Now, I know that a good few bloggers have had a go at this prize arsehole—you can find some great pieces written by Bookdrunk, Timmy, Blood & Treasure (happy third anniversary), Martin, The Longrider, Mr Eugenides, Bag, Guido, Man In A Shed, Chris Dillow, Iain Dale, James Cleverley, The Tin Drummer, The Remittance Man and Shuggy, to name but a few—but as you all may know, I don't understand the word "surfeit" when it is applied to kicking politicians, so I may as well have a go and this twat.
Tony Blair's outgoing chief strategy adviser fears the internet could be fuelling a "crisis" in the relationship between politicians and voters.
Really? And there was me thinking that it was because voters in general think that politicians are all lying, cheating, unprincipled bastards and whose parties have absolutely no policy differences whatsoever. Silly me.
Matthew Taylor - who stressed he was speaking as a "citizen" not a government spokesman - said the web could be "fantastic" for democracy.
I don't think you mean "citizen", Matt; I think that you mean "subject", but we'll leave that to one side. I think that you are wrong: the web is already "fantastic" for democracy because there are so many of us out here telling you all—elected politicians, shadowy advisers, fucking chimps—where and why you are going wrong. Now, you can either listen or not. Our aim, of course, is to ensure that you do. And if I have to call the lot of you "cunt" until my typing fingers drop off, then I shall do so.
But it was too often used to encourage the "shrill discourse of demands" that dominated modern politics.
Really, Matt? "Shrill discourse of demands", is it? Well, here's my demand: go away and drown yourself, now. The point really is, Matt, that we don't want the government to do anything apart from get out of our fucking lives, OK? Fulfill that one "shrill demand" and then you can sit back and need do nothing else. Piss. Off.
(And why is it that the word "shrill" is always used to try to discredit those who are asking even the most simple questions? Toynbee is "shrill"; you may like to call me "strident". Or "master". Your choice really, Matt.)
Mr Taylor said Mr Blair's online grilling from voters - and other initiatives such as environment secretary David Miliband's blog and Downing Street's new online petition service - showed the government was making good progress in using the internet to become more open and accountable.
Miliband's blog is good progress? Excuse me whilst I split my sides laughing. The only value that Miliband's blog has is to show us precisely how credulous and ignorant the batshit mad, four-eyed fucker really is; he is in charge of policy that he knows nothing about.
I suppose that, in that way, Miliband's blog is valuable; in the bad old days, we only suspected that those ruling us had no idea what they were talking about: now they can confirm it to us. Brilliant!
But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.
Matt, with all due respect, you fucking, crappy wonk, we are solving problems. We bloggers are an unpaid focus group: we tell the administration what they are doing wrong and we provide solutions as to how the government might run rather better (it usually involves a tree and a good few lengths of rope) and we do it for free, Matt! Yes, that's right: free, gratis and for nothing. Ain't that generous of us?
Speaking at an e-democracy conference in central London, he said modern politics was all about "quality of life" and that voters had a "very complex set of needs".
Yes and, given those needs and given that each individual voter has their own set of needs, it seems rather silly for a government to try to pander to them all, eh? Tell you what; why doesn't the government piss off and let us each prioritise our own needs? Why not let each voter solve their own problems, spend their own money on their own priorities? Or is that just too fucking simple for you?
The end of deference, the rapid pace of social change and growing diversity were all good things, he argued, but they also meant governments found it increasingly difficult to govern.
Yup. Now, that could be because this lot are particularly incompetent or because it is impossible for any government to control all of the people all of the time. Actually, I think that it is both. So maybe the government should just stop trying to legislate for all the minutiae of life, eh?
"We have a citizenry which can be caricatured as being increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet capable of self-government," Mr Taylor told the audience.
Yes, Matt, you are right; it is a caricature. The reason that the citizenry are increasingly unable to govern themselves is because people like you, Matt, have made a deliberate policy—whether through hand-outs, or draconian legislation or through educational indoctrination—of removing responsibility for decisions from those citizens. Thus, many people have absolutely no idea what it is like to live without any kind of government control over their lives. This, Matt, is the fault of the Welfare State and thus of the Labour Party and thus, ultimately, you.
Like "teenagers", people were demanding, but "conflicted" about what they actually wanted, he argued.
Oh, fuck off.
They wanted "sustainability", for example, but not higher fuel prices, affordable homes for their children but not new housing developments in their town or village.
But wait! If none of these things were the preserve of government, then people would be able to decide for themselves what they attached most importance to. Do you see, Matt? Do you?
But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or "mendacious" by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage".
Matt, honey, how preceisely do we work things out with our elected "leaders" when they have their fingers in their ears and humming? NuLabour listens to its people in precisely the same way as one-time Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge, listened to the whistleblowers exposing organised paedophilia in care homes under her charge, i.e. they don't listen at all and then smear the victims.
Matt, maybe—just maybe—if politicians weren't constantly shown to be corrupt, mendacious bastards then we might believe that they weren't to bad. But they are: if they aren't actively skimming off money or accepting bribes in exchange for altering policy, then they are screwing their secretaries on their desks and our time.
Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that "leaders are out there to shaft you".
Actions speak louder than words, Matt. All the indications are that politicians are out to shaft us whilst ensuring that their own lives are as comfortable as possible (the House of Commons bar being exempted from the forthcoming English smoking ban, anyone?).
He went on: "At a time at which we need a richer relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had, to confront the shared challenges we face, arguably we have a more impoverished relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had.
"It seems to me this is something which is worth calling a crisis."
Matty-boy, when three-quarters of our laws are made by an unelected quango in Brussels then it seems rather obvious, to those of us that know about it, that our politicians cannot actually fulfill many of the expectations that we have: it is nothing more than hollow posturing. Even those who don't know see barely any difference between the three main parties and don't want to vote for any of them.
The crisis is not with communications: it is the fact that our elected politicians are, in fact, impotent.
"What is the big breakthrough, in terms of politics, on the web in the last few years? It's basically blogs which are, generally speaking, hostile and, generally speaking, basically see their job as every day exposing how venal, stupid, mendacious politicians are."
And your problem is? Is this wrong, Matt? I think not. The only crisis is that there are hundreds of us exposing the stupidity and venality of politicians every single day; and, unlike, the news hacks, we do not need the cooperation of politicians. They cannot hold us to ransom or bribe us. That's you real problem, isn't it, Matt?
"I want people to have more power, but I want them to have more power in the context of a more mature discourse about the responsibilities of government and the responsibilities of citizens," Mr Taylor told delegates.
Part of the problem, he added, was the "net-head" culture itself, which was rooted in libertarianism and "anti-establishment" attitudes.
Yeah, I mean, for fuck's sake, how dare people be libertarian, eh? How dare we challenge the established orthodoxy of the social democrat future mapped out for us by
Here's some "net-head" culture: fuck off and leave us alone. If you have to sit in your car with a hosepipe running into the window from the exhaust, then even better. I really am so fucking tired of constantly repeating myself but, please, just fuck off, OK?
Dear fucking god, this man is a self-satisfied arsehole.
UPDATE: Matty was, of course, giving this speech as someone who is about to go to a nice new job.
He is leaving Downing Street next week, after three years, to become the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts (RSA).
Expect lots of comments along the lines of this:
"It wasn't a bad play/exhibition/mime but I'm afraid that we seeing a crisis in the arts; we are seeing the end of the audience's deference to the artists. The audience are less and less able to put on a play or exhibition themselves, but they make more and more shrill demands…"
Get stuffed, fuckface.