In the evening I go to a Hansard Society event on on-line campaigning. There are four speakers (including me). I am there as the ‘practitioner’ – as I actually do the business (like this blog).

The others are commentators or academics who pontificate on the subject. They were all excellent and the two statisticians/academics gave us the numbers on who was using the net in elections and why. Stephen Coleman was pretty clear that he didn’t care about politicians (hurt – I was) but that his passion was for a democratic voice from the people. Stephen Ward also did some number work on how and why people use the internet during elections. It seemed to fall into different uses – some for information – some for details on issues. Young people (not surprisingly) used it the most.

It was kind of what you would expect in terms of the whys and wherefores. There was a keenness from the panel for ‘interactivity’ – but I’m not convinced that’s what people want when push comes to shove. It may very be what people say they want – but experience has demonstrated to me that mostly information giving is appreciated better.

The other panellist was a media journalist – Bill Thompson – who took a broader look at where and how this e-democracy fits in with other media. Bill is clearly a free spirit and was clearly against the suggestion from one of the audience that bloggers who are actually political parties at work – but who don’t own up to this on their sites – should follow some code of conduct.

Bill was dead against this. Obviously – because then it would limit what got said – and under the guise of anonymity people would have the freedom to be bold and brave in their pronouncements. I take the opposite view – I think they are cowardy custards (custors?)! We’re not talking about issues like someone talking bravely about a medical condition, raising public awareness and understanding but wanting anonymity. For these sorts of sites we’re just talking about political banter that’s often barely more than insults and abuse. So – if you want to say something nasty or critical of me – fine – but have the balls to say it with your name attached! (I changed the word ‘balls’ to ‘guts’ when I spoke. Overawed by traditions of Parliament already!).

As the event is going on – simultaneously – I was one of the nominees for the media awards for the New Statesman being announced at a do somewhere else in London. As I say to the assembled – I am pretty sure I can’t have won as I am not there – and you have to believe that they would have wanted me there if I had.

So – I leave the Hansard ‘Spinning On-Line’ evening – and rush over to the CRE (Commission for Racial Equality) reception which I was meant to speak at – but told them I couldn’t get there in time. Happily I do get there in time for a glass of wine (or two) and a lively discussion with Hugh Muir of the Guardian about ID cards. Diane Abbot joins the discussion and as we are both on the side of the angels in this debate – and we need another wedge of Labour rebels to defeat the Bill when it returns. I ask her why Sadik Khan (who kicks up about a number of race/religious issues) voted for the Government proposals. Diane said she hasn’t discussed it with him. Well – given how few Labour votes need to change sides – a bit of active lobbying might be a good idea.

Then rush back to chamber for a vote. In fact no vote is taken – the ayes have it. But there is a division on the ‘programme’ motion for the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. More jargon! A programme motion is just the length of the time or number of sessions it will get in committee stage. We vote against – because there should be more debate on the issue.