Government's Spending Challenge Website Subject to Malicious Attacks

Initially set up with good intentions, Spending Challenge has been at the centre of public opinion ever since going live and spurred debates that have even made it all the way to the House of Commons.

In response to the offensive and inappropriate comments which were appearing on the site, shadow Treasury Minister Angela Eagles urged chief secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander to remove the Government's Spending Challenege website, citing example suggestions such as sterilising the poor, reopening the workhouses, and moving immigrants out of the cities to justify her concerns. 

The website was designed in the same spirit as its sister site YourFreedom.com, on which the public are invited to make suggestions with regards to the relevance and effectiveness of the laws of the country. The sites are similar in their objective to provide a direct channel through which public opinion can be communicated to the heart of government.

Unfortunately the common factors between the sites also extend to the unsavoury nature of some of the comments posted.

It is perhaps surprising that it was the Treasury site which attracted the highest level of inappropriate suggestions, rather than Your Freedom; a valuable insight into the collective woes of society, and into the areas about which many feel most nervous.

Although none of the posted comments are available for public perusal, Clifford Sanger, creative director at Sparkloop graphic design agency, has given his summation of the nature of the content:

“One of the most popular tags is "immigration". Entries here tend to fall into one of two categories:
racist ranting written entirely in lower case
RACIST RANTING WRITTEN ENTIRELY IN CAPITALS.”

This is a catch 22 situation for the government. If they do not deal with the offensive and disruptive comments which have dogged the site in an effective way, then the credibility of the the project is diminished. On the other hand, if officials were to start selectively weeding out seemingly inappropriate posts, they defeat the purpose of the project - empowering members of the general public by providing a platform or e-democracy for opinion and ideas.