Det er blevet sagt, at politik er showbiz for de ækle. På den måde, føler jeg mig hjemme her. Det er en ære, som politiker, at holde en TED-tale, især her i UK, hvor politikeres omdømme, med udgiftsskandalen, er sunket meget dybt.
Someone once said that politics is, of course, "showbiz for ugly people." So, on that basis, I feel like I've really arrived. The other thing to think of is what an honor it is, as a politician, to give a TED talk, particularly here in the U.K., where the reputation of politics, with the expenses scandal, has sunk so low.
Det er endda blevet fortalt, at forskere overvejer at bruge politikere i stedet for rotter. Og én spurgte, hvorfor det? og de svarede, - der er ingen mangel på politikere, ingen kærer sig om, hvad der sker med dem, og der jo, trods alt, ting, som rotter ikke vil finde sig i. (latter)
There was even a story recently that scientists had thought about actually replacing rats in their experiments with politicians. And someone asked,"Why?" and they said, "Well, there's no shortage of politicians, no one really minds what happens to them and, after all, there are some things that rats just won't do." (Laughter)
Jeg ved I alle elsker data, så jeg begynder med en data-rig slide. Dette, tror jeg, er det vigtigste faktum, at huske på, i Britisk og Amerikansk politik. Og det er: Vi har ikke flere penge. Vi har et kæmpe underskud på budgettet. Dette er mit globale gælds-ur over offentlig gæld, og, som I kan se, så viser den 32 billioner og er stigende.
Now, I know you all love data, so I'm starting with a data-rich slide. This, I think, is the most important fact to bear in mind in British politics or American politics, and that is: We have run out of money. We have vast budget deficits. This is my global public debt clock, and, as you can see, it's 32 trillion and counting.
Jeg mener, at det fører til den meget simple erkendelse, at der, for tiden, er et spørgsmål, som er over alle andre i politik, og det er: Hvordan gør vi tingene bedre, uden at bruge flere penge? Fordi der vil ikke komme en masse penge, til at forbedre den offentlige service, eller til forbedring af det Offentlige, eller til at forbedre alt det. som politikere taler om. Heraf følger, at hvis man mener, at det bare drejer sig om penge, at man kun måler succes i offentlig services i sundhed og uddannelse og politi ved at bruge flere penge, at man kun kan måle fremgang ved at bruge penge, - så vil man gå en hård tid i møde.
And I think what this leads to is a very simple recognition, that there's one question in politics at the moment above all other, and it's this one: How do we make things better without spending more money? Because there isn't going to be a lot of money to improve public services, or to improve government, or to improve so many of the things that politicians talk about. So what follows from that is that if you think it's all about money -- you can only measure success in public services in health care and education and policing by spending more money, you can only measure progress by spending money -- you're going to have a pretty miserable time.
Men hvis man mener at der er meget andet, som fører til et godt liv, såsom familien, venner, fællesskab, værdier, så er det en spændende tid at være i for politikere. Den enkle pointe, som jeg vil fremføre i aften, den totalt indlysende pointe er: Hvis vi forener den rette politiske filosofi, den rette politiske tænkning med den utrolige informations revolution, og som I alle ved meget mere om end jeg gør, så mener jeg, at der er en utrolig mulighed for at forvandle politik, forvandle det Offentlige, forvandle de offentlig services, og opnå det, som står oppe på sliden, hvilket er en stor forbedring af vores liv. Dette er den pointe, som jeg vil fremføre i aften.
But if you think a whole lot of other things matter that lead up to well being -- things like your family relationships, friendship, community, values -- then, actually, this is an incredibly exciting time to be in politics. And the really simple argument I want to make tonight, the really straightforward argument is this: That if we combine the right political philosophy, the right political thinking, with the incredible information revolution that has taken place, and that all of you know so much more about than I do, I think there's an incredible opportunity to actually remake politics, remake government, remake public services, and achieve what's up on that slide, which is a big increase in our well-being. That's the argument I want to make tonight.
Lad mig begynde med den politiske filosofi. Jeg siger ikke, at de Britiske Konservative har alle svarene. Selvfølgelig har vi ikke det. Men der er to vigtige ting, som driver en konservativ filosofi, som er relevant for denne debat. Det første er: Vi tror, at hvis man giver folk mere magt og kontrol over deres eget liv, hvis man giver folk flere valg, hvis man sætter dem i førersædet, så vil man faktisk skabe et stærkere og bedre samfund. Og hvis man forener dette, med den utrolige mængde information, som vi har i verden i dag, så tror jeg, at man kan helt forvandle politik, forvandle det Offentlige, forvandle den offentlige service.
So, starting with the political philosophy. Now I'm not saying for a minute that British Conservatives have all the answers. Of course we don't. But there are two things at heart that I think drive a conservative philosophy that are really relevant to this whole debate. The first is this: We believe that if you give people more power and control over their lives, if you give people more choice, if you put them in the driving seat, then actually, you can create a stronger and better society. And if you marry this fact with the incredible abundance of information that we have in our world today, I think you can completely, as I've said, remake politics, remake government, remake your public services.
Det andet, som vi tror på, er, at man skal være i samklang med den menneskelige natur. Politik og politikere vi kun lykkes hvis man faktisk prøver at behandle folk som de er, snarere end hvad man ønskede de var. Hvis man forener denne meget simple konservative tanke med den menneskelige natur, med alle fremskridtene i adfærds-økonomien, som vi lige hørte noget om, så tror jeg, at vi kan opnå en reel forbedring af livet, i lykke, i et stærkere samfund uden nødvendigvis, at skulle bruge en masse ekstra penge.
The second thing we believe is we believe in going with the grain of human nature. Politics and politicians will only succeed if they actually try and treat with people as they are, rather than as they would like them to be. Now, if you combine this very simple, very conservative thought -- go with the grain of human nature -- with all the advances in behavioral economics, some of which we were just hearing about, again, I think we can achieve a real increase in well-being, in happiness, in a stronger society without necessarily having to spend a whole lot more money.
Hvorfor jeg tror, at tiden nu er inde til dette? Jeg er bange for, at I kommer til at finde jer i en kort lyn-lektion i historie, om hvad jeg kalder historiens tre perioder: den før-bureaukratiske tidsalder, den bureaukratiske tidsalder og den vi nu lever i, og som jeg tror er den efter-bureaukratiske tidsalder. En enkel måde at forstå det på er, at vi gik fra en verden med lokal styring, så gik vi til en verden med central styring, og nu er vi en verden med folke styring. Lokal magt, central magt. Nu folke-magt.
Now, why do I think now is the moment to make this argument? Well, I'm afraid you're going to suffer a short, condensed history lesson about what I would say are the three passages of history: the pre-bureaucratic age, the bureaucratic age and what we now live in, which I think is a post-bureaucratic age. A simpler way of thinking of it is that we have gone from a world of local control, then we went to a world of central control, and now we're in a world of people control. Local power, central power, now, people power.
Her er kong Knud, konge for tusind år siden. Han troede han kunne få bølgerne til at rulle baglæns. Det kunne han ikke. Han kunne faktisk ikke bestemme ret meget, for hvis man var konge for tusind år siden, hvor det stadig tog uger at rejse tværs over landet, var der ikke meget han var herre over. Han var ikke herre over politiet, domstole, uddannelse, sundhed, velfærd. Han kunne omtrent kun gå i krig, og ikke meget andet. Dette var den før-bureaukratiske tidsalder, en alder, hvor alt nødvendigvis var lokalt. Man havde kun lokal styring, for der var ingen nationalt tilgængelig information, fordi rejsemuligheder var begrænset. Så det var den før-bureaukratiske tidsalder.
Now, here is King Cnut, king a thousand years ago. Thought he could turn back the waves; couldn't turn back the waves. Couldn't actually turn back very much, because if you were king a thousand years ago, while it still took hours and hours and weeks and weeks to traverse your own country, there wasn't much you were in charge of. You weren't in charge of policing, justice, education, health, welfare. You could just about go to war and that was about it. This was the pre-bureaucratic age, an age in which everything had to be local. You had to have local control because there was no nationally-available information because travel was so restricted. So this was the pre-bureaucratic age.
Næste del af denne kedelige historie-lektion, er det herlige billede af den Britiske Industrielle Revolution. Pludselig var der mange slags transportmuligheder, og det førte til, hvad jeg gerne kalder, den bureaukratiske tidsalder. Og billedet glider forhåbentlig over til det næste. Her kommer det. Pludselig har man den store, stærke, centrale stat. Den, og kun den, var i stand til at organisere sundhed, uddannelse, politi, domstole. Det var ikke en verden af lokal magt, men af central magt. Den sugede al magten fra det lokale. Det kunne den gøre af sig selv.
Next part of the cold history lesson, the lovely picture of the British Industrial Revolution. Suddenly, all sorts of transport, travel information were possible, and this gave birth to, what I like to call, the bureaucratic age. And hopefully this slide is going to morph beautifully. There we are. Suddenly, you have the big, strong, central state. It was able -- but only it was able -- to organize health care, education, policing, justice. And it was a world of, as I say, not local power, but now central power. It had sucked all that power up from the localities. It was able to do that itself.
Det næste store skridt, som I alle er så bekendt med: Den massive informations-revolution. Bare tænk på følgende: For hundrede år siden kostede disse 10 ord 50 dollars Lige nu er vi i forbindelse med Long Beach og alle andre steder, og alle disse hemmelige steder for en brøkdel af heraf, og vi kan sende og modtage enorme mængder af information uden at det koster noget. Vi lever i en efter-bureaukratisk tidsalder, hvor reel folkemagt er mulig.
The next great stage, which all of you are so familiar with: the massive information revolution. Just consider this one fact: One hundred years ago, sending these 10 words cost 50 dollars. Right now, here we are linked up to Long Beach and everywhere else, and all these secret locations for a fraction of that cost, and we can send and receive huge quantities of information without it costing anything. So we're now living in a post-bureaucratic age, where genuine people power is possible.
Hvad betyder det for vor politik for vores offentlige service, for det Offentlige? Jeg kan, med den tid jeg har, ikke give masser eksempler, men lad mig bare nævne nogle få måder, hvormed livet kan ændres. Og det er så indlysende når man tænker på hvordan vi alle har ændret den måde vi køber ind, den måde vi rejser, den måde forretning drives på. Det har allerede fundet sted. Informations- og internet-revolutionen, har allerede påvirket vort samfund på mange måder. Men den har ikke fuld ud påvirket det Offentlige.
Now, what does this mean for our politics, for our public services, for our government? Well I can't, in the time I've got, give huge numbers of examples, but let me just give a few of the ways that life can change. And this is so obvious, in a way, because you think about how all of you have changed the way we shop, the way we travel, the way that business is done. That is already happened; the information and Internet revolution has actually gone all the way through our societies in so many different ways, but it hasn't, in every way, yet touched our government.
Hvordan kan dette komme til at ske? Jeg tror der er tre hoved-områder, hvor det burde gøre en enorm forskel: Transparens, flere Valgmuligheder og Ansvarsgørelse, ved at give os reel folkemagt. Hvis vi tager transparens: Her er én af mine favoritsider, Missouri Accountability Portal. I gamle dage havde kun det Offentlige informationen, og kun få udvalgte personer kunne få adgang til denne information, og sætte spørgsmålstegn ved noget. Men her, på denne ene side for én stat i Amerika er hver eneste brugt dollar af det Offentlige søgbar, analyserbar og kontrollerbar.
So, how could this happen? Well, I think there are three chief ways that it should make an enormous difference: in transparency, in greater choice and in accountability, in giving us that genuine people power. If we take transparency, here is one of my favorite websites, the Missouri Accountability Portal. In the old days, only the government could hold the information, and only a few elected people could try and grab that information and question it and challenge it. Now here, on one website, one state in America, every single dollar spent by that government is searchable, is analyzable, is checkable.
Tænk på den enorme forskel det gør: Enhvert firme, som vil byde på en regerings-kontrakt, kan se, hvad der for tiden bliver brugt. Enhver som mener: " Jeg kan gøre det bedre, jeg kan gøre det billigere." det er altsammen tilgængeligt her. Vi har, i det Offentlige og i politik, blot begyndt at kradse i overfladen af, hvad andre gør i den kommercielle verden, med informations-revolutionen. Fuld transparens vil gøre en kæmpe forskel. Hvis vi vinder valget, vil vi gøre det Offentliges udgifter over 25.000 pund transparent og tilgængelig online, søgbar for enhver. Vi vil gøre alle kontrakter - vi bekendtgør det i dag - tilgængelig på internettet, så alle kan se hvad teksten og betingelserne er, hvilket fremdriver en kæmpe værdi for pengene, men også en kæmpe forbedring af vores liv, tror jeg.
Think of the huge change that means: Any business that wants to bid for a government contract can see what currently is being spent. Anyone thinking, "I could do that service better, I could deliver it cheaper," it's all available there. We have only, in government and in politics, started to scratch the surface of what people are doing in the commercial world with the information revolution. So, complete transparency will make a huge difference. In this country, if we win the election, we are going to make all government spending over 25,000 pounds transparent and available online, searchable for anyone to see. We're going to make every contract -- we're announcing this today -- available on the Internet so anyone can see what the terms are, what the conditions are, driving huge value for money, but also huge increases, I believe, in well-being as well.
Valgmuligheder. I shopper alle online, sammenligner online. Gør alt online, og denne revolution har knapt kradset i overfladen af offentlige services som uddannelse, sundhed, politi og man vil komme til at se en massiv forandring. Vi bør gennemføre disse ændringer med informations-revolutionen i vores land, med søgbare sundheds-sites, så man kan se hvilke operationer der lykkes bedst, hvilken historik læger har, hospitalers renhed, hvilke er bedst til infektions-styring. Al den information, som tidligere kun befandt sig i Departmentet for Sundhed. er nu tilgængelig for os alle.
Choice. Now you all shop online, compare online, do everything online, and yet this revolution has hardly touched the surface of public services like education, or health care or policing, and you're going to see this change massively. We should be making this change with the information revolution in our country, with searchable health sites, so you can see what operations work out properly, what records doctors have, the cleanliness of hospitals, who does best at infection control -- all of the information that would once be locked in the Department of Health is now available for all of us to see.
Den tredie af disse tre store forandringer: Ansvarsgørelse. Dette, mener jeg, er en kæmpe forandring. Dette er et kort over forbrydelser i Chicago. I stedet for den situation, hvor kun politiet har informationen om hvor og hvilke forbrydelser der begås, og vi skal ansætte folk i det Offentlige, for at hold politiet ansvarlig. Pludselig har vi fået denne enorme mulighed for folke-magt, hvor vi, som borgere, kan se hvor og hvornår hvilke forbrydelser begås og af hvem, og vi kan holde politiet ansvarlig. Den ligner en kokkehue, men det er et overfald, den der i blåt. Man se hvor hvilke forbrydelser begås, og man har mulighed for at holde politiet ansvarlig. Disse tre måder - Transparens, Ansvarsholdelse og Valgmulighed, vil udgøre en kæmpe forskel.
And the third of these big changes: accountability. This, I think, is a huge change. It is a crime map. This is a crime map from Chicago. So, instead of having a situation where only the police have the information about which crimes are committed where, and we have to employ people in government to try and hold the police to account, suddenly, we've got this vast opportunity for people power, where we, as citizens, can see what crimes are being committed -- where, when and by whom -- and we can hold the police to account. And you can see this looks a bit like a chef's hat, but actually that's an assault, the one in blue. You can see what crime is committed where, and you have the opportunity to hold your police force to account. So those three ways -- transparency, accountability and choice -- will make a huge difference.
Jeg nævnte også det andet princip om at jeg mener, at vi skal arbejde på at forstå folk, ved at arbejde med den menneskelige natur kan man opnå meget mere. Vi har en kæmpe revolution i vores forståelse af hvorfor folk opfører sig, som de gør, og en muligheder for at sætte denne viden og information sammen til et større hele. Vi arbejder sammen med nogle af disse folk. Vi får råd af nogle af dem, som sagt, for at omsætte al den erfaring i praksis.
Now I also said the other principle that I think we should work on is understanding of people, is recognizing that going with the grain of human nature you can achieve so much more. Now, we're got a huge revolution in understanding of why people behave in the way that they do, and a great opportunity to put that knowledge and information to greater use. We're working with some of these people. We're being advised by some of these people, as was said, to try and bring all the experience to book.
Lad mig blot give et eksempel, som jeg synes er ganske simpelt og som jeg elsker. Vi vil gerne have folk til at blive mere energi-effektive. Hvorfor det? Det begrænser energi-knaphed, det sparer penge, og det reducerer kul-udledninger på samme tid. Hvordan gør man det? Vi havde offentlige kampagner over flere år, som opfordrede folk til at slukke for lyset, når man gik hjemmefra. Vi havde endda en minister, som ville have os til at børste vore tænder i mørke. Jeg tror ikke den varede ret længe. Se hvad dette gør. Dette er et simpelt stykke adfærds-økonomi. Den bedste måde at få nogen til at reducere deres elektricitets-regning er ved at vise dem deres eget forbrug, at vise dem, hvad deres naboer forbruger, og så vise hvad en energi-bevidst nabo forbruger. Den slag adfærds-økonomi kan ændre folks adfærd på en måde, som alle trusler og information og plageri, som det Offentlige umuligt kan opnå. Et andet eksempel er genbrug. Vi ved alle, at vi bør genbruge mere. Hvordan får vi det til at ske? Beviset fra Amerika er, at hvis vi betaler folk for at genbruge, hvis man giver dem en gulerod i stedet for en kæp, så kan man ændre deres adfærd.
Let me just give you one example that I think is incredibly simple, and I love. We want to get people to be more energy efficient. Why? It cuts fuel poverty, it cuts their bills, and it cuts carbon emissions at the same time. How do you do it? Well, we've had government information campaigns over the years when they tell you to switch off the lights when you leave the home. We even had -- one government minister once told us to brush our teeth in the dark. I don't think they lasted very long. Look at what this does. This is a simple piece of behavioral economics. The best way to get someone to cut their electricity bill is to show them their own spending, to show them what their neighbors are spending, and then show what an energy conscious neighbor is spending. That sort of behavioral economics can transform people's behavior in a way that all the bullying and all the information and all the badgering from a government cannot possibly achieve. Other examples are recycling. We all know we need to recycle more. How do we make it happen? All the proof from America is that actually, if you pay people to recycle, if you give them a carrot rather than a stick, you can transform their behavior.
Så hvad er kommer der ud af alt dette her? Her er min to favorit U.S. taler fra de sidste 50 år. Her har vi JFK med et utroligt simpelt og kraftfuldt budskab, "Spørg ikke hvad dit land kan gøre for dig; spørg hvad du kan gøre for dit land." Et utroligt flot udsagn. Men, da han holdt den tale, hvad kunne man gøre for at bygge et stærkere, bedre samfund? Man kunne slås for ens land, man kunne dø for ens land, man kunne blive tjenestemand, men man havde ikke rigtig den information og viden og evnen til at bidrage til opbygning af et stærkere samfund, på den måde vi har i dag.
So what does all this add up to? Here are my two favorite U.S. speeches of the last 50 years. Obviously, here we have JFK with that incredibly simple and powerful formulation, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," an incredibly noble sentiment. But when he made that speech, what could you do to build the stronger, better society? You could fight for your country, you could die for your country, you could serve in your country's civil service, but you didn't really have the information and the knowledge and the ability to help build the stronger society in the way that you do now.
Jeg synes at en endnu herligere tale som jeg vil læse en stor del af, som opsummerer hvad jeg sagde i starten om at tro på, at der er mere til livet end penge, og mere man bør forsøge at måle på, end penge. Det er Robert Kennedy´s dejlige beskrivelse af hvorfor nationalproduktet indfanger så lidt: Den "kan ikke vise vore børns sundhed, "kvaliteten af deres uddannelse, eller glæden ved deres leg. "Den viser ikke poesiens skønhed, eller vores ægteskabs styrke, "eller intelligensen i vores offentlige debat "den viser heller ikke vort mod, "heller ikke vor visdom eller vore kundskaber, "heller ikke vort hensyn til andre eller vor kærlighed til vort land. "Den måler, kort sagt, "alt, med undtagelse af det, som gør livet værd."
And I think an even more wonderful speech, which I'm going to read a big chunk of, which sums up what I said at the beginning about believing there is more to life than money, and more that we should try and measure than money. And it is Robert Kennedy's beautiful description of why gross national product captures so little: It "does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."
Igen et udsagn, som var så smukt sagt for 40 år siden, og en smuk drøm for 40 år siden. Men med de store fremskridt i informations-teknologien, med de massive forbedringer i adfærds-økonomien, med alt det vi ved om hvordan man gør livet bedre, hvis vi kombinerer disse indsigter til at give magten til folket, og bruge information til at gøre dette muligt, og ved at bruge indsigter til at gå med den menneskelige natur, samtidig med at man forstår, hvorfor folk opfører sig som de gør, er det en drøm, som er lettere at opnå i dag, end det var, da den blev sagt i den smukke tale for 40 år siden.
Again, a sentiment that was so noble and beautifully put 40 years ago, and a beautiful dream 40 years ago, but now with the huge advances in information technology, with the massive changes in behavioral economics, with all that we know about how you advance well-being, that if we combine those insights of giving power to people, and using information to make that possible, and using the insight of going with the grain of human nature, while at the same time, understanding why people behave in the way they do, it is a dream more easy to realize today than it was when it was made in that beautiful speech 40 years ago.
Tak. (Bifald)
Thank you. (Applause)