Official UK Parliamentary People’s Discussion Forums must be introduced forthwith because they would combat electoral detachment or apathy and perhaps even reduce the extremist’s resort to riot and terrorism.
Furthermore, It must be a legal right of every UK citizen to have their question, policy issue or point properly debated in fully in public on the Official UK Parliamentary People’s Discussion Forums.
On the BBC Today program, this morning, I heard that the Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Conservative Party and MP for Witney has floated the idea of a web site that would give UK Government’s financial details for all to see. Apparently, this idea has already been introduced in the USA.
This is nothing more than PR, in my opinion. It is inadequate and would yield little benefit and completely misses a huge issue that needs urgent action.
The reality is that the public need to be involved in issues of policy in a way that the public believes is real before the event not after the event. Quite simply, they need to have their questions and arguments answered. Once the money is spent, there is little that can be done, apart from spending even more money on enquiries to allocate blame.
In my recent article, I argued there were Democratic Flaws in New vision for UK Local Government unveiled in White Paper
But Prime Minister Tony Blair and the UK Parliament are as guilty as Local Government in not wanting to genuinely debate with the electorate.
I’ve written many carefully considered letters and emails to my local MP (not the Leader of the Conservative Party) and have never had a reply or even an acknowledgement, let alone dialogue or discussion.
True, I could turn up at my local MP’s surgery, although I have never tried. It is also true that verbal dialogue, hitherto, may historically have been more flexible that written dialogue. However, the problem with verbal dialogue is that it doesn’t allow different threads to be forensically analysed. It’s, also, too deniable. Furthermore, there are much better, more modern methods available.
Each letter or email I write takes perhaps half a day to two days to compose. When no reply is received from my Member of Parliament, I get angry.
Admittedly, I’m so used to not getting a reply that my anger is now somewhat mitigated by resignation as to what I see as the inevitable.
In any case, I’m mild mannered and middle-aged so little is likely to come from my anger, except perhaps to write this blog. However, no doubt there are others who have had the same experience of blank indifference and may be tempted to resort to direct action and possibly violence which, naturally, we all deplore.
Perhaps, it is reasonable that my local MP should not reply to my letters. I haven’t a clue how many he receives in an ordinary working day. But, even if my communications are not worth a reply, surely an automatic acknowledgement to say my communication has been received would not be too much to ask. Surely such an acknowledgement would be basic politeness?
I have deliberately avoided giving the name or Party of my Local MP because I suspect that the service the rest of the citizens in this country are receiving is probably just as inadequate. The issue is just too important to be blurred by Party politics.
Nor am I arguing against elected Members of Parliament. Perhaps the written forensic analysis to which our Members of Parliament would publicly subject policy on the forums would be admired by all of us. Our MPs would be able to demonstrate how truly they are “People’s Champions”. Of course, those who are repeatedly elected on a blind Party ticket might run into trouble but surely to expose such people to genuine electoral scrutiny would be a good thing.
Perhaps MPs would also be surprised and informed at the detailed knowledge of ordinary people participating in the dialogue.
Perhaps, too, the ordinary public would discover, sometimes, that their strongly held views did not hold up to forensic analysis and would be beneficially educated and persuaded by the process.
Lobbyists, employed by the rich and influential, would also be able to use the discussion forums but now all citizens would benefit from their expertise.
Party machines no doubt would push forward to have their say but, I suspect that the forums would make adherence to rigid and broad party lines difficult to justify.
Once policy is decided, MPs, no doubt, would still be invaluable in constructing the laws to implement publicly agreed policy through the normal Parliamentary processes. The difference would be that the laws passed would already have the people’s consent. Parliament would therefore be strengthened by the dialogue not weakened.
The alternative is to continue with the existing and very bad system. The ordinary people of this country will not be involved in genuine dialogue about real issues and the detachment many of us feel from Government will continue to get worse.
At one end of the spectrum, this detachment will lead to people not bothering to vote.
At the other end of the spectrum this detachment may lead to frustrated acts of violence, riots and possibly terrorism which benefit nobody.
Yet, the solution is so simple although, unfortunately, so unpalatable to the ruling classes.
All the UK Parliament and the Civil Service need to do is to set up official UK wide discussion boards that enable a continuous flow of discussion backwards and forwards between ordinary people and the State about detailed issues of policy and fact.
Failure to set up Official Policy Discussion Boards is simply an admission by Parliament that they are incapable of defending their policies and actions in front of ordinary people.
Perhaps the UK Government would argue that it would drown in a sea of individual discussion threads. But people these days are used to checking to see if a question has been asked before (FAQs). Questions and arguments could be subjected to artificial intelligence so that similar threads could be drawn together to make the knowledge base more efficient. With time, the system would work well as it does elsewhere on the Internet.
Is the UK Government likely to institute Official UK Parliamentary Discussion Forums?
Anybody who has seen on the television or heard on the radio Ministers of the Government avoiding straight answers to straight questions from interviewers must doubt it.
Can straight answers to straight questions of policy be so dangerous? Even if straight answers are inconvenient, surely this is better that a detached electorate and vastly preferable to an angry detached electorate, riots and terrorism.
Official UK Parliamentary Discussion Forums in which the ordinary electorate can engage in dialogue with the State must be instituted forthwith with no half measures.
The current one way system of hierarchical consultation that favours lobbies, partners and cliques no longer works and will lead increasingly to social fractures.
