Virtual Parliament

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

I was under the impression that I was participating in the virtual parliament by coming on here.

[BeElBeeBub]

https://youtu.be/lhe5u1_B5D0">https://youtu.be/lhe5u1_B5D0



I have to say, the "hybrid" idea, with MPs hanging around as disembodied heads on screens (anyone remember Holly from Red Dwarf?) seems daft.



It's trying to replicate the old format with new technology. Like when the early iPhones replicated file cards, actual desktops and note paper.



Video Conferencing barely works with half a dozen users.



I predict a massive failure



Some of the other things like delayed division seem like sensible steps forward. It seems a bit mad to keep having to troop out and through various lobbies every time.



I used to be active on a game forum where, as Kickstarter backers, the users were involved in some of the design decisions (the Newtonian Vs non-newtonian dog fighting debate made brexit look like a kiddies spat). It wasn't a democracy, the developers had the final say, but as a way of putting across proposals, gauging response, eliciting feedback and suggestions, it worked reasonably well.



With some stronger moderation and protocols I don't see why the format couldn't be effective.

[BeElBeeBub]

Well it's an interesting idea and welcome back Beelbeeb I was actually getting a bit worried that you hadn't posted for a while in these dangerous times but I may also just have missed some posts.

Thank you, I've simply been busy!  

Posts would have to be under the own MP name and not anonymous obviously.

Yes, each MP would have an official profile - proper picture for avatar, biography, contact links etc.



They would be 100% responsible for all posts by that account. Obviously sometimes their aides would post on their behalf - maybe there could be a protocol in the signatures or something so there is a difference between "Mark Francois" and "Mark Francois - actual"

Would each MP only be allowed one post per proposal or would only certain MPs be allowed to comment with the speaker having big power there?

a good question and one that I think would need to evolve - at the moment (i believe) the speaker selects who should speak, following protocols and customs.



At a first pass the same system would apply, with MPs signalling via some sort of "instant messenger" protocol to the speaker that they wish to post.  Alternatively, they could submit their posts and the speaker then selects which post will be posted next.



An alternative would be that the decision of who gets next post is switched between the leaders of the parties (or their proxies) so the protocol might go



Minster of the crown

Leader of Opposition

Mister of Crown

Leader of Opposition

Minister of Crown

Minority leader

....



and so on.

Would they be able to correct or edit posts if they wanted?



Would officials be able to edit posts with comments - for example if an MP made a claim that was factually incorrect

There would have to be a formal way of correcting posts, probably via speakers office. The usual method might be to leave the original post intact, but as the edits to the bottom much as is done here.  This way inaccuracies can be amended but the context of the replies isn't lost.



I would expect a mandatory correction to be done if there are factual inaccuracies.  If an MP claims something that turns out to be untrue they must post a correction and the original post would be edited to contain a link to the correction.



eg



"My honorable friends, my party has overseen the biggest decrease in the deficit in this nations history"



then it turns out to be untrue so the post is amended



"RETRACTION - My honorable friends I made an error and in fact the fall is only the 3rd largest in the UK's history:

My honorable friends, my party has overseen the biggest decrease in the deficit in this nations history"

We might hope that going to a written format would allow relevant and clearly presented content to triumph over rhetorical flourishes but I'm not sure about it.

At the least, the flourishes would change.  One thing that works less well in text vs speech is deflection.  Because the human brain struggles with holding a large amount of incoming information, it's possible to deflect by waffling - effectively talking so long the questioner loses track of what has been said.  In person it's difficult because you can't "rewind" (except in your memory) what was said or take time to parse it.  In text, the reader can pause, reread etc so it;s harder to do.



The need to include links for facts thrown out there should also give pause.  Rather than the simple "some papers are saying" they would have to link to the articles.



As Parliamentary posts would be protected as speech is now, they could legitimately link to pay walled articles (which would be archived and reproduced in full by the HoC library.  Effectively removing the pay wall from articles.



This may have the side effect of discouraging those MP with links to papers (or even writing for papers) from citing articles they have had a hand in in support of their speech!



I imagine the owners of the Times and telegraph might be less keen on their tame MPs citing their articles if it mean the paywall was circumvented!

[Javert]

Well it's an interesting idea and welcome back Beelbeeb I was actually getting a bit worried that you hadn't posted for a while in these dangerous times but I may also just have missed some posts.



Posts would have to be under the own MP name and not anonymous obviously.



Would each MP only be allowed one post per proposal or would only certain MPs be allowed to comment with the speaker having big power there?



Would they be able to correct or edit posts if they wanted?



Would officials be able to edit posts with comments - for example if an MP made a claim that was factually incorrect?



We might hope that going to a written format would allow relevant and clearly presented content to triumph over rhetorical flourishes but I'm not sure about it.

[BeElBeeBub]

How would BBC Parliament work, then?

How could the public see how parliament is operating, or would you advocate the public having read only access to the discussions?

I can't see it being workable, as it sounds cumbersome, but it's not an idea that should be totally dismissed. Perhaps it would work better for select committees?

I suppose BBC parliament would be obsolete.  Most of the time it's pretty boring and I suspect most of the content is actually consumed via YT or twitter videos cut from Parl TV anyway.



Yes, the idea is that the public would have read only access to the debates in real time (or very close to).  Before TV cameras in Parl the public only (bar the very few who could visit in person) access was via reporters or hansard, so I don't think it would be a step back.



If anything it would improve matters (IMHO),



say you were interested in a debate on HS2 or similar, you could select the HS2 debate (via search and filter function) and follow the thread of question and answer.  You could search for your MP, or a particular phrase (say had been reported) to find the post and immediately be able to scroll up or down to get context.  If MP such and such had posted "a report showing that 1 million bats will be killed by HS2", parliamentary protocol would dictate that his post contain a link to that report, so we could see it.  Likewise when a minster stands up as says "we have increased funding for X by Y" the post would have a link to the report (and if it was just a daily mail article we could pick it apart)



To some extent it is a little more cumbersome, it obviously takes a little longer to type a question/answer than it does to stand up and speak it.  But (IMHO) that's a feature not a bug.  It means there has to be a little more thought put into the question.  Waffle and rhetorical tricks that work well in speech don't work in text (where the reader can re-read easily).



The slowness isn't a problem when multiple debates can occur in parallel (which can't happen at the moment)



Take this thread as an example, it is being conducted by 3 people, each of whom is doing other things in between posts.  We all could be active on multiple threads at once so the "a minister wasn't available for this debate" won't wash.

[BeElBeeBub]

Why not a mixture of both texting and video meeting, plus any required documentation?

MP's can lodge their request to speak by text to the Speaker/Moderator, who can verbally call the MP to speak or pose a question. Anyone making a statement can be alerted to a request to give way by a signal from the speaker. Voting could be as simple as clicking on the appropriate box when it's put on screen and could be easily recorded.

Committees could be held straightforward videoconferencing.

The major drawback is time to design and instal — but the technology already exists. So I reckon that if Nightingale hospitals can be up and running days, a UK-wide British Parliament Network should be feasible in a few weeks — provided OpenReach isn't involved in the installation...

yes, there would be various formats (VC, text only, video piece, slide presentation etc) depending on the situation.



I'm more thinking of the day to day bread and butter debates and PMQs.



Why bother getting them all in a room to listen to speeches one after the other (and all the crappy cat calling that goes with it).



That could be done perfectly well (if not better) as a more structured debate over a longer time, rather than "live"



Committees would probably be well suited to VC, although doing it virtually, would allow the questioners and respondents to pull up slides and even video evidence much easier.



Yes, the time to bring such as ystem up would be an issue, but as you point out the majority of the technology exists, a lot in open source formats, so it would be possible.

[Barry]

How would BBC Parliament work, then?

How could the public see how parliament is operating, or would you advocate the public having read only access to the discussions?

I can't see it being workable, as it sounds cumbersome, but it's not an idea that should be totally dismissed. Perhaps it would work better for select committees?

[patman post]

Why not a mixture of both texting and video meeting, plus any required documentation?

MP's can lodge their request to speak by text to the Speaker/Moderator, who can verbally call the MP to speak or pose a question. Anyone making a statement can be alerted to a request to give way by a signal from the speaker. Voting could be as simple as clicking on the appropriate box when it's put on screen and could be easily recorded.

Committees could be held straightforward videoconferencing.

The major drawback is time to design and instal — but the technology already exists. So I reckon that if Nightingale hospitals can be up and running days, a UK-wide British Parliament Network should be feasible in a few weeks — provided OpenReach isn't involved in the installation...

[BeElBeeBub]

Hello all, I hope you are all keeping well in these uncertain times.



Currently Parl is in recess but there are plans for it to begin sitting "virtually" later this month.



There is talk of a few MPs (or peers in HoL) sitting distanced in the chamber, and then others virtually via video conference software.



Personally I think this is daft and missing a trick.



Why use VC software?  What is the point of replicating the current set up?



Once upon a time the only way to have an efficient debate was face to face, in a room, with people making speeches etc.



That is no longer the case.



I've proposed this before, but (rightly) it was pointed out the chances of change were zero because of inertia.



Well, change is upon us.



I think that changing the format of parliamentary debates would actually improve politics.



A forum style (not too dissimilar to this one) would serve better for debates



It goes without saying that all MP would need an account and there would need to be sufficient cyber security and authentication to prevent hacking etc.



Obviously moderation would need to be much stricter (the job of the speaker's office), but essentially a debate would be kicked of by a minster starting a topic/thread for the debate (much like I have for this one).



The first post would set out the terms, present any draft bills etc as attachments



There would then be a set format and system for questions or comments - essentially the speaker would select an MPs application for a question/comment and that would be published as the next post, the government would then get a reply post, then another question/comment etc.



There could be a formal rule like gov selects a MP to comment/post then LOTO, then Gov etc maybe with slots for each party to (distributed proportionally maybe).



Any questions or replies that referred to other data (eg a newspaper article, a report, a previous comment etc) would need to have that link supplied so the data could be interrogated.



There could be a function for the HoC library here as they would also be responsible for archiving the link data (so link rot doesn't cause a problem in future) but also verifying it's integrity (to some degree).



When it comes to amendments these would be handled in a similar way to polls.  The speaker would select an amendment and a poll held on whether to amend or not.  If it is succesful, the new document would then be  published and the degbate continued.



Debates would, necessarily be slower.  Taking at least a day and possibly several, but they could also be held in parallel.  Rather than having a time table of 2h for debate on dangerous dogs, then 1h for a PM bill on upskirting, then 3hrs for a debate on going to war, all those debates could be held simultaneously thus preventing a bottleneck.



Once a bill had been approved and sent to the other house, the thread is linked at the bottom to the new thread in the other house which continues in a similar vein.



Committees etc would follow a similar format, though the thread would only be open to committee members and controlled by the chair.  They could also conduct interviews with experts or ministers via VC as this format would be reasonably well suited.



The debate threads would be fully open to the public in real time (except sensitive committees like security) so they could see what their MPs were doing and follow the debate and links to outside data sources.



PMQ's would follow a similar theme



Thoughts?