Monday 24 March 2008

DEMOCRACY

If M.P.s are exptected to share one opinion - why have more than one M.P.?

3 comments:

Rob Windstrel Watson said...

How to make Parliament 100% more efficient.

Close it for half the year :-)

Susan Harwood said...

No! No! More debate, not less!

More individuality.

More time to think properly.

I'm not sure how high on the list of priorities 'efficiency' should be - but Parliament certainly shouldn't be 'efficient' at the expense of common sense - and common sense is not always quick to emerge.

Susan

P.S. What do you think of nuclear power?

Rob Windstrel Watson said...

Susan, in answer to your question on my site about how I found your blog, I've been experimenting with adding details to my profile and then clicking on my interests to find UK bloggers with similar interests or even those in the UK. There is also a search page that enables me to do the same.

I think I found you simply through your UK location profile element.

As for nuclear power, if it irradiates me or blows up my family, it's bad and I'm against it.

If it provides almost unlimited power free from global warming pollution, it's good and I'm for it.

(I'm not sure about the issue of spent fuel rods hanging around for ever. I suspect a place could be found for them or they could be reprocessed, although the technology is still dangerous but then so are many things, life isn't risk free.)

Problem is that I don't know which of the good or bad scenarios is going to happen so it's a more or less impossible question.

The issue is compounded by the fact I live near Hinckley Point Power station so, if some problem occurred, I may be one of the first to know about it.

My comment about Parliament reflects that I don't have confidence in the way Parliament works or doesn't work for the benefit of the British and World public.

My MP has never ever replied to a communication from me about policy (MP for Bridgwater). His 'blog' was not interactive the last time I looked. As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't represent me at all. I have yet to see him write anything positive about anything. He mainly seems to spend his time bashing the other parties.

I'm very much in favour of involving the people in government and believe that the Internet allows us to do this more effectively than ever before.

I believe discussing issues can identify solutions to problems that previously appeared impossible through the use of the 'collective intelligence' which really just means the widest possible discussion.

I have a blog about rural regeneration that advocates such a local discussion forum. Unfortunately my local Council, the West Somerset Council, is impervious to any of these suggestions. Of course, having the facility doesn't get people involved. They need to be encouraged to help achieve the forum's benefits.

As things stand, Parliament responds most to the 'power' politics of media (often gutter press) and lobbying vested interest, instead of considered argument that everybody can see and join.

It seems to me there are too many regulations. I would rather see the growth of positive benefits to society than negative rules and laws.