Why are the UK conservatives being open with information?

[alan2here]

I don't get it. Labour created data.gov.uk and the conservatives seem intent to make it better, more stuff, better organised etc..., implementing a lot of the unlikely seeming stuff in the TED talk they did before the election like the crime portal, they even seem embrace open source software, although they are still getting stuff wrong on that front.

 

I can see the political motivations for saving money, but it still seems out of charecter.

[John Cuthber]

I'm cynical enough to think that they are hoping that, if they put enough data out in the public domain, then people will be too busy trying to track down their MP's expenses to notice that the government are ripping them off.

 

It may also be that they would rather control the flow of information (and the spin on it) than let wikileaks do it for them.

Edited February 26, 2011 by John Cuthber

[Blahah]

I think part of the reason they are making things more transparent is because they have to. We live in an age when secret communications are no longer secret - at any moment things could be made public by an interested group of amateurs.

 

Clearly the government has no intention of covering up some transgressions by making some data public. It's not only cynical, but totally unrealistic to think that the whole of government is conspiring to allow a small minority of MPs to overclaim on expenses.

 

But aside from the need to beat the leakers and hackers to it... it's good for the democratic process to keep government transparent and open to scrutiny, and it promotes trust and social cohesion. If they are geniunely are trying to do their best, they have nothing to hide. I think the fact that this is obviously a transient government has made them feel like they've not got much to lose, and they can make brave decisions.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Blahah

[John Cuthber]

This

"Clearly the government has no intention of covering up some transgressions by making some data public. It's not only cynical, but totally unrealistic to think that the whole of government is conspiring to allow a small minority of MPs to overclaim on expenses."

is more or less the exact opposite of what I said.

[Marat]

Since right-wing governments exist only to benefit the richest 5% of the population, the only way they can possibly come to power and maintain power in a democracy is by misleading the electorate. They thus function by creating elaborately misleading theoretical perspectives on social reality, and these ideologies are so effective that they can not only get elected, but even re-elected, and most people seem even eager to vote against their own real interests to support these mirage political theories. Because of the effectiveness of this ideological transformation of the meaning of real data, even the conservatives can afford to promulgate the real data to the public, which will simply misunderstand its true meaning according to the ideological template which has already been so successfully imposed on their thinking.

 

Doesn't it seem profoundly odd, for example, that the founding of the right-wing extremist group, the Tea Party, was the public's response to the huge accumulation of wealth at the top of society leading to speculative investments which destabilized the economy and forced a huge taxpayer bailout of the wealthy to restore economic stability? The public logically should have turned sharply to the political left as a result of that, but instead they turned sharply to the right! It just goes to show how political ideology can blind people to the social realities in front of them, so that that information no longer becomes dangerous to those who seek to promote unreal ideologies.

[jackson33]

alan, I'm a little confused; The Conservative Party in coalition with a Liberal Party has improved on the quality of a web-site designed by the Labor Party and your looking for a cause. If you believe they get "stuff wrong", assume are lying to the Electorate, what's the complaint...

 

 

Marat; Without going off topic, your a very hard person to figure out, reminding me of a Frost Cloud contributor in my past, sounding like a hard left person in one post, then far right in the next. But isn't it possible that 5% of any population that might just be driving an economy, also employ, finance and contribute a great deal of tax money for the lesser wealthy and people understand this. Most folks really don't try to achieve great wealth, are not entrepreneurs or investors, preferring other activities in there life and are happy to take their money, support their Governance while doing their thing.

 

I'll take the exact opposite stand in that a Liberal/Labor/Socialist Government, those that get into power, do so by NOT telling their real intentions, generally speaking or would never have got elected in the first place. By the way that "Right Wing Extremist Group", basically believes in less Federal Government (State Rights), a sound fiscal policy, Constitutional authority and that Government works for the people, not the reverse. I really don't see anything extremist there...

[Blahah]

This

"Clearly the government has no intention of covering up some transgressions by making some data public. It's not only cynical, but totally unrealistic to think that the whole of government is conspiring to allow a small minority of MPs to overclaim on expenses."

is more or less the exact opposite of what I said.

 

Yes, it was a reply to your post.

[alan2here]

The stuff they got partially wrong is about something different, but even there they seem to be trying to do the right (correct) thing.

 

The improvements to the website are fantastic. I'm not complaining about them. The conservatives are in coalition with the lib dems but this push for transparency is quite conservatively (by the conservatives) driven and it might seem an odd thing to everyone else but in my experience UK conservatives seem suspicious of this sort of transparency.

Edited February 27, 2011 by alan2here

[lemur]

Since right-wing governments exist only to benefit the richest 5% of the population, the only way they can possibly come to power and maintain power in a democracy is by misleading the electorate. They thus function by creating elaborately misleading theoretical perspectives on social reality, and these ideologies are so effective that they can not only get elected, but even re-elected, and most people seem even eager to vote against their own real interests to support these mirage political theories. Because of the effectiveness of this ideological transformation of the meaning of real data, even the conservatives can afford to promulgate the real data to the public, which will simply misunderstand its true meaning according to the ideological template which has already been so successfully imposed on their thinking.

 

Doesn't it seem profoundly odd, for example, that the founding of the right-wing extremist group, the Tea Party, was the public's response to the huge accumulation of wealth at the top of society leading to speculative investments which destabilized the economy and forced a huge taxpayer bailout of the wealthy to restore economic stability? The public logically should have turned sharply to the political left as a result of that, but instead they turned sharply to the right! It just goes to show how political ideology can blind people to the social realities in front of them, so that that information no longer becomes dangerous to those who seek to promote unreal ideologies.

What reason would conservatives have to retain wealth among an elite if wealth could be widely distributed without being abused? In fact, however, re-distributionism is a self-undermining ideology because if the only reason you were redistributing wealth was to conserve it, there would be no reason to redistribute it in the first place. You could just mandate that those that have it save it instead of spending it. I don't particularly identify with "the right-wing" but when I look at the way the middle and lower classes would like to consume if given the opportunity, I begin to see conservatism as a means to prevent them from doing so. Have you observed how everyday people spend money lately? Does it strike you as globally benevolent?

[the tree]

It may also be that they would rather control the flow of information (and the spin on it) than let wikileaks do it for them.

I think part of the reason they are making things more transparent is because they have to. We live in an age when secret communications are no longer secret...

Very much this. Even if it looks bad on the government, it looks better when it comes from them than when it comes from someone else.

[lemur]

Very much this. Even if it looks bad on the government, it looks better when it comes from them than when it comes from someone else.

How so? When secrecy is exercised by private individuals and businesses, isn't it just called "privacy" and accepted as normal and harmless?