(Image © PA)

 

 

MPs are increasingly using social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook to keep constituents informed, but failing to engage them in two-way conversation. That’s according to a new report, ‘MPs online’, by the Hansard Society. Independent political researchers studied how 168 MPs use digital media to connect with their constituents – and it seems they’re doing plenty of talking, but very little listening.

 

 

Speaking at its launch, Dr Andy Williamson, of Hansard, said: “MPs aren’t good users of technology – most use it in despatch mode, with no interaction or feedback. Their current grade would be a D.” Labour’s Tom Harris, the first minister to blog his own sacking when he was fired from Gordon Brown’s frontbenches last year, agreed. He blogs not to interact with voters, but to voice his opinions and prove politicians are “kind of normal” – interested in Dr Who and karaoke.

 

 

If MPs learn to use innovative technology in innovative ways, rather than as the online equivalent of shoving leaflets through letterboxes, the impact on politics “will be absolutely revolutionary,” said Tory MP Douglas Carswell (who admits he doesn’t update his own Twitter feed – his wife does it for him). Barack Obama led by example during the US elections, deploying social media tools to garner and engage voters. He now has 325,872 followers on Twitter. By listening – and, more importantly, responding – to constituents, online MPs could bring about a new era of direct democracy, giving us unprecedented input into how our country is run. Or could it?

 

Your thoughts?

 

(Image © PA)

 

 

Ecstasy, the drug synonymous with Britain’s dance club culture, should be downgraded from class A to class B, the government’s drug advisers will say today in a long-awaited report into the associated health risks. That would put ecstasy in the same category as cannabis, but the government says it will ignore the advice – as it did when it upgraded cannabis last month.

What are people saying?

 

Professor David Nutt, head of the Home Office’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), wrote in January’s Journal of Psychopharmacology that taking ecstasy is “no more dangerous than riding a horse” or other risky activities. In response, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith yesterday accused him of trivialising the dangers of drugs and a Home Office spokesman told ITN: “Ecstasy can and does kill unpredictably; there is no such thing as a 'safe dose'. The government firmly believes that ecstasy should remain a Class A drug.” Deaths linked to the drug have trebled since the 1990s - from 10 per year to 30.

 

 

Professor Nutt has defended his comments, telling the Daily Telegraph: “The point was to get people to understand that drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life.” The critical question, he says, is “why society tolerates – indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use.” In other words, if pursuits such as motorcycling, horse riding and alcohol kill more people than illicit drugs, why aren’t we banning those instead?

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

 

(Image © Dominic Lipinski/PA)

 

As snow storms continue to sweep Britain, one question lingers: why has the wintry weather caused so much disruption? If countries where it snows 180 days a year can cope, why does Britain always seem to struggle?

 

The blizzards that closed schools and brought transport to a grinding halt yesterday weren’t entirely unexpected. As early as last Thursday, the Met Office warned the weekend would herald the return of bitter conditions. A statement on the Met Office website said: “This coming weekend will see the return of colder weather across the UK with the increasing chance of snow in some areas. At this stage, eastern parts of the country are expected to see the heaviest of any snow with some disruption possible.”

 

The authorities charged with keeping the country running knew what was coming, but come Monday morning, about 20% of the nation’s workforce couldn’t get to work. Trains, tubes and buses were cancelled across the capital. Some people accused the authorities of not being prepared.

 

“We’re appalled,” Stephen Alambritis, a spokesman for the Federation of Small Businesses, a trade group in the capital, told Bloomberg reporters. “We need to have a discussion about our infrastructure and why it can’t operate in weather like this.” Chris Roberts, who walked part of the way from his home in east London to a job interview in the city because the London Underground was suspended, said: “Transport for London could’ve been better prepared.”

 

John Biggs, a member of the city’s legislative assembly, called for an investigation of the bus and train breakdown. In an e-mailed statement, he said London Mayor Boris Johnson may have been “caught napping.”

 

 

The authorities have responded to the criticism by saying extreme weather events are so rare in this country that the cost of preparing for them can’t be justified. Put simply, taxpayers' money is needed to pay for more pressing things.

 

 

Transport for London is the city agency that runs the buses and underground trains. Spokesman Steve Taylor echoed the mayor's comments and told me the real question was one of spending priorities. “The snow between Saturday and Monday was pretty extreme for London,” he said. “We prepared for it as much as we could, gritting roads and de-icing rails, but the sheer weight of the snow was too much.”

 

Comparing London with Moscow, he said, is essentially unfair. “Moscow can cope because it happens every week," he said. "They have huge fleets of vehicles keeping the roads and rails clear. So, it’s really a question of investment and where you put it. We don’t perform as strongly because the money is needed elsewhere.”

 

The Department of Transport agreed. "This is the worst snowfall we’ve seen in 18 years," a spokesman told me. "It’s true that some other countries have a greater capability to respond to conditions of this kind, but they experience them on a regular basis – year in, year out.  We see them once a decade at most."

 

The government’s minister for London, Tony McNulty, said in a Bloomberg TV interview: “If we organised our entire public services around the one-off chance that there might be heavy snowfall, a number of groups would attack us for what would be such a waste of money.”

 

Your thoughts?