1) Do you think local representatives are worth voting for or even remembering? Why?

Yes, I do. I believe local knowledge and connections are important. The internet might make things more global, but it also accentuates the local.

2) Do you think there should be more tangible evidence of politicians making decisions and having views?

Sticking to online, I think this already exists - TheyWorkForYou allows me track how my MP voted and to monitor what they said.

3) Politicians have failed to keep up with the transformation of society made possible in part by the forms of networked individualism associated with the internet. Why do you think that is?

It's a basic adoption cycle... our politicians tend to be in the demographic that falls into the later adopter category for ICT and the internet in particular.

4) Would you regard the popular march against the war in Iraq as "self-motivated, viral, emergent and temporal"? If not, why not? What criteria do you use to make your assessment?

Yes, I probably would and that's a very good parallel to draw. Why? Because it emerged out of a ground-swell of public opinion 1) deciding that was being done was wrong; 2) feeling motivated enough to do something about it and 3) getting together with like-minded people to act together. It's actually a classic internet model for disruption only carried out in the real world.

In fact, this probably makes a good argument about why we must focus on people and not technology (so thanks for the analogy). Of course, one might also argue that ultimately it has been a largely ineffective social movement in that it has clearly had an effect but has failed to secure the desired result. A warning for online too, I suspect.

5) "[o]ld and new ways of engaging clash headlong like rutting stags". Please describe what you mean in detail about new ways of working, and the main barriers that have prevented politicians from adopting them. What are the main sources of resistance?

Old democratic practices are elitist and inward looking; government values its own views above those of individual citizens. New media transforms this model so that more views can be heard, democracy can be more deliberative and - if anyone is listening - decisions can be made based on a much wider input. These models are polar opposites; the challenge is finding the balance between old and new - it's not either/or, but somewhere in between.

6) "Digital technologies can't of themselves change the nature of engagement". Why do you think you put down the role of digital technology? Isn't it allowing this very act of communication that wouldn't be possible otherwise, and therefore significantly changing the nature of engagement?

Yes it is, but to elevate the role is to be technologically deterministic and this is a flawed argument - change occurs because of people, not technology.

7) "The new worldview enabled by the internet remains so alien to many of those inside the fortress of government that innovative ideas fail to gain any traction". Is this a general comment about traction of innovation, or one specifically associated with the Internet? What are the current communication channels for innovation?

Well, yes, I'd probably agree with you that this comment applies beyond the internet. Ironically, the civil services are now being encouraged to be more innovative but this has to be contextualized within the existing culture, I guess.

8) "This is why the internet alone will not solve the problems of democratic disconnection, particularly when it is used to enable the very institutions of power that people no longer trust". I have difficulties following this logic. To me, this appears to be saying that it won't work because politicians don't use the internet?!!!

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that relying on technology without making the necessary process transformations or demonstrating the benefits to people won't work. Adoption comes from personal motivation; discontinuous adoption will come from value derived from new processes that technology supports.

9) "Online" is still largely out of mind for politicans. Have you asked politicians why this is so? If not, what answer do you predict?

Yes. See 3 above!

10) Have you asked politicans if they want to "move the political debate back to citizens"? Did they wholeheartedly agree? Perhaps they could post here.

Yes and yes many of them do... in fact, I still believe that most MPs are there because they believe they can improve people's lives and most want to find more effective ways of keeping in touch with constituents (not least, it can help secure their re-election, which might seem self-serving but see 7) above about personal motivation).

11) You confuse accessibility of broadband with having a dedicated broadband connection at home. Many very poor countries rely on shared communal connections in places such a libraries and cafes. Has the social status, education and wealth of politicians been a barrier to internet use such as posting opinions on a blog, or creating a blog?

No, I don't. This comment is absolutely intentionally written as it stands. I agree completely with your comment about access through places other than home, but I have seen over and over again in my own research that adoption and value is directly related to proximity of access. It should be a policy aim to ensure that people have access to the internet where and when they need it - that can and should include libraries and community centres but it must focus on access in the home, workplace and school.

12) After being elected, in what sense can an MP represent the views of thousands of people? Can you give examples of effective influence?

This goes back to the core tenets of representative democracy. I'm also not sure what you mean by "represent" versus "influence" here... there are certainly examples of the internet being used to influence political opinion. The obvious one is the 10 Downing St road toll petition. Personally, I don't believe this did anything that wouldn't have happened anyway but I do believe it significantly reduced the time it took the government to feel the full force of public opinion.

13) "allowing citizens to pass judgement on what their elected representative do and say in real time". Would some tangible record of an MPs choices and decision help in this case? With the existing "Have Your Say" forum, can you demonstrate how this has influenced MPs?

It's problematic that there doesn't appear to be any real evaluation of the effectiveness of sites such as this or TheyWorkForYou. Anecdotally, they appear to have value, but it's hard to draw conclusions beyond that.

14) The government has naturally filtered out blacks, Asians and women from the highest levels for many years. Why do you think politicians are going to be any more objective with the views of the public, if they are so easily swayed by skin colour and gender?

Yes, sadly the current system continues to be skewed not just by race and gender but also social class. I think there is a strong movement within disenfranchised groups to raise their profile and voice their opinions, the internet assists this but nothing will guarantee that people are listened to; again, this is a social issue and it requires a shift in culture. Hopefully, this will occur over time in part because of the way the internet can break down silos and barriers.

It's a depressing thought to end on, perhaps, but there remains the risk that the internet is simply colonized by those in power as a way of retaining their power. It requires others to stake claims in these spaces for this to change; passivity won't work.

Andy Williamson is the Director of eDemocracy programmes at the Hansard Society. Marko Tusar is a Support Consultant, Journalism, BBC Future Media & Technology.

Or: Press The Red Button To Engage

The British people are radically disengaged from political institutions, with fewer than ever believing that their local representatives are worth voting for or even worth remembering. The result is that decision making is left to experts and consultants, with the views of ordinary people largely ignored and citizens left ignorant until it is too late.

Government has failed to keep up with the transformation of society made possible in part by the forms of networked individualism associated with the internet. Community action is increasingly self-motivated, viral, emergent and temporal. And this presents a significant problem for government, as old and new ways of engaging clash headlong like rutting stags.

Digital technologies can't of themselves change the nature of engagement. The strengths of the internet, most notably its ability to connect people to global networks, are resisted by government, whilst the latter fails to harness new technologies in ways that resonate with internet denizens. The new worldview enabled by the internet remains so alien to many of those inside the fortress of government that innovative ideas fail to gain any traction.

This is why the internet alone will not solve the problems of democratic disconnection, particularly when it is used to enable the very institutions of power that people no longer trust. Most government-led attempts at eDemocracy still rely on the structures of formal governance that cause and demand top-down, monolithic solutions to be imposed on communities. They operate via a "best practice" mindset of one-size-fits-all that often results in mediocrity. eDemocracy examples on the fringes, such as the 10 Downing Street ePetitions, attempt to address this problem but ultimately are likely to fail because they remain disconnected from the policy process.

"Online" is still largely out of mind in government policy making. The Governance Of Britain green paper [pdf] published last year makes one reference to the internet and this is in relation to alternative voting methods.

We need conduits that can connect an increasingly remote government to the changing society that it serves. This means moving the political debate back to citizens; for government to "do with" rather than to "do to" people. It means encouraging more dynamic and emergent forms of democracy which can be enabled by new technologies, which are grounded in our local communities and which emerge from the grassroots. This is easier said than done. I don't doubt that Hazel Blears believes that the internet "has the potential to open the door to a new kind of politics" and I most certainly believe that she is correct. However, she may well be underestimating the resistance to be encountered along the way.

Trusted institutions can help bridge the gap. While political trust is at an all-time low, the BBC remains relatively well thought of. Digital television and the internet increase the opportunities to connect people with democracy and to present them with choices. The risk is that these choices become illusory if they are not properly developed or connected to process.

Access and literacy are pre-cursors to digital adoption, but personal motivation through accessible, relevant and timely content is the key to staying connected. So when Mark Thompson talked about the BBC's rôle in building digital democracy recently, the idea resonated with me. The BBC's Charter makes it clear that it has a rôle to play. While it is just one piece in the jigsaw, the BBC does have the scale and trust necessary to mediate the democratic divide.

Can a new age of democracy at the BBC recognise that we live in a new landscape? Can it bring key stakeholders from both sides along with it? I believe it must because change is not something that can occur in isolation. I would like to see models of interactivity where all of us can get involved; where institutions such as the BBC provide not just coverage and commentary but red-button democracy, allowing citizens to pass judgement on what their elected representative do and say in real time.

This is democracy light, perhaps, and initially passive - but from here opportunities arise to create digital pathways, accelerating those who are motivated into increasingly deliberative spaces. New democratic forms will emerge beyond the original host because true digital democracy is multi-dimensional and no longer the domain of a privileged few.

Andy Williamson is the Director of eDemocracy programmes at the Hansard Society.