The Editorial will be offline for a while because it is being marked as part of my online journalism module for my Newspaper Journalism MA.
In the meantime, you can still look back at my previous posts, or catch me blogging over at my new project for female political bloggers, Missive.
Don’t forget to vote on Thursday.
I would like to bring to your attention all the many new ways that you can participate in this election campaign, and the new tools designed to help you make your choice on Thursday.
First up, we have Electoral Calculus. Straightforwardly, it holds data on all constituencies, and can provide predictions for the outcome of the election based on the numbers you put in. Invaluable for anyone, say, writing a blog post about potential swings, or for anyone just daydreaming about a Lib Dem majority.
Next, something in the style of the brilliant people at the groundbreaking democroweb charity mySociety - DemocracyClub. They already run some incredibly useful sites: Parliament tracker TheyWorkForYou, Freedom of Information facilitator WhatDoTheyKnow and MP-constituent communicator WriteToThem. For the election, they have created YourNextMP, an open-source database of all the candidates standing. They plan to build on this database to create eventuall TheyWantToWorkForYou, a database of candidates’ opinions on key issues. And using the data collected by TheyWorkForYou and Your NextMP is QuestionYourCandidates, which organises by area when election debates and hustings will take place. Perhaps the most successful of their new projects so far has been The Straight Choice, which aims to collate all election leaflets used in this campaign by area and party. So far, nearly 5000 have been uploaded, and quite a few stories that could otherwise have been neglected have been brought to the nation’s attention. Also good is Election Champion, which does pretty much the same thing but for billboards.
On a slightly different note is Vote Power, which depressingly reveals to you just how much your vote is worth in relation to a potential swing in your constituency. There are a lot of those “how should I vote?” quizzes knocking around but I would recommend you confine your efforts to Vote for Policies, which aims to take the personality out of politics by having you choose between policies without attaching any party affiliation to them.
As newspapers are forced to downsize, opinion writing has moved away from their pages and onto blogs, twitter and internet forums. Tools such as the ones I have described above make a vast amount of information available to non-professionals in an easy and quick fashion, allowing amateur writers the opportunity to be better informed and faster than ever before. Comment writing is just as important as it ever was, and now we have the tools and the will to make it an integral part of the new 24-hour news agenda. If nothing else, this election campaign has shown us that.
No, it isn’t what you think. The zany people who make Hendrick’s Gin have been running their own daily poll during the election campaign: every day, they read extracts of the party manifestoes to cucumbers, allow them 24 hours to “digest” the information, and then measure the results. The one which grows the most indicates which party is going to win. The current standings are above; looks like the Greens have it. I sincerely hope they are actually doing this.
As we get closer to polling day, there is going to be a lot more talk about whether this is “the internet election” or not. But while pundits try to determine where we are, I thought it might be a good moment to remember how far we’ve come. Paul Mason, BBC Newsnight’s economics editor, provides a rather timely reminder of how much things have changed:
In 2005 there was no Facebook, Twitter, iPhone. Some televisions were HD ready but there was no HD. iTunes was less than a year old. London had not won the Olympics yet; the 7/7 bombings and the 21/7 bombings lay in the future. The Libdem leader was Charles Kennedy and the Tory leader, lest we forget, Michael Howard.
Our political discourse has multiplied and diversified, inspired and aided by the technology that is now utterly commonplace to us. But something that I feel that has been neglected somewhat in recent discussions is the extent to which this diversification has polarised our political consciousness. I regard myself as a politically-aware individual, but I have absolutely no idea how well-informed I am compared to people who, say, don’t read political blogs on a daily basis, or only get their news from television.
Political parties are run by people with Blackberrys and iPhones, who are used to getting more information than they could possibly need every second of every day. And people like me, who own similar technology, and rank being up-to-date as a major priority, are already somewhat accustomed to the kind campaign they have been running. Their success in this election, however, is at least partly going to depend on their ability to reach people who aren’t remotely like them. It used to be only the Conservatives that had this problem. Now, I think it’s everyone.
So, whatever happens on Thursday, politics has changed. If nothing else, the advent of the internet means we can find our what the cucumbers think.
As the reality of a hung parliament draws ever closer, we have to bid farewell to Revolts.co.uk, a website that records and analyses voting patterns in parliament, with a particular focus on back-bench rebellions from the governing party.
For those who don’t regularly trawl through Hansard (basically everyone) it has been a truly excellent resource, allowing those like me who are not political experts to understand the underlying motivations behind votes, something you don’t often get in the mainstream media.
For instance, they have just pointed out in their “end of Parliament” stats that this was easily the most rebellious parliament of the post-war era, with 36% of votes in the last year resulting in Labour rebellions. Apparently, “there were more Labour rebellions in this parliament than in 1997-2001 and 2001-2005 combined.” That’s a trend that hasn’t really had much media coverage, and which demonstrates, I think, why Revolts should be given the resources to continue their work.
They have been turned down for funding twice, and so are shutting down their operation now that this parliament is over. Considering the stellar reviews they have had from some of the UK’s top political journalists, I would have expected someone to be prepared to stump up the cash to allow them to continue. Shame.
As part of my effort to acknowledge that there are more important things going on in the world than Gordon Brown calling someone “bigoted” through a microphone he thought was switched off, I’ve just read a great op-ed by Nikos Konstandaras, managing editor of Greek daily newspaper Kathimerini.
Konstandaras writes of the crisis of identity that Greece is experiencing, now that their economy is wrecked. I found the opening particularly good:
This is the first time that Greece has suffered such a defeat without any heroic excuses, without a war, without a natural disaster, without foreigners meddling in our affairs or some great national vision leading us astray. We arrived at a dead end because of our own weaknesses, our own inability to handle our independence and fulfill our international obligations.
He goes on to catalogue the indignity of having to rely on the IMF or “charity” to be able to pay wages, pensions and benefits, expressing shame that a country that organised such a successful Olympic Games in 2004 is now “the butt of jokes, a synonym for profligacy and corruption.”
The intricacies of the situation are probably beyond my non-financial brain, but I highly recommend reading this piece in full to understand the current mood in Greece and what they feel they must do in the future.
Coalitions and co-operative politics have featured largely in today’s opinion writing. Best of below.
An editorial in The Sunday Times imagines how the spirit of a coalition might spread to other areas of British life. Apparently, we should “get used to it, because this is what we can look forward to in the coming months: the politics of Ant & Stacey. Or Gavin & Dec. Marks & Q, B & Spencer, Morecambe and Fry…”
Today’s ‘Big Issue’ in The Observer asks experts to examine David Cameron’s “big society” idea to try and understand why it has not been more popular on the campaign trail. The range of opinions includes Phillip Blond from ResPublica, who is “puzzled at the hostile reception many on the left have given Big Society” and Alex Gallagher, who points out that in his area the aftermath of the winter snow is indicative of things to come, saying “if people can’t be bothered to sweep the dirt away from their own living space, what makes Mr Cameron believe they will volunteer to take over the running of state institutions?”
Matthew D’Ancona in The Sunday Telegraph says that a Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition government is more likely than most people think; he points out that on spending cuts and the need to clean up politics, the parties are mostly agreed. On Europe, electoral reform and taxation, there would be compromises to be made, but feels that “true, there is no great warmth between Clegg and Cameron, but nor is there a froideur that would make collaboration impossible.” Wishful thinking, much?
David S. Broder in the Washington Post has an interesting take on Thursday’s television debate, and considers the implications for what he calls “Britain’s three-ring circus.” He points out that Brown and Cameron do agree on one key point: “a clear popular verdict must precede the formation of a strong government” but “as Obama could testify after his struggles with a sagging economy, a distrustful, hostile electorate is not likely to give anyone this kind of mandate.” One of the more realistic Obama-comparisons made this week, I feel.
Elaine Tyler May in The New York Times examines the legacy of the contraceptive pill, finding that although it has not done all that was promised (it was supposed to be “An end to poverty. A cure for divorce. The elimination of unwed pregnancy”) it has meant that “women no longer need to choose between having a family and a career.” As its 50th anniversary approaches, she explodes various myths that persist: the pill did not cause the sexual revolution, nor did it lower the divorce rate, or significantly affect the sexual behaviour of unmarried people. But crucially, it did allow women to “decide whether to have children, and when,” freeing them up for higher education, work, and life in general.
Finally, Melanie Reid’s account of her spinal injury and its aftermath in yesterday’s Times is a wonderful, if hearbreaking, read.
Cartoon-wise, it’s all about Morten Morland in The Times:
Dominic Lawson in The Sunday Times delves into the background of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who was unexpectedly catapulted to a position of prominence in the election coverage this week by his performance in the first television debate. Lawson comments that “Sigmund Freud had a perfect phrase for the nature of the rivalry between David Cameron and Nick Clegg: the narcissism of minor differences.” Clegg went to Eton’s feeder prep school, Caldicot and then Westminster, before getting his first career opportunities from Conservative politicians, but has not felt the need to defend his background to voters as Cameron has. Is this where Cameron’s persistent assertions that “my kids go to state school” really going to let him down, as Clegg shows him that it’s possible to be privileged and not apologise for it?
Matthew D’Ancona in The Sunday Telegraph takes a different view on why Clegg’s popularity has surged since the leaders’ debate on Thursday, attributing it to the fact that he looked like “an outraged tribune of the people, speaking on the viewers’ behalf to hold to account Cameron and Brown (and, by extension, the whole political class).” D’Ancona goes on to point out that the overlooked third candidate has disrupted televised debates before, as in the case of Ross Perot – the undoubted victor of the US Presidential debate in 1992. Victory on television comes down to having the appearance of “stature,” which, according to former US Vice President Walter Mondale and unsuccessful presidential candidate, “is not a technical question, it’s a deep, emotional issue.”
William Rees-Mogg in The Mail on Sunday imagines what a manifesto written by Shakespeare would have looked like, concluding that “his tone would no doubt have been pragmatic and somewhat sceptical, perhaps a bit like Harold Macmillan.” In contrast to this safe pragmatism, we currently have three political parties who “are again trading against each other with promises of dramatic change” but who have been less than forthcoming on immigration and the economy, which Rees-Mogg feels “are the two great issues any new Government will have to resolve.” Interestingly, he highlights that both the Tories and the Lib Dems have “elder statesmen” figures on their front line (in the shape of Ken Clarke and Vince Cable), while Labour has no such individual, unless Blair can be counted, despite his unpopularity with the electorate.
Fergus Walsh in The Observer celebrates the peace enjoyed by those in the UK who live under major flight paths this weekend as the volcanic ash clouds continues to ground all flights. He recalls that “in our previous home in Windsor, we lived directly under the flight path. A new undercarriage every 55 seconds – I know because I checked on my watch. More than once.” As the BBC’s medical correspondent, he has confirmed that the ash poses very little health risk, and so is free to mow his lawn in the glorious sunshine this weekend, accompanied only by birdsong and the sounds of other neighbours enjoying the tranquility. Until he needs to catch a flight from Heathrow on Wednesday, that is.
Alain de Botton for the BBC has a fascinating and beautiful piece where he imagines a future without aircraft. Future children, he says will marvel at “extraordinary tales of a mythic time when vast and complicated machines the size of several houses used to take to the skies and fly high over the Himalayas and the Tasman Sea.” Heathrow, where de Botton is writer-in-residence, will be turned into a museum, where it will be possible to “give in to the temptation to sit cross-legged on [the runways'] centrelines, a gesture with some of the same sublime thrill as touching a disconnected high-voltage electricity cable, running one’s fingers along the teeth of an anaesthetised shark or having a wash in a fallen dictator’s marble bathroom.” The new “camel pace” at which we will travel around the world will come with its benefits – no jet lag, the possibility of noticing the wonder of our surroundings and the ability to adjust oneself to a new culture and place. According to de Botton, “we should feel grateful to the unruly Icelandic volcano – for allowing us briefly to imagine what a flight-less future would envy and pity us for.”
David Ignatius in the Washington Post examines the idea of a “global First Amendment” to protect free speech and press freedom around the world as proposed in a new book by Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University. Bollinger argues that world-wide rules are needed to prevent authoritarian governments from manipulating information. Ignatius points out that despite the various “colour revolutions” around the world, “The enemies of press freedom keep at it, even though they know that they are playing a losing hand.” He argues that the real debate here is whether it should be state legislating to protect press freedom, or journalists themselves leading from the inside. A nice idea, but I’m not sure how dissident journalists in China and Iran might fare if they tried that.
Cartoon-wise, it’s Gerald Scare in The Sunday Times for me, although most of today’s efforts went with something along these lines:
A couple of days ago I blogged about the similarities between Cameron’s call to arms for CCHQ staffers and Malcolm Tucker’s rousing, expletive-stuffed effort on The Thick of It.
Yesterday, Boris Johnson made a visit to CCHQ and took his turn at rousing the troops. With his characteristic blustering hyperbole, he compared the office to “what it must have been like to be in mission control at Houston in 1969″ and, most memorably, says that he thinks that “these are the last 22 days in which I’m the most powerful Tory in Britain.”
Say what you like about Boris, he does produce a more memorable performance than David Cameron. But possibly for the wrong reasons.
Now, this is somewhat of a departure from my usual stuff, but I happen to think it’s five minutes of welcome distraction from the election.
Kibera, in Nairobi, Kenya, is Africa’s second largest urban slum. Because it grew up without any planning and because its population is very seasonal, there is no real record of the geography of the place or how many people live there.
Photo by subcomandanta on Flickr
Without maps and census data, it is more difficult for improvements and aid to be costed and planned. So a group of entrepreneurs, partnered with UNICEF and other charities, have gone to Kibera to try and map the area as a first step to better things.
But they haven’t gone at it with satellites and surveying equipment. Instead, they are using a team of 13 data-gatherers and a combination of traditional and cutting-edge techniques to create an open-source map that can be edited and refined for use by anyone who needs information about Kibera, whether an NGO or a resident.
The project is called Map Kibera, and has already produced a map which is available through OpenStreetMap. So far, so good. But the project is now entering its second phase, where data related to “health services, public safety/vulnerability and informal education” is being added to the map. The team are doing this through a combination of getting people to draw paper maps, SMS reporting, and Ushahidi, the open source crowdsourcing engine that can combine and geotag all kinds of data from any digitally-enabled device. As well as straightforward facts, they can add comments and recommendations, which the developers hope will ultimately help to engender a stronger and more inclusive sense of community.
Flickr has now also got involved, providing an easily-navigable map of the area (see below), with all major resources plotted and hundreds of photographs geotagged.
Even just as a curious observer, I can see how vital all this information would be to aid workers in the area, and to have it presented in such a usable form is fantastic. The fact that it can be constantly updated and improved by anyone with the most basic of equipment is testament to what new media technology can achieve when sensitively applied to a vast problem like this. While commentators in the UK wrangle incessantly these few weeks about the minutae of whether we’re experiencing the first “new media/internet” election or not, I found exploring Kibera a refreshing reminder of what is really possible.
On a bit of a blogging binge today.
Parliament dissolved today, and government offices and departments enter a state known colloquially as “purdah,” where they have to be very careful about what they announce or communicate, so as not to influence in anyway the outcome of the election. The official guidance on the subject reads as follows:
During an Election campaign, the Government retains its responsibility to govern, and Ministers remain in charge of their Departments. Essential business must be carried on. However, it is customary for Ministers to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character.
This veil of silence has also extended to the excellent site Lords of the Blog, who have stated that they are unable to post until the new Parliament is sworn in on 18 May, “owing to this blog’s close association with the House of Lords.” “Close association” is, in this case, a euphemism for “entirely written by members of the HoL”
So they have moved to a new home for the next few weeks, “Lords in Purdah.” Presumably, they will still write about the same things, but not in an “official” capacity.
Just another of the UK’s inexplicably odd parliamentary traditions. By moving domain and presumably practising tighter comment moderation, they’ve circumvented purdah. Not that I mind, I think it’s a great blog.
If you’re interested in bizarre and outdated parliamentary traditions, have a read of Mark D’Arcy’s description of the prorogation ceremony where lots of people in robes doff their hats and read out their ridiculously long names.