Connecting Parliament with the Public

In the latter part of his posting Michael Ryle has hit on what I think is the heart of the problem.

"I doubt if many Members would want to be so closely advised? "

I don't have any direct knowledge if the assertion is true, but from the standpoint of a 'mere voting public' I think that many people outside parliament DO doubt that Members want to be advised, or even involved.

Whether this perception is justified, well, I doubt it. But it is a perception which needs to be addressed.

In answer to the point above about the amount of information which MPs can physically process - perhaps the answer is to have time-limited web-chat 'virtual surgeries' where MPs are available at certain times of the week/month to read and answer questions posed by the general public on the forum in real-time.

There could be a central 'gateway' which allows people to select from a list of MPs those whose surgeries they would like to subscribe to. Members of the public could sign up for the surgery of any MP they wished to influence -for 'rank-and-file' MPs this would probably generally be constituents, but for Ministers I imagine quite a large number of people would sign up, and perhaps a number of members of the ministerial team could take part simultaneously to spread the greater load.

Sorry that this is a bit stream-of-consciousness and perhaps off-topic, but might well be an appropriate way of allowing people better access to information without overloading MPs.

I see a few problems with webchats, time limited or otherwise.

First of all, I wonder how many people have ever participated (or tried to) in such a proceeding where a politician is on the end of the line. I have, and it was a disaster of biblical proportions. It was a poorly structured shouting match in which few (if any) points were really answered, and the so-called moderator spent his entire time pandering to the politician's party propaganda.

Second, before any such mechanism would MEAN anything, you would have to give anyone and everyone the chance to participate.

During what times would such "time limited webchats" operate ? During working hours, when 99.99% of the internet-connected business population are prevented from using the 'net under fear of dismissal from their jobs ? Great idea !! It will make sure that only the party political hacks and the odd individual like me, who is fortunate to run his own business and have his own flat-fee broadband connectivity that no-one can sack me for using, can contribute.

Who else would be able to contribute ? Well, you can forget the IT-illiterate public in general for a start. At this very moment the public libraries in this part of the world are reconfiguring their publicly accessible internet facilities to deny chatroom facilities of any kind to any user in the name of protecting society from paedophilia. I'd be more inclined to accept that if I didn't KNOW that the local authority has housed a couple of people on the register in houses within spitting distance of my 13-year old daughter's school, but that's another argument.

I'm sorry if it looks like i'm just chucking a large bucket of cold water over what you have put forward as an interesting idea. It's just that I guess what I'm really saying is that whilst everyone has access to a postbox, NOT everyone has the time, money, or opportunity to make use of the technology you advocate, and until they do (which will never happen outside of sciene fiction novels and films) the majority of the population will just see the process of government become even more remote.

I think the point being made is that for parliament to be relevant it has to get its message across to a broader audience and have something to say. Currently parliament does not engage enough with the general public. I believe there are broadly two interconnected reasons for this:

1 - It doesn't have enough marketing power within the traditional media nor is it savvy enough in new communication techniques. I understand the point about webchats made by John but MPs should not limit themselves only to webchats but should have a range of communication devices - including traditional methods such as local newspapers. I wonder if any MP currently uses audio conferencing to update their constituents on a regular basis?

2 - Parliament currently doesn't engage with the people on the correct level. Parliament should try and detach itself from the political parties and allow the MPs greater freedom of thought and action. Although this may seem like a pipe dream it could actually benefit the parties if actioned in the correct way.

This website and the debate could be the start of a long process of renewal for parliament if it chose to believe in itself and trust the people by engaging with them in a meaningful manner.

As a starter I'd be interested to know how often the committee members read these pages...(and reading the weekly summaries doesn't count)

thanks - Simon

Interesting that, whenever an organisation asks how it could better communicate with the public, it is encouraged to use electronic media as the answer to all its problems. What happened to good old fashioned talking to people? Those MPs who are most effective at representing the concerns of their electorate are those who take the time to publicise and hold regular consultation events, at a time and in a place where people can get to them. I work in local government, and we are a modern organisation which makes full use of modern technology including electronic media. All our elected members have e-mail addresses which are made widely available to the public - but they will tell you that it is still by talking to the man/woman in the street that they really get a feel for the issues on the ground.

I have used yesterday a website faxyourmp.com which is how I stumbled across this discussion site. I don’t yet know if it’s worked obviously but I am ever hopeful that I will get a reply. This is the first time I have tried to gat in contact with my local MP and I used the BBC website search engine to find out how.
I think that publication of members email addresses and mobile phones would not be a good thing due to the Spam this would create for them. Maybe a textyourmp site might work, but how would this be administered as to be sure that a particular MP was dealing solely with his constituents would be quite difficult.

In fact communication is invariably "one-way". My letter to my MP gets answered witha stock answer sent by a Minister of State. The Mp has acted as a "greased tube" and has provided a vehicle for "preaching" by the Minister who knows best!

I believe that all communications to MPs should be copied to an analysis body that should summarise topics of concern in great detail. I believe that this would show, for example, a substantial clamour for Israel to be treated as an apartheid state - whether or not Ministers vote appropriately in the UN! Historically, this would be invaluable and it might be extended to ongoing referenda on key issues on which I trust my MP's judgement LESS than my own.

If we do not act in this way, communication with MPs will continue to decline. Provide the staff, provide the systems, it is our democracy which is at stake