Ingrid at IDeA has a post on whether digital inclusion increases social inclusion. Near the end of it, she says:
There’s little point in encouraging people, especially people who already feel outside the sytem, to get online and get civically active if there’s no direct plug-in to local government service and policy-formation. Officers and councillors need to be online and listening and demonstrating that they’re listening by engaging in conversation and getting things done.
I see three problems with this.
First, listening to the socially excluded is an admirable corrective to the usual local government work of listening to the articulate middle classes, but the two groups share an inability to see past their own worldview. They still need an elected council to broker their wants and ambitions into community leadership.
Second, digital inclusion is fine – but the political-social purpose of it is very secondary. Cohesive communities at local geographical level need offline interaction. That can be supported by online tools, but they should not be an aim in themselves.
Third, the idea that many people (of any social group) would be interested in the spadework of general policy formulation is optimistic at best. If you go out round most areas with high levels of social exclusion, the demands are pretty simple: less crime, fewer teenagers hanging around, more reliable bus services. Stating the aims is easy, achieving them is a good deal harder, and the socially excluded are not going to be able or willing to turn complaints about unreliable buses into a citywide transport availability strategy.
A blog about representative democracy, social media and a conversational politics. How will peer-to-peer communications change local democracy? How is representation changing? 
Actually, I agree with all the things you’ve said, but I don’t think that negates my statement.
1. It’s a listening leadership, not an abrogration of leadership. That’s why we have a representative democracy.
2. Absolutely, I think the real value of digital engagement at the local level is that it leads to better face-to-face engagement (where more stuff gets done).
3. Yep. Most of the business of government is dull. There’s an awful lot of photocopying and filing and data entry and stuff. There are many small decisions and balancing of resources that have to happen fast. There are also specialist elements which require professional expertise from how to grit a road to how to do consultation legally. And some of it is essential but thankless, like personal care for people who have no one else to turn to.
And I don’t think we want to necessarily turn a complaint into a consultation obligation. But are we even listening and acknowledging that complaints and comments can and should inform strategy and service improvement? And if we can’t even listen to the complaint, how we can possibly expect people not to be cynical about those consultation exercises?