Gang of Four are one of my all time favourite bands, so when I started listening to a cheeky little post-punk playlist this morning it was almost inevitable that something by those cheeky hipsters would pop up.

So how relevant that I found that essence rare should randomly shuffle into my ears today, the day of the UK Election (#ge2010). Listen to this song, then please go out and vote.

Gang of Four – I found that essence rare

“Aim for the body rare, you’ll see it on TV,
The worst thing in 1954 was the Bikini,
See the girl on the TV dressed in a Bikini,
She doesn’t think so but she’s dressed for the H-Bomb,
(For the H-Bomb).

I found that essence rare, it’s what I looked for,
I knew I’d get what I asked for,
Aim for the country fair you read it in the papers,
The worst happens any week a scandal on the front page,
See the happy pair smiling close like they are monkeys,
They wouldn’t think so but they’re holding themselves down,
(Hold themselves down).

I found that essence rare, it’s what I looked for,
I knew I’d get what I asked for,
I found that essence rare, it’s what I looked for,
I knew I’d get what I asked for.
Aim for politicians fair who’ll treat your vote hope well,
The last thing they’ll ever do act in your interest,
Look at the world through your polaroid glasses,
Things’ll look a whole lot better for the working classes,
(Working classes).

I found that essence rare, it’s what I looked for,
I knew I’d get what I asked for,
I found that essence rare, it’s what I looked for,
I knew I’d get what I asked for.”

I love a bit of network theory, so I thought I’d write down my ideas on how political parties can reach audiences more effectively and reach further into the network.

A few things to point out initially;

• This post is not designed to show any political bias (I am, in fact, a libertarian)(I work at Wolfstar, and both the MD and deputy MD are active members of the Labour party – this is inconsequential to this post)
• My work at Wolfstar involves a lot of analysis and sometimes involves analysis of networks (sometimes…)
• There’s currently a lot of people talking about how parties can reach people with political messages

So, how can political parties use online networks to spread messages? Simple. Understand the network you’re trying to reach.

If I was a digital Tory boy, the first thing that I’d be doing now is analysing the UK web and how it interacts with politics. I’d identify almost everyone that’s talking about modern politics and begin to figure out how everyone was connected to each other.

I might even draw an image like this…

Each dot size would collate with it’s influence (defined using one of these ideals) and then I could go on to analyse it further and figure out whom was connected to whom. And draw an image like this…

Then I might choose to look at a formula that would calculate how a message was likely to spread from one to dot to another based on empirical information I’d gathered from the internet.

This would then allow me begin to understand how I could reach everyone within a network of people more effectively. Struggling to get 18-24 year olds to vote? Find a way into their networks using the above process and strength-of-weak ties theory…

The key to reaching people within networks is simple; understand who’s in your network, define how influential they are, connect up the dots and craft what ever you have to ensure that it adds value to the network (if your network is mainly made up of YouTube members, an emailed news release is probably not going to cut it).

I am a libertarian. There. I said it. Now we all know.

So why the attention-seeking blog post? Well. It appears that not everyone is a big fan of my new found political leaning.

Most of my friends and colleagues are Labour or Tory. I am neither. As both are (almost) identical (in my eyes) to each other.

As far as I’m concerned, today’s modern political situation can be summed up with this quotation from Icon magazine.

Politics has become totally aestheticised.

Before you start, no I don’t take borrow political thought from a magazine on architecture and advertising, but this article (on the recent Tory poster campaign) summed up my lack of trust in our top two fairly well.

So, why libertarianism? Well, it’s easier to explain using the answers that I gave to a quiz on the UK Libertarian blog…

We should raise taxes on the rich so we can redistribute wealth to the poor?

NO – Your answer was liberal

I believe that a single tax rate is fair, that’s why it’s a percentage and not a set monetary value. If the national tax rate is 20% and I earn 10,000 a year then I contribute 2,000, if I earn 100,000 then I contribute 20,000. This is fair and equal and maintains investment in the country (affluent people are the most mobile).

We should get rid of the minimum wage?

YES – Your answer was liberal

I believe that the minimum wage places artificial restrictions on trade – in a free trade society a wage is equal to its value and every member of society possesses an ability to rise above that value or fall below it. We are the controllers of our own destiny and to impose glass floors on salaries is just as bad as glass ceilings.

The state should bailout large corporations in financial distress?
NO – Your answer was liberal

Free markets rely on failure and success. If a rich business person lost their fortune playing online Poker we wouldn’t ‘bail’ them out. When you give your money to a bank, you should do so under the understanding of what they do with that money – local co-operative banks are very transparent. At least understand the risks.

It should be illegal for members of the public to own guns?
NO - Your answer was liberal

People are already allowed to purchase knives and guns (with a licence) and sometimes the most deadly weapon is the fist or foot. Instead of making carrying guns illegal, let’s increase the penalties for gun crime.

People who hold racist or extreme views should be allowed to publicly express their ideas?
YES - Your answer was liberal

I hold neither racist or extremist views, but I will always defend those that do to their rights to freedom of speech. Father4Justice protest and people laugh, Muslim’s against the Iraq war protest and we’re in uproar. Protest is a natural reaction against an action. Everyone is entitled to their views – whether those are views that we agree with or disagree with isn’t important. Everyone deserves to be heard and the state should not determine for us what is appropriate to hear. We are adults and we have our own minds, we do not need the world to be censored.

The state should make people change their behaviour to tackle climate change?
NO – Your answer was liberal

I believe in climate change. I believe that the actions of many businesses has contributed to the way that our world has altered in the past. However, forcing change amongst a free society is not the way to education people of the effects of climate change. People donate money to Cancer Research and the NSPCC because we have a personal connection to that cause – we all have a connection to the climate, so why can we not be expected to behave in a similar way?

It is wrong for the police to retain the DNA of anyone not serving a prison sentence?
YES - Your answer was liberal

If a person has not committed a crime, why should they remain on a database of suspects? The retaining of DNA amounts to an infringement of human rights as it presumes that someone that has been a suspect of a crime is likely to commit another crime in the future.

The state should ban people from watching violent pornography?
NO - Your answer was liberal

The state wouldn’t ban pornography and it wouldn’t ban violent films. Placing the blame of violent sexual crimes on violent pornography is in the same league of blaming a murder on a video game. People exercise free will – no form of media will inhibit that free will, only the person can commit the crime. Freedom of thought and expression are  certainly infringed by such bans.

It is wrong for democratic nations to overthrow foreign dictators?
NO – Your answer was illiberal

This is where I differed from the libertarian view. I feel that, in certain circumstances, it is the duty of the free world to rescue and protect those populations that exist within dangerous or tyrannous leaderships.

Free market capitalism should be forced on other nations to help create a better world?
NO - Your answer was liberal

I believe in free market capitalism- both for failure and success – but this should never be imposed on another nation. My belief is that a nations trade policy should involve free trade with any participating nation, and that forcing states that follow different economic policies is wrong and illiberal.

I’m also still young and impressionable, so I’m open to criticism! Oh,and I only tested 90% libertarian, so Stuart, there’s still hope

Oh, and Simon, I was waiting for your critique but your child, wife and job seem to have come first. Again. 

I’ve wanted to do this for a while now… Here are the answers to my political compass, I’d love for someone to question me. Maybe Stuart? Or Simon? Or Tim? Or Milo? Or Danny?

I finally feel like my odd mixture of anarchism, libertarianism, liberal, right-wing businessism and nihilism has found a place!

—

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Disagree

I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
Strongly Disagree

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.
Strongly Agree

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
Strongly Disagree

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Strongly Disagree

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
Agree

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
Agree

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
Agree

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Agree

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
Strongly Disagree

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
Disagree

It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
Disagree

Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.
Disagree

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
Strongly Disagree

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
Strongly Disagree

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
Agree

The rich are too highly taxed.
Strongly Agree

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .
Strongly Agree

Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
Disagree

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
Strongly Disagree

The freer the market, the freer the people.
Strongly Agree

Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
Strongly Disagree

All authority should be questioned.
Agree

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Strongly Disagree

Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
Disagree

Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
Disagree

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
Strongly Disagree

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
Agree

It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
Disagree

Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.
Strongly Agree

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
Agree

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.
Strongly Disagree

The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
Strongly Disagree

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
Strongly Agree

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support.
Strongly Agree

When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
Disagree

First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.
Strongly Disagree

What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
Disagree

No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
Agree

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
Strongly Agree

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
Strongly Disagree

Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
Disagree

The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.
Strongly Disagree

In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
Strongly Disagree

Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all.
Strongly Disagree

In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
Strongly Disagree

It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
Strongly Disagree

The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
Strongly Disagree

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
Strongly Disagree

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.
Disagree

Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.
Strongly Disagree

Astrology accurately explains many things.
Disagree

You cannot be moral without being religious.
Strongly Disagree

Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
Agree

Some people are naturally unlucky.
Disagree

It is important that my child’s school instills religious values.
Strongly Disagree

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
Strongly Disagree

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
Strongly Agree

Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.
Strongly Agree

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.
Strongly Agree

No one can feel naturally homosexual.
Strongly Disagree

These days openness about sex has gone too far.
Strongly Disagree

Politics is a sticky issue for me. I have massive left/right internal conflicts, but tend to take a libertarian view of the world. Sometimes borderline anarchistic, but not in a bad way, in the best way.

I feel like I had to explain my stance before I begin to write what I’m about to write…

Is the internet a good vehicle for democracy and ‘the voice of the people’? I don’t think so.

Before you scroll straight to the comment box, let me explain.

By opening up politics, you’ll bring in too many voices. Everyone’s opinion is slightly different, and trying to reach a common goal will still leave each voice slightly disappointed. Giving power to the people will only result in mass disappointment when that power is given to someone in power.

You can’t please all of the people all of the time.The Internet won’t appease all of the people all of the time.

The only way that the Internet could represent a powerful vehicle for change would be if there was a seismic shift in our definition of government. Decentralisation, distilled into a super-local level would still be too far from our expectations if we’re promised total democracy.

I need to work these thoughts up more, but I’m finding that I use my blog more and more as a memory dump.

I’m finally being brave enough to post my political compass… Judge me at your peril.

If you have any comments, questions or criticisms; fire away!

OK, this is a bit of a vent. I hate certain types of blogging (if you’re expecting names, numbers and such like, ring me but I wont be putting them in print – it’s the paper trail and such like!).

I blog because I like to write, I’ve got a bit of an audience (that’s you!) and I think that sometimes I’m a bit odd interesting. Writing a blog helps me to remember my thoughts, sharpen my words and show off to my Dad.  I think that they’re all valid reasons to blog. Of course there are other reasons, plenty of them valid, but those are my reasons.

Motives for blogging that I don’t agree with are the following;

• Blogging for bloggings sake. A blog is a thought dump, an online journal, not a bumper sticker.
• Blogs that only regurgitate other blogs material. If it’s that good, I’ll find it myself, that’s why I use Twitter (amongst other reasons).
• Blogs that operate for search and rank. If you want to appear in search, there’s a simple process – get interesting. Don’t clog up my Google with your crap.
• Blogging for popularity. I’ve been talking recently to people who know other people who persistently beg (and I mean beg) people to comment on their blog. If I didn’t invite you to dinner, I wouldn’t ask you to do the dishes.
• Link baiting. I’m more than happy to scream at read the odd link baiting post (EG the top 84 twitterers that like to talk about kitchenware) but break it up a bit, write about something you’re interested in, something that (dare I be selfish) I’m interested in. If your diary is full of lists and leagues, then please feel free to air your anger.

Done. Rant over. Now I’m going to get my pipe and slippers and shout at young people.

It’s time to worry people. The economy is fudged, the weather is trying to stop us working and guess what? We have a new type of addiction… Information addiction.

It’s true, people every day are streaming away from bars and restaurants to check their emails. Oh, hold on, no their not, they’re simply checking their emails there and then and ignoring their actual, real-life guests.

I’m a victim.

INTERVENTION TIME (Although, I’m not sure you can give yourself an intervention):

I spend too much time on my iPod Touch, laptop and mobile. FACT.

Here’s a rundown of my information addiction.

• A have two papers delivered every day (The Guardian and The Independent), and read both before I leave for work. I then read another two at work.
• I check my email first at 7am then every fifteen minutes until 11:30pm. In work hours it’s every 2 minutes.
• I check twitter from 7am until 11:30pm too (if I’m in). Tweeting as often as possible, but only tweeting about things I’m doing there and then. Otherwise I get sidetracked and time sunk.
• I listen to Radio Four’s Today Programme on the way to work and download all of the national podcasts, a few techie ones and a few comedy ones for the way home.
• I have Yammerfox on all the time, so whenever something happens at work, I know about it.
• I’m read my RSS feeds at 7:30am over coffee and BBC News 24, at 10am, at 12pm, at 3pm, at 6pm and then again at 10:30pm (if I’m in).
• I check Facebook and LinkedIn intermittently over the day and night.
• On top of this I have Google Alerts and a couple of other services for every client, every potential client, my colleagues, my news interests and (embarrassingly) me.

It’s not cool to want to be this attached, but when I’m not I feel like someone’s removed my brain. Insane in the membrane? Ya Ya.

Enough is enough. The UK government need to do one of two things; shut up pretending to understand the ideologies of the internet and modern communication or actually sit down and learn something about the online world after 1990.

In the last three months we’ve had four incidents…

• Hazel Blears’ outburst regarding nihilistic bloggers and their effect on politics
• Jacqui Smith’s decision to use 1984 as a blue print
• Andy Burnham’s idiotic idea that we can implement a ratings system on the internet
• The government announced plans to invest huge amounts of money into the digital industries

As you’ve probably noticed, there are three negative points and one positive. The issue really is that the negative and the positive points are mutually exclusive.

Let’s address each of the four incidents separately.

Blears

Blears gave a speech to the Hansard Society back in November about political disengagement and The Guardian printed an extract. Blears most inflammatory statement was that blogging “fuel(s) a culture of cynicism and despair” and that the majority of political bloggers have a “disdain for the political system and politicians”. Maybe when the government begins its investment into the digital industries it will take the time to understand why the politico-bloggers are so angry and why they command such huge audiences. The Guido Fawkes blog was visited five million times this year, so it’s obvious that it’s not only the bloggers that are finding disdain for the system, but also their huge readership. Web2.0 brings with it the empowerment of the people, and if they smell a rat, they are going to talk about it. Online and then offline. If the government is bothered about people talking/learning about it’s issues, then maybe they should sort the issue out at the root rather than trying to cut off the leaves.

Smith

This was probably one of Smith’s scariest ideas: monitor and record every text message, telephone call, email and page visit in a huge database (while she denied that these would be scoured and the content of each would be stored, the point is that they could be scoured and the information could be stored once the database was in place).

Full details of the plans will be revealed in early 2009, with Smith looking to cement public trust. I wonder if we’ll see something huge crop up in the news regarding an incident that could have been prevented had we had such a database? Cynical, me?

Many people will suggest that this ‘surveillance’ may already happen and we simply don’t know about it, but does that make it better? No.

Burnham

I wont bang on about this too much – I know that you all understand that the internet is about education and not censorship. This was the comment that I left on Chris Applegate’s excellent post;

An excellent post, and I’m struggling to add something without swerving into a political tirade. However, who the fuck does Burnham think he is? The lord of the Internet? The keeper of information for the (english-speaking) world? No, he is not.

This recent idiocy seems to be part of a current labour campaign to say stupid things about the Internet. Jacqui Smith wants to record our every thought and keystroke (no innuendo intended) and Hazel Blears is cowering behind her wireless afraid of the Nihilistic nature of blogging and the Internet. Burnham has simply penned his name next to a list of stupid people who don’t understand life past 1990.

Tom Watson has addressed the situation excellently; put it to the community and try and affect change.

As mentioned in my comment, one shining light is Tom Watson who has highlighted exactly how the government should be using the internet.

Digital

If the government is truly interested in promoting the UK as digitally progressive then they need to embrace the ideology. Implement the ideas from grassroots and they’ll grow, try and shine dying industries with a digital cloth and it wont work. We need to educate, implement and then evangelize to be seen as progressive… Not wait for other countries to begin and then try and shoehorn ourselves in at the end.

I’d really like to hear what Simon Collister, Stuart Bruce, Tom Watson and Colin Byrne have got to say (although they’re all hopeful requests, as I know that all four are swamped…)

What do you think about the UK and it’s digital evolution? Will the government utilise the power of the community or will it try and bend the rules?

I was looking through the BeamItDown collection of iPod Touch/iPhone books the other day when I stumbled across something really interesting, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘Fireside Chats’. Between 1933 and 1944 (the Great Depression) Roosevelt used to broadcast fireside chats that addressed a wide variety of topics. There were 29 chats in all and they ranged from ‘On Economic Conditions’ to ‘On the Fall of Rome’.

Now, if you match this with the Obama administrations early talks about online monitoring and interaction from January 2009 and the current economic crisis, is it that ridiculous to suggest that Obama is bringing Roosevelt’s fireside chats to web2.0?

Will Obama blog about the economic crisis, the Iraq war and international relations? Will obamaspeaks.com become the fireside venue for comforting the American people?

I truly hope so. Although I wouldn’t fancy the idea of Brown replicating.

Addressing the nation has become a very autonomous process, call a press conference, spin out some tired trite phrases and then watch the media pull your words apart. I was talking to Sam Oakley, a Wolfstar colleague, recently and he believes that public speakers have fallen from grace in the past ten years. Can you remember a recent speech that resonated and hit fever pitch? No. Who can match Mandela, Kennedy, King or Malcolm X for their ability to unite people and give them a voice?

The world has grown cold to politicians who use the media to broadcast their message – we’re savvy to it. The same can be said for brands using the media; people want two-way communication. People are tired of being lied at. If Obama decides to replicate Roosevelt’s fireside chats I think that he’ll endear himself not only to the nation, but to the world. I’m not calling for Obama to spin out thirty minutes of propaganda and then use social media to broadcast it, but for him to understand the values that the world wants. Honesty, morality and humanity. The world is sick of politicians, we want humans.