presentations, the Interactive Democracy web site facilitates anonymous debate, point by point, so that this type of prejudice may be avoided. Those that look a bit strange, who dress differently, who appear disabled (like Stephen Hawking), who have a different skin colour, who appear decrepit or youthful, or suffer a speech impediment, can all play their part.
But it does require a certain level of literacy. Badly worded arguments may be dismissed, even if the underlying idea is sound. Therefore, I think the ID web site should allow authors to edit their texts by addition, not subtraction, so that meanings can be clarified, but not changed (people may have already voted their approval of the content and it could be considered deceitful to change it).
(Anders Borg is a fine example of an unconventional looking senior politician - evidence against my argument?)

Driving Fringe Issues to the Centre Ground

Single Transferable Vote may result in the election of more fringe parties and independent MPs. This may encourage the centre ground parties to adopt policies palatable to the extremes. We have already seen environmentalism and immigration become central issues, but with PR the main parties may be encouraged to change that bit quicker.

Arriva Departed

Arriva, the British bus and train operator, has been bought by Deutche Bahn and, in the wake of the upset over Cadbury's, Labour and the Lib Dems want to "lock short-term investors out of voting", according to The Guardian online. The Liberals propose that takeovers should be subject to a public interest test.

Interactive Democracy could allow the wider public to initiate a debate on limiting specific takeovers. Such a debate may be led by the unions, customers or suppliers. On the other hand, shareholders and the investment markets may argue that the free flow of international capital is a crucial element of our burgeoning quality of life. The debate could be fierce, but automatically skewed towards British interests as foreigners wouldn't be allowed to vote.

The key difference between ID and Representative Democracy in this regard, is that those with a vested interest can contribute to the debate, and vote, and it's not just the corruptible politicians who would decide on the policy.

Trust, Politics and Motivation

It would be great if we could trust politicians, but the evidence suggests otherwise. So how can we separate the wheat from the chaff; who can we trust?

Obviously, if there is hard evidence about what someone says, then trust comes easier. And, being social animals, we tend to trust a consensus of opinion, even if this isn't well founded. Another way is to try and understand the motivations driving an individual or organisation. Understanding the pressures that people are under can allow us to better judge what they are saying.

Now lets consider a general election. The motivation is to win the election and gain power by garnering as many votes as possible, especially in the marginal seats that matter the most. This can be done in a number of ways:

• Concentrate resources on marginal seats and the issues that are key to those voters
• Make sure that your party is credible and trust worthy and point out every folly of the opposition
• Dig up the dirt on the opposition
• Offer promises that are attractive to voters. If you can't deliver them you can blame it on other factors and by the time the next election comes around it will likely all be forgotten
• Be different to the opposition. Especially in matters of forecast: argue that they have got it wrong and you are right - and better. It doesn't matter too much if your forecasts aren't very accurate, because none are, but why not take the opportunity to undermine the opposition? If you gain power and your forecasts are proved to be wrong then you can blame it on a changing scenario... and by the time of the next election it will all be forgotten anyway
• Don't swim against the public mood - which may be propagated by the papers. Instead, go with the flow of public opinion

Within the Interactive Democracy proposal, or most forms of direct democracy, there will still be general elections and most of the issues of trust and skepticism will continue. However, ID does put pressure on politicians to be more trust worthy, because the electorate can, at any time, trigger a (good)bye-election, without waiting for the next general election.

For an alternative perspective on the role of trust in politics please see Anthony Seldon's programme "Trust Politics", available on iPlayer.

Lobbying

There is concern about the proliferation of political lobbyists. This is one area where money meets politics. Barrack Obama understands the threat and has banned lobbyists from appointment to agencies they have lobbied in the last two years.

Interactive Democracy would reduce the power of political lobbyists as the population as a whole would need to be persuaded if an issue was going to referendum.

More here from The Times Online.

Regress to the Mean

If everyone votes on every issue doesn't policy just regress to the mean and not benefit from the intellect of the best and the brightest and the decisions they make?

1. Issues that reach the referendum stage will have been discussed in detail by Parliament. The debate is televised and the plus, minus and interesting points that emerge will be presented as each voter casts their vote.
2. The choices available to voters will typically be very limited: perhaps yes or no or choice 1, 2 or 3. This isn't a regress to the mean type of scenario: it operates like a switch between one or the other. On the other hand, Political Parties usually try to appeal to the majority of voters and dominate the centre ground of politics. They may avoid contentious issues, radical proposals or decisions that leave them open to criticism. They may "regress to the mean".
3. Leadership and good quality debate can raise the average persons understanding of the issues and can enhance their empathy with disparate groups. The debate itself could enhance social understanding and the average point of view.
4. The brightest aren't only found in Parliament; there are many more people with a high IQ score in the rest of the population and they can draw on a wide array of professional and personal experiences that are not often found in the Westminster Village.

Group Think in Social Networks

Group Think is the tendency for groups of like minded people to reinforce each others point of view. It is a concern that group think may dominate Interactive Democracy (and political parties). Social network groups, perhaps discussing political issues, may succumb to Group Think, engendering widescale conformism.

Duncan Watts, a sociologist at Colombia University has studied this issue. He recruited 14000 people on a social networking site and divided them into groups to rate music played by unknown bands. As the experiment progressed people were given more information about what others in their group preferred. Often songs that started off slightly more popular became even more popular as people within the group became more aware of others preferences. Members of a group eventually converged on the same songs. But other groups chose different songs and it was impossible to predict which groups would choose which songs. There was considerable diversity between the groups.

This evidence should be a warning sign for people who believe that politics should be the reserve of the Westminster Village and at the same time assuages the concern that mass Group Think, accelerated by our increasing internet interconnectedness, will dominate Interactive Democracy. Groups may coallesce around, work, religion, political party or any other institution, but there is sufficient diversity between them to avoid conformist thinking.

Religion and Democracy

The debate over the Pope's attack on the UK's Equality Bill has prompted some commentators to suggest that the law shouldn't interfere with religious freedom, yet they don't mention how religions impact on politics and the laws that govern everyone else. For millennia this has been the case. In Britain The Church's power is inherent in the House of Lords and the Queen. It is also pervasive throughout life and death, from religious schools to religious funerals.

Of course, it's natural that a person's beliefs be expressed through how they vote and Interactive Democracy facilitates this very fairly. However, it also removes the need for the House of Lords and the 26 Lord Spirituals, making a break between Church and State.

Many Muslims take a different point of view to most Christians. To them Allah's laws are immutable and not to be molded by mere mortals. This potentially places democracy and Islam on a collision path.

ID creates laws effected by individual voters from these varied religious groups. They may be strongly influenced by foreign clerics or local priests, it doesn't matter, but the flip-side is that religious institutions be governed by majority decisions.... unless the majority decide that the Faiths can opt out.

Political Meritocracy

Representative Democracy may be considered a political meritocracy. Politicians are chosen by their party and, in theory, win elections based on their merit. The best of them gain the support of their peers to become leaders and senior figures. Long standing and experienced politicians may be appointed to the House of Lords.

All good stuff on the face of it. But being good at one thing, indeed many things, doesn't make you good at everything, and politics is a vastly diverse subject. No one person is likely able to master all of it. In reality meritocracy is more complicated and corruptible than the ideal:

1. How does the old boy network effect who is chosen to become a candidate?
2. Does the electorate vote for politicians or parties; do they judge the candidate effectively?
3. Does the best funded or the most capable candidate/party, win?
4. Can students of Machiavelli play the system and gain power?
5. Are Honours given fairly or is there bias in appointments to the Lords?
6. If meritocracy was perfect, wouldn't we be able to find the single best candidate to make decisions for us (someone the ancient Greeks called the aristoi, root of the word aristocrat)?

Though imperfect, I think the current political meritocracy needs to be a key element in the Interactive Democracy system because we need politicians to formulate laws, man committees, debate proposals, form governments and act in opposition. ID just allows public sentiment to flow into this process and check the results of it.

Interactive Democracy adds a meritocracy of ideas to the meritocracy of politicians, where the best proposals can jump through hurdles of debate and ballot to become policy.

Here's an interesting article about educational meritocracy from asiaone.

Simon Cowell does Democracy

According to several media reports, Simon Cowell is considering a politics show inspired, to some degree, by debates between politicians on American TV. Perhaps it will follow the X-Factor telephone voting format.

It's great to see that someone in the media business recognises the potential that interactive entertainment (I mean politics) has. There is perhaps nothing more entertaining to the human species as the interplay of personalities; their actions and reactions. Simon says "Politics is show business these days. More and more so." I'm much more interested in policies than politicians but it will be interesting to see how the show develops. If it enhances political debate, the understanding of the issues, and attracts a wide audience, then that's a good thing in my book. If it dumbs down serious subjects or falls flat on its face then that's not good for Interactive Democracy. The devil is in the detail; and design and development may overcome many difficulties. At the very least it will be an interesting experiment and may even lead to a better way of conducting democracy than the one I have outlined here.

*************

Of course, there is a certain feeling amongst music buyers that Simon is part of an industry that "pushes" music on us and neglects original artists of all types. Simon's business is unapologetically commercial and we are persuaded to like what he likes. This doesn't sit well with the creative ideal of Interactive Democracy: that new ideas should be encouraged and that people should follow their own conscience on how they vote. Yet it could form a strand of ID if it were balanced by many other channels and voices.

Science v Politics: The Moral Maze

Radio 4's Moral Maze debated the relationship between science and politics. It's worth a listen. Some of the points were:

• funding of what scientific evidence is to be gathered, adds a political bias
• scientists are human and therefore corruptible
• science its self is a process for gathering hard evidence which has no morality
• the media can sensationalise scientific reports
• lay people aren't often equipped to understand science
• there's more to politics than science (e.g. morality)
• scientists may consider their evidence as more important than debate
• debaters may reinforce their arguments with narrow scientific studies to try to quash debate

I think democracy should be informed by science. I would like to see a publicly funded scientific institution, honour bound to report hard, morally incorruptible, evidence. The meta studies they carry out should be instigated by Parliament (within the ID process) and not funded by pressure groups. This can then form one aspect of the debate about future policy.

Heroine Harman

Harriet Harman was reported as saying "men cannot be left to run things on their own... In a country where women regard themselves as equal, they are not prepared to see men just running the show themselves." As a heroine of emancipation, she advocates more women in positions of power. Today they are under represented in politics: only 20% of MPs are women; and in business only 18 hold board positions in FTSE100 companies. More from the Guardian here.

Amongst arguments about bias, meritocracies, child rearing and glass ceilings, Interactive Democracy offers another perspective: It empowers every female voter to contribute ideas and pass judgment on policy whether local, national or international.

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

Michael J Sandel, the Harvard lecturer who delivered this year's BBC Reith Lectures on morality and markets, writes in his new book "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?"

"Life in democratic societies is rife with disagreement about right and wrong, justice and injustice... Given the passion and intensity with which we debate moral questions in public life, we might be tempted to think that our moral convictions are fixed once and for all, by upbringing or faith, beyond the reach of reason. But if this were true, moral persuasion would be inconceivable, and what we take to be public debate about justice and rights would be nothing more than a volley of dogmatic assertions, an ideological food fight. At its worst, our politics comes close to this condition. But it need not be this way. Sometimes, an argument can change our minds."

He wrote in the Guardian (31/10/09),

"I think our public life would go better if we engaged more directly with the moral ideals underlying our political debates. In many ways, political argument today is morally impoverished. My book tries to bring philosophy to bear on the dilemmas we confront in contemporary politics - not in the expectation of consensus and agreement, but rather in the hope of contributing to a richer, more morally robust democratic deliberation."

According to the Guardian "Sandel maintains that he is no majoritarian: a more engaged citizenry, he argues, would actually provide a far stronger check on abuses of power, or on over powerful religious organisations." He criticises politics as "morally neutral".

It seems to me that Interactive Democracy engages the citizenry, empowers leaders to state their moral argument and has every chance of enhancing democratic deliberation. I wonder if Sandel would concur?

Policing and Democracy

The Conservative Party has made proposals for having an elected representative to work alongside Police Chiefs. Would Interactive Democracy have the same effect?

In the UK every area has a Police Authority made up of elected councilors and others, who's role is to hold the Chief Police Officer to account. The Home Secretary may also bring power to bear. Interactive Democracy provides additional channels between the public, politicians and police.

Using Interactive Democracy, members of the local community could petition the Police Authority who would then need to address the issue concerned. And the Police Authorities could use ID to ask the community about policing issues. For example, there may be referendums about local licensing laws, the policing of town centers, the proliferation of cctv, etc. etc.

The point is that Interactive Democracy could enhance the communities connection with the police force without radically altering the long standing triumvirate of Police Chief, Police Authority and Home Secretary.