People are looking for answers, Mr Editor, and when people want answers they start by asking questions. Hmmn, questions. Fair enough.

On the Hill in the House, there is a parliamentary version: Question Period. A fair chunk of time is set aside each morning, our representatives meet to give members an opportunity to question Ministers of the Government. Albeit narrow in scope and limited in purpose, the goal here isn’t just to elicit information, although that’s important, the goal is to also hold Government accountable for what they are doing, or not, as the case may be, and that is just as important.

That’s the theory anyhow, even if it doesn’t always work out that way.

But if that wasn’t sufficient, the leader of the Opposition in the UK has come up with a novel idea: let the public in on this exchange by allowing them to ask questions as well. The Labour Party leader has not (yet) spelled out how this would work, but he believes this innovation will not only help to re-engage disenchanted voters, but help raise the bar on how questions are asked and answered.

Interesting. But a few quick observations first:- Observation number one: isn’t it funny, not LOL funny mind you, how opposition parties seem to come up with these ideas after they have lost the government (and the opportunity to effect change). I don’t say that to discredit their suggestions, but to make a point. I’m dead serious when I say we tend to learn quicker, and see things more clearly, out of power rather than in. Democracy is a beautiful thing.

Observation number two: the proposal can quite easily be dismissed as just another political gimmick that won’t work. It also looks like it might be redundant. After all Ministers do have to subject themselves to questioning from time to time from members of the news media at press conferences, and to questions from the public on radio talk shows should they deign to appear, which doesn’t appear to be happening as much as it used to, or should do. There are also town hall meetings.

Still, I am not inclined to pooh-pooh the idea entirely.

Technology today is making direct interaction a breeze, thanks the explosion of new media, propelled by the ubiquity of iPhones, iPads, Blackberries and social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Our parliamentary representatives might reasonably expect to face a greater demand from voters, their constituents and others, whether in the form of questions, comments or criticism, or praise, thanks to the wonder of the internet.

There is no good reason at all why these possibilities — and opportunities — could not be put to good use. Now. The means to participate could be achieved through the Legislature’s website, a window for participation whether it be for Question Period, debate or a review of proposed legislation.

I know, I know. The issue is whether this will improve, or exacerbate, the way in which we conduct our politics and the business of government — and here I am talking about both manner and substance.

Good question. In politics, as in life, there are no guarantees. But we have to start somewhere, some time, with someone, if we want to see change. It starts more effectively with those who have the power.

You are forgiven for wondering if it is at all possible. Recent dispatches published and posted by parties, their spokesmen and women, and supporters, appear to underscore that they (we?) are worlds apart. Literally. Rarely, if ever, do we see an early rush to seek common ground. Instead we see language that tends to accentuate, exploit even, our differences and our disagreements. Public discourse on important, national issues quickly descends into the typical political to-and-fro of tit-for-tat. But it has to be said: this is no way to engage people whatever the nature of their relationship, and certainly no way to win people over.

I conclude my mini- rant, sorry Mr Editor, on this point: ever notice how would-be, wannabe and maybe’ politicians’ spend more time (and money in some cases) on learning how to be effective public speakers and very little, if any, on learning how to listen.

That says it all really. We remain stuck on what looks like a continuing dialogue of the deaf.