(Re)connecting politics? Parliament, the public and the Internet

Parliamentary Affairs

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 24-42

  Lusoli, Wainer ^a   Ward, Stephen ^a   Gibson, Rachel ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30344467842     PISSN: 00312290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pa/gsj010     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. The authors are grateful for the support of the Economic and Social Research Council's E-Society programme - Award no. RES-335-25-0029.
2. There are only two studies of public attitudes towards online communication with parliament: S. Coleman, Democracy Online: What do we want from MPs' web sites? Hansard Society, 2001.
3. Omnibus survey of UK adults (18+) conducted 9-14 August 2001, n=1,921; R. Marcella, G. Baxter and N. Moore, 'The effectiveness of parliamentary information services in the United Kingdom', Government Information Quarterly, 20, 2003, pp. 29-46.
4. H. Clarke, D. Sanders, M. Stewart and P. Whiteley, Political Choice in Britain, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 284.
5. Source: Euro Barometer data. Country: UK. Period: From September 1973 (EB1) to April 2004 (EB61). Q. On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all satisfied with the way democracy works in (your country)? Would you say you are ... ? Very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, not at all satisfied, DK.
6. C. Bromley, J. Curtice and B. Seyd, Is Britain Facing a Crisis of Democracy? Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends, 2004;
7. Electoral Commission and Hansard Society, An audit of political engagement, The Electoral Commission and the Hansard Society, 2004;
8. Electoral Commission and Hansard Society, An audit of political engagement 2, The Electoral Commission and the Hansard Society, 2005.
9. C. Bromley et al., p. 20.
10. Electoral Commission and Hansard Society, 2004, 2005, An audit of political engagement op. cit.
11. An audit of political engagement Ibid., p. 16;
12. C. Bromley et al., An audit of political engagement op. cit., pp. 4-7.
13. Source: European Social Survey 2002/2003, edition 5.
14. For trust: MORI data for the British Medical Association, n=2,017, February 2005. See http://www.mori.com/polls/2005/bma.shtml/. For satisfaction, see the MORI tracker at http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/satisfaction-jobs.shtml/.
15. Power Commission, The causes of the decline in 'electoral activity' in Britain: a literature review, Power Commission, 2005, pp. 1-37.
16. H. Clarke et al., The causes of the decline in 'electoral activity' in Britain: a literature review op. cit., pp. 237-79.
17. C. Pattie, P. Seyd and P. Whiteley, 'Civic Attitudes and Engagement in Modem Britain', Parliamentary Affairs, October 2003, pp. 616-33.
18. The Electoral Commission and the Hansard Society, 2005, Parliamentary Affairs op. cit., p. 18.
19. Parliamentary Affairs Ibid., p. 32.
20. See note 7.
21. R. Inglehart, 'Postmodernization Erodes Respect for Authority, But Increases Support for Democracy' in P. Norris (ed.), Critical citizens: global support for democratic government, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 236-57.
22. K. Jenkins, 'Parliament, government and the civil service', Parliamentary Affairs, October 2004, p. 803.
23. HoC Information Committee, Digital Technology: Working for Parliament and the Public (Final report of Sessions 2001-02 No. HC 1065) House of Commons, 2002.
24. House of Commons Commission, Twenty-Fifth Annual Report (2002-03 Report), The Stationery Office Limited, 2003.
25. Twenty-Fifth Annual Report Ibid., p. 265.
26. HoC Modernisation Select Committee, Connecting Parliament with the Public (First Report of Session 2003-04 No. HC 368), The Stationery Office Limited, 2004, p. 11.
27. From the Public Whip website, http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-01-268&number=49. Opponents were Conservatives, except for one Liberal Democrat.
28. T. Kingham, e-Parliaments: The Use of Information and Communication Technologies to Improve Parliamentary Processes (Report No. 37210), World Bank Institute, 2003.
29. See for example: J. Åström, Digital Democracy: Ideas, Intentions and Initiatives in Swedish Local Governments. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, April 6-11 2001,
30. Grenoble; J. Caldow, The Virtual Ballot Box: A Survey of Digital Democracy in Europe. Online: Institute for Electronic Government, IBM Corporation. Available online at http://www.ieg.ibm.com/, 1999;
31. A. Campbell, A. Harrop and B. Thompson, 'Towards the virtual parliament - What computers can do for MPs', Parliamentary Affairs, 52/3, 1999, pp. 388-403;
32. S. Coleman, 'Westminster in the information age', Parliamentary Affairs, 52/3, 1999, pp. 371-87;
33. J. Hoff, 'The democratic potentials of information technology: Attitudes of European MPs towards new technology', Information Polity, 9, 2004, pp. 55-66.
34. N. Jackson, 'MPs and web technologies: An untapped opportunity?' Journal of Public Affairs, 3/2, 2003, pp. 124-37.
35. MPs@not.in, BBC online 19 November 1998, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/217641.stm/;
36. MPs just want to be faxed, Parity News, 15 August 2002, available at http://www.parity.net/news/15_08_02mp.htm/.
37. S. Ward and W. Lusoli, 'From Weird to Wired': MPs, the Internet and Representative Politics in the UK'. Journal of Legislative Studies, 11/1, 2005, pp. 57-81.
38. A. Trechsel, R. Kies, F. Mendez and P. Schmitter, 'Evaluation of the use of new technologies in order to facilitate democracy in Europe: e-democratizing the parliaments and parties of Europe (STOA research report). European Parliament, STOA 2004.
39. S. Coleman and J. Spiller, 'Exploring new media effects on representative democracy', Journal of Legislative Studies, 9/3, 2004, p. 8.
40. Yougov.com online survey of 1098 users, May 2002. For a review of the methodology see http://www.yougov.com/.
41. S. Coleman and J. Spiller, Journal of Legislative Studies op. cit., pp. 1-16.
42. Although the sample was unrepresentative of the British public (as more politically engaged and more likely to use computers), the 'information needs' of the group did on correlate with either thus making it relatively unbiased.
43. R. Marcella, G. Baxter and N. Moore, 'The effectiveness of parliamentary information services in the United Kingdom', Government Information Quarterly, 20, 2003, pp. 29-46.
44. S. Coleman, Democracy Online: What do we want from MPs' web sites? Hansard Society, 2001; Omnibus survey of UK adults (18+) conducted 9-14 August 2001, n=l,921.
45. S. Coleman, Democracy Online: What do we want from MPs' web sites? Ibid., p. 5.
46. The complete questionnaire and topline frequencies can be obtained from the authors at stephen.ward@oii.ox.ac.uk.
47. ONS data report a higher figure for Internet access, about 60%. According to MORI's technology tracker, 56% of adults online in December 2004 (http://www.mori.com/).
48. In general, phone and e-mail intentions thus seem over-reported, while post and personal meetings are under-estimated. A number of possible explanations are available as to why people turn to paper when they finally contact representatives. Communications may commence by phone and e-mail and then move to print or face-to-face, when a document exchange is required. Additionally, surgeries and postal exchange are felt to be 'more official' on both sides. With e-mail, there might be a generational effect at play, as actual contactors are generally older than the wider pool of potential contactors.
49. The positive and negative percentages here represent the variation from the percentage of respondents who claim to know whether their MP has a website (22%).
50. P. Norris, A Virtuous Circle, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
51. S. Coleman, 2001, A Virtuous Circle op. cit., pp. 11-4.
52. Groups are mutually exclusive.
53. For an excellent discussion of the amplification model of internet's impact, see P. Agre, 'Real Time Politics: The Internet and the Political Process', Information Society, 18/5,2002, pp. 311-31.