Thank you for your reply, but regarding this latest addition to the so-called blog I should say I couldn’t comment about any other comment if I wanted to.. nor could I get involved in any argument in todays Independent because at least in my view – “it’s not on and it’s not working properly”. (Nor is this particular comment box which is so thin I can’t read one end of my sentence from the other and so I have to go and practice my piece in some other place and then copy it here. Naturally this interferes with the spontaneous expression of what I wanted get across.The point is there are no rehearsals in the real world, Frank. Instead, Parliamentarians or indeed anybody else might do better with somewhere to bang heads together when concerns, frustration and despair appear to be spoiling all our jobs and lives..in the capacity of research eg RISC ( See DoH ie the department of health). Such speculative research might be useful to clarify the most efficient way forward for everyone concerned;First things first, and in my view it seems Parliament needs a good Matron to sort out the hospitalities including decent channels of communications re; health and work/life balance matters. Perhaps domestic cleaning arrangements and care of the gardens might be part of such a responsible persons remit for example if it becomes clear that M.P’s may work better if they could “live in”, so to speak. ( like the Speaker?). Parliamentarians ( elected or otherwise) have an exceptionally important and privileged role and this is why I think it may be reasonable and possibly more efficient to provide them with the most dedicated and best arrangements when sitting.I think Parliamentarians need their own research faculty and dedicated researchers who understand the importance of their position from the micro (in relation to the privilege members of Parliament may have upon the initiative of a diverse range of constituents concerned) eg regarding IT communications and individual web-site facilities – to the macro eg the kinds of global research which may in effect have some bearing on events. Eg. ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6367168/What-this-years-Nobel-Prize-winners-can-teach-the-Conservatives.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId;=6380100 )We may or may not be able to view the comment I sent in earlier to this article so I’ve copied it here for your perusal;“What a happy looking couple of prize winners!I agree that “Enormous courage is now needed.” but I think this article and indeed this chap’s mission is somewhat incomplete, if not generally missing the point.The last thing we need in view of the propensity of the world to blow bubbles which are far too big is a government which thinks it must “allow the non-market part of the free economy to flourish again – and to set the rules within which the market operates.” If a government was to do this it’d probably end up in deep trouble should citizens discover it had taken for granted gaps in provision, the occasional failure, or that some of the free non-market institutions will be “exclusive”, (and probably largely unaccountable eg bankers bonus arrangements ).The point of presenting the work of these two happy winners in the same vein so to speak, seems obvious; Elinor Ostrom Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA, got it;”for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons”and Oliver E. Williamson University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA;”for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm”.It seems to me this economics prize may in effect help put together a bigger so-called “paradigm” for analysis with a view to finding balanced ways of working which are on the level.”
Comment by Anonymous on 15 Jul 2011
