Your humble Blog Goliard may not be a Brit, but in a pinch he can play one on TV. Or at least, he follows Anglosphere politics avidly enough to now and then roam about, playing at being Mark Steyn (with much the same beard, but vastly inferior knowledge of Broadway tunes).

This morning, it was a post on ConservativeHome that got the commenting juices flowing. The full article is short enough to read, but the gist is that some geniuses across the pond put together a report entitled “Future of Politics”, which dispenses advice on how politicos can “keep up with a new generation of ‘digital natives’”—largely by doing more stuff on the Internet, whether or not there is any real benefit in doing so.

And of course, it simply must be two-way, “interactive”, Web 2.0, [insert additional buzzwords here], because plain old websites have of course become completely passé and useless. So says everyone…particularly those folks over there, whom you may recognize from about fifteen minutes ago, when they were grabbing you by the lapels to tell you that you needed to hire them to make a Web 1.0 website for you right now, because that was the Future. (It appears that the Future has become even less durable than Aldous Huxley feared.)

Anyhow, the ConservativeHome blogger reported on the new document with some thoughtful criticism, but not nearly enough to suit this reader…or to ward off some silly follow-on comments welcoming the coming age of interactive Prime Minister’s Questions and Internet-based plebiscitary democracy. So yours truly chimed in to say:

What a damn fool bit of starry-eyed technobabble.

There’s almost too many points to be made here for one to sort out.

1) That graphic tells you more than it means to. It portrays technology being used, not to bring the House information necessary for informed debate, but rather the 24-hour news channel simulacrum of “information”. To wit: shallow visual flash. Fancy graphics, b-roll video, a mugshot of a person, outline maps…all of which are designed not to convey information, but to give ADD television viewers sufficient visual stimulus to prevent them changing the channel.

2) The digerati may think they have invented two-way conversations, but Alexander Graham Bell might have disagreed…as might anyone else who has ever engaged in that hopelessly outmoded exercise that involves standing in close proximity to another person and alternating between exercising one’s vocal cords and employing one’s ears.

And anyhow, meaningful two-way communication between MPs and the public will always be rare, whatever technology is employed, so long as: a) there are millions, not dozens, of Britons who would like to have their concerns heard and their questions answered…and only so many hours in a day; and b) one end of the conversation involves a politician who endeavours to say as little as possible while talking, whilst working in as many focus-grouped PR phrases as possible.

3) Even to the extent that a more involved and connected public is possible, that would first require an informed public capable of rational deliberation on the public good. How many of the people texting in their queries to be put to the Prime Minister will meet this requirement…especially if they are all ‘digital natives’?

Mitchell and Webb really deserve the last word here (the full skit can be found here):

What possible reason could there be for you to not email us? Certainly ignorance shouldn’t be a bar. You might not know anything about the issue, but I bet you reckon something. So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uniformed, ad hoc reckon by going to bbc.co.uk/meandmyimportantthoughts (all one word), clicking on ‘What I Reckon’ and simply beating on the keyboard with your fists or head.