Politicians Have Poor Grasp of Technology?

Alfred Lee Deon writes "Chris Patten, a former EU Commissioner, was speaking at the three-day conference in Nice, France, on European business and technology. 'Many politicians don't understand the technology issues that could affect government IT schemes,' he said.' Politicians have no sound grasp of technology issues — but politicians don't necessarily have a profound grasp of any issue.' He was especially critical of UK's government's ID card scheme — a scheme he felt would not achieve one of its possible objectives of making borders more secure."

No shit

[Vanders]

I have yet to see a single politician ever talk convincingly on any matter that involves technology. Living in the UK and having to hear some of the claims given about the ID Cards Database is enough to make me laugh at times. On top of that the Government continues to spend huge amounts of money on IT schemes that could be done with a fraction of the money. These schemes are generally run by everyones favourite useless shower of bastards, EDS. Invariably these gigantic schemes fail, leaving the Government without their much-touted improvements (Many of them imaginary, but still) and EDS with a pocket full of cash. Then the cycle begins again with the next eye-watteringly huge contract for another IT scheme.

It seems the highest level of IT amongst UK politicians is the ability to post a stupid clip of yourself on YouTube. I believe Tony Blair doesn't even use email, and I'd be amazed of Gordon Brown can even switch a PC on, frankly.

Re:Geography Skills

[krell]

"vouchers"
You bet! When the poor are given food stamps, they have a wide variety of stores where they can redeem them. They aren't forced to go to lousy "we don't have to try at all because we are a monopoly" special government food stores. Why not do the same with education?

Re:giving grasp a bad name.

[orzetto]

Assigning a grade of "poor" to politicians' grasp of technology implies they have grasp, most don't. They (IMO) seemingly react to political winds, political windbags, and moneybags. I can't recall ever seeing a politician on TV, or elsewhere and thinking, "Gee, that politician really gets it!".

First, I totally agree with your post. But look at it from another angle: we don't "get it" when it is about political questions. Politicians and we slashdotters think in a different mindset: we mostly think "IT security is important, privacy is important, censorship is always bad" and we have a background that will make us look like idiots if we say we don't know what MD5 sums or GTK are. Politicians think first "what will get me re-elected?" or "what will get me to another position?" if they are in their last term. They talk to the general population, and you only detect the bullshit that shows on your radar, but there is likely much more, like talking of hydrogen as an energy source (it's a carrier), saying that English is the most spoken language on earth (it's Chinese), talking about protecting children from pedophiles outside the family and so on (most abuses happen inside the family), and I have not even mentioned terrorism.

Politicians behave like this because this is the correct way to behave. The correct one in their system of reference, that is, where they are supposed to have a career: in order to do so, they must impress the voters, and it's much easier when talking about something people do not know about. Really, it's like evolution: if a politician sticks to what he knows, he will have to say "I do not know" too often, and this will put him at a disadvantage.

The only solution to get better politicians is a smarter and more informed voter population. Demagogues flourish in countries with low literacy, with few people reading newspapers and more people relying on only a few aligned information sources. So, rather than complaining about politicians, it would be probably more productive to tell the next guy (or better yet write to a newspaper, if there are any chances to be published) about why that politician is a kook. And, in the Grand Scheme of Things, increase education level and independent press.

Re:Geography Skills

[Dog-Cow]

"Private schools can pick and chose whom they wish to educate, and can cut off poor, misbehaving, lazy, underperforming students at any time."

Except that they don't. Private schools have to actually do a good job or they don't stay open. Public schools can waste millions on their administrators and leave the students without toilet paper for years at a time. Public schools do not have to educate any students at all, and it's becoming rather clear that they don't really try all that hard. Private schools have a far higher percentage of students continue to post-secondary education.

Re:Don't forget the IT people!

[jahudabudy]

Censorship only happens when the government censors something.

Nope, censorship happens when anyone censors [m-w.com]. It just happens to be perfectly legal for anyone not the government to do it. Surely you have heard late night hosts make a comment along the lines "That will never make it past our censors"? They aren't referring to the government, they are referring to network employees, often operating under guidelines set by the network above and beyond FCC regulations.

Re:Geography Skills

[plopez]

military

US reliance on mercenaries is at an all time high. Though the polically correct term is 'private security contractors'.

Note the war in Iraq is dragging on and there is no vested interest by mercenaries in peace. See also the 40 years war, a conflict in which the mercenary princes fueled the conflict to continue the wars.