For our regular readers (nice to have you along, by the way!), there may not be anything particularly new here but this piece by Michael Cross in the Guardian is well worth a read, partly because it’s a nice summation of some of our thinking on Parliamentary e-democracy and partly because it’s good to see these points raised in mainstream media as well as trade magazines blogs.

If you’ll forgive me spoiling the ending, it’s his conclusions that we’d particularly echo:

It’s now time to get a bit more daring with e-democracy. By that, I don’t mean e-voting - the government’s enthusiasm for piloting a fundamentally flawed procedure is baffling - but e-democracy in the sense of a conversation. And as we are a representative democracy, the place to start this conversation is at the Palace of Westminster.

It’s still one-way traffic, however. Parliament generates the content, and we absorb it. While groups like the Hansard Society have led some experimental e-conversations between citizens and members, the general feeling is of caution about change.

For good reasons, of course. Dominic Tinley, the website’s editor, warns of the danger of engaging people in gimmicky cyber-experiences that don’t connect to real parliamentary procedures. That will lead only to cynicism and disillusionment, he told the annual e-democracy conference last month.

Fair enough, but that shouldn’t stop us taking risks. I don’t know what form parliamentary e-democracy will take, but we won’t find out unless we try some new ideas. If Downing Street, the most micromanaged corner of government, can publish a few dotty petitions, then Parliament, the uniquely privileged home of free speech, should be proportionately more relaxed. After all, the Palace of Westminster is no stranger to people talking tosh, e-enabled or otherwise.