by Russel Norman
It seems appropriate to start blogging on the anniversary of Rod’s death about secrecy in trade policy and trade negotiations. Trade policy and trade negotiations were amongst Rod’s passions and he engaged in various bouts with officials and ministers trying to find out what promises the New Zealand Government was making in international trade negotiations. I worked with him as a researcher on a number of these.
Since picking up the trade portfolio after being elected Co-Leader I have pursued a number of trade issues and one in particular, the possible entry of Chinese labour into New Zealand as part of a trade deal, demonstrates the undemocratic secrecy surrounding this area of Government policy.
In July I noted that the China-Australia trade negotiations included an attempt by the Chinese team to allow access of Chinese labour into Australia to work on ports and construction sites for Chinese companies, possibly at Chinese wage rates.
I raised these questions publicly and wrote to Phil Goff, as the Minister of Trade Negotiations, on July 31st, asking whether this was also on the agenda in the trade negotiations between New Zealand and China.
I received a response a couple of days later stating that the Minister would consider my information request and get back to me. And so I waited and waited.
Then in early October the Chinese delegation came to New Zealand to negotiate and on October 4 the NZ Herald printed an article based on an interview that Fran O’Sullivan conducted with the Chinese Commerce Minister Bo Xilai (can’t find an online version). He told Fran that China wanted temporary access for Chinese workers into New Zealand and that this was on the negotiating table.
The problem with access for these workers is that there is no indication whether they would be paid at New Zealand or Chinese wage rates, whether New Zealand health and safety laws would apply, whether they would only be allowed entry in cases where there are irresolvable labour shortages, and whether they would be allowed to join a union (other than the official Chinese fake unions). The danger presented is a parallel industrial relations system that undermines labour rates and standards. I raised these problems on October 4.
The day before Fran’s article was printed Phil Goff’s press release about the negotiations said nothing about labour access being on the table, and he had still not responded to my request for information.
After Fran’s article and my press release Phil Goff quickly went into damage control and issued a release condemning the Greens for drawing attention to the implications of the negotiations. Moreover, he accused us of being misinformed – well yes, but hard to be fully informed about secret negotiations. In typical style he used attack as the best form of defence.
Then on October 6, surprise surprise, I received a letter from Phil Goff telling me that yes, the answer to my enquiry of two months previous was that access for Chinese workers was on the table in the negotiations.
This really isn’t good enough. These trade negotiations have very significant implications for New Zealand. In this case it was labour conditions that were under threat. In previous WTO negotiations they gave away our right to have minimum NZ content quotas on TV and radio. The public have the right to know what rights Phil and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade are trading away.
It is remarkable that it took a Minister from one of the most undemocratic regimes in the world to tell us what our Trade Minister was up to. As Fran O’Sullivan put it on October 4:
“The China-New Zealand free trade talks have not attracted as much controversy as parallel negotiations in Australia. Much of the detail has been kept secret as the New Zealand side, at times, appears “more opaque” over its negotiating position than the “China side??.
The NZ Labour Party more secretive than the Chinese Communist Party? When it comes to trade deals, I’m afraid so.
Russel
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Justice & Democracy by Russel Norman on Mon, November 6th, 2006
Tags: environment
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
This news is disturbing, yet I see some irony in view of the Labour Party’s view on wage rates for foreign crews on NZ contract ships. Joy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While I don’t agree with the Nat’s about much, the arrogance of this Labour led government is pretty clear-cut. I get the feeling that this arrogance, more than any other thing, will be their eventual undoing.
We’d better look smart at how we position ourselves. At the rate they are going we may be in the invidious position of negotiating with National after the next election.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nice one Russel, welcome to the blog, looking forward to lots more from you.
I must say I’ve been impressed with the quality and quantity of your PRs since becoming co-leader:
http://greens.org.nz/docs/docs_author.asp?class=PR&auth=107
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey BJ, you’re stealing my lines now!
Yes the Greens are going to be hard-pressed to find a respectable coalition partner after the next election. But historically speaking this is the election where we are most likely to finish up holding the balance of power : the small centre-right parties are likely to be wiped, in large part due to their boneheadedness on ecological issues. The Greens have everything to gain from not committing themselves to a coalition before the next election, but stating the key policy planks that need to be accommodated in a coalition government.
Russel, I bet you’re not going to touch this comment with a barge pole!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am just imagining a Blair/Brown scenario playing out between Helen and Phil Goff… she bails before the next election, leaving him proudly holding the baby…
Oops, thread drift. Excellent work Russel ! We don’t want a return to special immigration schemes for indentured Chinese labourers. NZ has a shameful history in this respect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Russel, nice first post. But the question of whether such secrecy at the negotiating table is “undemocratic” is not so clear cut as you seem to assume. Harvard Prof. Jane Mansbridge argues that the processes by which representatives reach their decisions need not be wholly public, just so long as the reasons behind their ultimate decisions are eventually explained (much like Supreme Court opinions). I discuss this — and the implications for the China issue — at greater length here.
This is getting into fairly abstract political theory, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the relative roles of representatives and the general public, e.g. whether we merely ‘select’ our representatives, or should also seek to ‘control’ them. Your above comments appear to commit you to the latter view, but are you willing to endorse this as your considered position on the matter?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The difficulty for Greens with the approach Prof. Mansbridge is advocating is that both outcome and process are fundamental to Green Charter principles. Two of the Charter Principles are:
Appropriate Decision-making:
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected, and
Non-Violence:
Non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.
So it’s not just the end that counts, but the process by which that end is achieved. If Green Charter principles are to be upheld, politicians must be accountable not only for their achievements, or lack thereof, in furthering ecological sustainability and social justice, but for the process by which this is achieved.
According to the Mansbridge theory, the Republican’s will get the heave-ho in the US Congressional elections because the voters don’t like the eventual outcome of the Iraq war. Then, supposedly, all will be good again, as those in power who have made mistakes will have been held accountable for them. Unfortunately, all will not be good for the people of Iraq, or for the international credibility of the US, and I fear all will not be good in either of these respects for many years to come.
Everyone from the Greenest of Greens to the most neo-conservative Republican would have liked to see an end to the oppressive Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. But the lack of accountability of the Bush Administration for process is what has landed Iraq, and the US Republicans, so deep in the brown smelly stuff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hiya Russel, great first blog and I look forward to seeing many more of them.
I took a look at these ideas of Mansbridge’s and I do not agree with much of them at all. It believe is our democratic duty as citizens to monitor our elected officials and to keep holding them to account, personally and through the media.
Secret deals and horse trading behind closed doors just doesn’t cut it for me. I expect my officials to behave transparently in all things and this is one reason I so passionately support the Green Party.
China has such a shocking history with workers rights and with their current contribution to the global pollution problems I regard any trade deals with them as somewhat dodgy.
Toad summed it up pretty well for me and I agree with alistair about not wanting to repeat our shameful history in this manner.
Cheers,
Zana
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think that there are serious problems with the selection model when it comes to a free trade deal in particular. The agreements signed up to by National in 1995 (on NZ content quotas for example) are effectively irreversible under WTO rules. So if National had provided transparent reasons after the fact, as per the selection model, we would still be stuck with their decisions. If they had opened the decision making process earlier and the public had said actually we want to be able to have minimum NZ content rules, we could have stopped a very very poor decision.
Aside from the specifics of trade negotiations, in general I support deliberative or discursive democracy. I think that we need to engage people as much as possible in the decision making process of the state. Allowing the public to engage in the debates around the process as well as the post facto reasons is essential both to a) improving state decision making so that it is more in alignment with people’s wishes, and b) developing citizens with the capacity to choose the best representatives. If citizens only get to engage in the decision making process after its all over then how will they develop the kinds of skills and abilities needed to do the selecting of representatives?
Key to deliberative or discusive democracy is the public sphere and the decline of the public sphere is one of the problems with our democracy and US democracy in particular. State secrecy makes it very difficult for the public sphere to do its work. I’m ever hopeful that the internet and the blogs will help to improve the calibre of the public sphere by increasing flow of information and providing a venue for the free exchange of ideas. To what extent it is doing this is still an open question I think.
And thanks for the encouragement.
cheers
Russel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
so..russel..
could you tell us what happens when the greens want to ask a question in parliament on trade….?
when the portfolio/green spokesperson can’t speak in parliament..?
do you tell someone in parliament what to say..?.(and how could you possibly do that in an ongoing debate…?
semaphore from the public gallery..?..)
.or do the greens just not have any input in the debating chamber/parliament on trade..(and whatever other portfolios you may have..?..what are they..?..by the way..?)
(surely not..!..that would be farcical/surreal..eh..?
please reassure us..!..)
surely it is one thing having a leader outside of parliament…(and all the issues around that..)
but quite something else having a portfolio(s) holder outside of parliament..?..eh..?
i mean..dosen’t that inevitably set new benchmarks for impotence in the execution of a political role..?
and russel..will you be engaging in dialogue with commenters on issues raised in response to your posts..?
or will you just be pronouncing from on high…and then backing out the door again..?
y’see..i fall into that afor-mentioned camp of seeing politicians as servants of the people…and as such..answerable to those people on an ongoing basis..(the highest ideals of democracy are now available to us..eh..?..democracy can shrink back to the size of it’s origins in the stadiums of greece….purely through open forums such as frogblog..)
and each man/woman is as good as their arguments/ideas..
personally..i am excited by these advances..
and nowadays..with facilities like (ahem) frogblog..surely there is no excuse for maintaining/retaining that distance between..in this case..the leadership/mp’s.. and green supporters/voters..
and..to those ends.. you are to be commended for getting that ball rolling…by appearing here..
and i hope you are urging the green mp’s to follow suit..
and i’m sure i’ve heard the greens ‘talk that democracy talk’..eh..?..as have you..more than once..
let’s get walking…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
well..obviously i was writing the last post not seeing your response..
interesting how we both seem to be expressing the same aspirations re reviving the tenets of democracy..
and..um..when you’ve got a moment..the spokesperson-portfolio/parliament question..?..
and by the way..be in no doubt your responding above cheers me by giving us all a glimpse of how we now can interact/talk with our elected representitives..
as it should be….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Phil
OK, let’s get this straight from the start. I am happy to respond to you when I’m able but I’m not always able to due to time restrictions so don’t take silence as refusal to respond. Having said that, I will feel no obligation to respond when people are abusive or disrespectful. I say that in responding to you in particular because I believe that you have been abusive and disrespectful towards me on this blog and elswhere on numerous occasions. Moving on…
I’m spokesperson for trade, electoral matters and economics (jointly with Jeanette). Economics is covered by Jeanette in the House but yes there are times that trade needs to be covered in the House and the MPs handle it. Doesn’t happen that often and it works ok because we operate as a team. So far I think I’ve done OK as a spokesperson outside parliament, and so no I don’t believe that I’ve been “impotent” in the political role.
cheers
Russel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Russel. I think you’re right that it would be better to have public input and deliberation to guide significant and binding decisions. The selection model would seem flawed insofar as the deliberation it advocates is purely “after the fact”. I’m not sure if this is essential to the model (I may have misunderstood this aspect of it). But in any case, your point stands that our trade policies certainly should be up for public debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil and Russell:
I don’t share phil’s seeming concerns about the MPs/spokespeople and their opinions being removed/remote (or whatever) from Party members.
We are a small Party.
While Green MPs are very busy, I find that what they end up saying on an issue is almost always very much what I (and the Party members I associate with) believe. If it wasn’t I’d feel comfortable about contacting whoever to discuss it!
I remain impressed by the calibre of our MPs, their staff, and internal Party Communications … All do a good job!
… makes me proud to be a Green !
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen..
“..If it wasn’t I’d feel comfortable about contacting whoever to discuss it!..”
you have often commented on your long close relationships with most key players in the green party..
you should also be aware this is a privilege/easy entree not available to the rest of us..
“..metiria..!..there is a call from phil ure..he would like to talk to you about what has been happening with cannabis law reform..(esp medical cannabis)..
do you want to take the call..?..”
eredwen..what do you think the response would be from our spokesperson on cannabis law reform..?
so..as i say..we don’t share your easy access..so your argument is presented from a perspective we don’t have..
and anyway eredwen..isn’t this whole green thing meant to be grass-roots..?..and all that..?
and if we are clear on what is what is what..we are better able to argue ..and spread the word to others….i think it’s called synergy..isn’t it..?
and sorry..i don’t buy the ‘too busy’ reason for no communication…
cos’ yes..the travel must become a bitch..
and sometimes the hours are long..in a given batch of days each year…
but the holidays make teachers green with envy..
so..c’mon eredwen..please don’t ask for crocodile tears from us over the ‘poor mp’s’..
let’s put that canard to bed..eh..?
and wheel out the mp’s…
their audience is waiting..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil
“you should also be aware this is a privilege/easy entree not available to the rest of us..”
If you want to contribute and can keep your toys in the cot – then there’s no problem. We’re pretty inclusive here and this is no different to any other province. However, consensus means not acting like a prima donna
” …esp medical cannabis…”
Actually we’ve got a public meeting this Thursday for exactly that.
And later Phil said
“so..as i say..we don’t share your easy access..so your argument is presented from a perspective we don’t have..”
Actually eredwen doesn’t have any access – that’s not available to any party member.
So Phil, what’s your point. You’ve had ample opportunities to make it.
BTW, Wasn’t this post about secretative trade deal negotiations until Phil went AWOL ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“deliberative or discursive democracy” : I think you’ve nailed it, Russel, this is the Green approach.
It’s not as simple or clear-cut as a dichotomy between “representative” and “direct” democracy, which can tend towards demagogy and mob rule.
The key is that transparency is a moral imperative, and there should be very few exceptions to that. Your example of National’s trade negotiations is limpid : once the dirty deed is done, chucking them out will not undo it. Such major changes need to be held up to public scrutiny. (The other obvious example is what the Labour government of the 80s did, compared to what they had a mandate for…)
So, how to keep the bastards under control?
Political parties ought to be a major part of this. Party members ought to be able to keep their MPs on the straight and narrow. Unfortunately this is rarely the case : politicians tend to get cynical, and bluff and patronize the “rank and vile” membership. (Greens excepted!)
The other natural counterweight to non-transparent government is “the street”. Citizens need to get mobilized, to stand up and be counted on important issues. That’s an important part of democracy too, though it tends to frighten the horses (and sheep).
“Keeping the bastards honest” is better than “kicking the bastards out”, which is a matter of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. What institutional changes do we need to promote, to improve process?
(Open question! Discuss!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil:
fastbike is right.
Access is available to any of us, and that applies to MPs from the other Parties as well. That is why MPs have Administrative/Secretarial help in Wellington and locally.
In “my” electorate the MP is a senior Labour Cabinet Minister with extra responsibilities. She is able to listen to any constituent who approaches her or writes/emails.
Often a very short email is an effective way to get a point across.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
alistair asks: “What institutional changes do we need to promote, to improve process?”
One thing that I find disconcerting is the failure of some MPs (in major parties) who seem to have missed the bit about us changing to an MMP system in Parliament. (Their Party Whips seem to have missed it too?)
These people still seem to carry on with the “We versus They” “team” heckling and various other inappropriate adolescent behaviours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen..
and how many people ‘write to their mps’s..(c’mon..!..surely you can see the benefits of more dialogue/imteraction between mp’s and punters…
remember the ‘each as good as their ideas..?…
what happens to any letter sent to an mp containing a good idea?….
(if it gets read..!..)…..it is then ignored….
whereas in forums such as this..ideas can live (and grow..)..eh..?
(so..if only for that reason..)..why would you be arguing against this improvment in demoocratic practices in new zealand…..?
if all you are looking for is ‘getting points across’..fine..i’m looking for more from my democracy..eh..?
and ..and..open/ongoing dialogue with mp’s is part of that ‘more’……(dammed inconvenient for them at times..but..y’know..democracies a messy business..eh..?)
and all this sniffy..we are already doing it’ responses are a crock..
i’m talking of the benefits of spreading the cachment…(not just ‘party members’ chatting amonst themselves…eh..?)
y’know..i have real concerns the green party haven’t yet quite grasped the impact/import of those current fast changes on them..
in a nutshell…the greens are no longer the only green party..
what was (for the last years..is no more..!..)
and i figure you’ve got the next election..and the one after..
and if you don’t get up to speed/change/develop/grow…(and fast..)
you could well not exist…..after that second election….
your green policies moved beyond just you..and adopted by the whole society….
hence..no longer a need for you..
but hey..!…’correct’ process is all eh..?
but careful your fixations on process….don’t mean you are left in the dust..
your ‘process’ could well become your equivalent of making sure the deckchairs were tidily stacked..before the titanic went down…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
and fastbike…can you walk and chew gum at the same time..?
how are you with holding more than two ideas in your head at any one time..?
is that when issues arise..?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil,
Why is it that you always seem to need to insert an insult in your replies? And why can’t you stick to the topic within a post? It’s obvious you have plenty to say, even if your grammar often makes it difficult to pinpoint just what that is.
You have your own blog so perhaps keep your personal agenda over there, and stick to topic over here.
No one likes a whiner.
With respect,
Smokey
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil:
You have certainly highjacked my comments ! and taken them (out of context) into a whole diatribe that is “going somewhere that I know not” …
You obviously have a much more jaundiced view than I do.
I can only speak from my experience (and that of my family before me). The MPs that I/we deal with are consciencious and cooperative. They appreciate “intelligent” feedback, constructive criticsm (AND a bit of praise where appropriate).
The thought occurs: have you ever attempted to do this … to keep in touch with your local / appropriate MP and treat him/her as a competent human being?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alaistar I really agree with you on:
“It’s not as simple or clear-cut as a dichotomy between “representative? and “direct? democracy.”
My theoretical approach is to look at three kinds of democracy: participatory/republican; liberal/representative; and discursive/deliberative.
We in the progressive movement have tended to support participatory/republican which I believe has a really important role at a small scale or local level. But at a mass scale it doesn’t work so well as it’s hard for lots of people to participate in lots of decisions. (Though, as an aside, I believe that we could have a much greater role for referenda in the right circumstances (ie must have equality of opportunity to put the different cases and a healthy public sphere)). The internet offers ways to reduce some of the transaction costs of getting invovled in decisions but it still requires time for people to engage, time which people are short of.
At a mass scale we do need representation, which is at the core of the liberal/representative system of democracy. Written constitutions, formal separations of power between Executive, judiciary and legislature are all part of the liberal schema. I think they are necessary but not sufficient.
Which is where the discursive/deliberative dimension comes in with its link to the public sphere. This allows us to participate in a mass democracy through the exchange of ideas and opinions if not actually making the decision in all cases (referenda are the exception rahter than the rule because you can’t have referenda all the time even if you have them about really important things).
There is a role for all three kinds of democracy but the third kind is often not understood properly, but I believe is essential to democracy in a mass society.
I also believe that internal party democracy is an essential part of the democratic process and in the Greens we have worked hard to acheive that. No-one’s perfect but we do hold onto it as an essential dimension of the organisation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen..i’ll say it for the third time..i am not against you interacting with your mps..in the old school way..
i want more…it’s an ‘as well as’..not an ‘instead of’…
and my ‘insult’ was a rejoinder to being told to stop talking about what concerns me…(cos’ it distracts the thread..hence my walking/chewing gum jibe…so..whaddayareckon..?.).
why on earth is there such widespread reluctance to grasp the opportunities/benefits these new technologies can bring to us..as greens…and to our democratic processes..?..this apparent intransigence from many greens is a worry..
and hey russell..
don’t intellectualise yourself out the door..eh..?
and hey..boil the ideas down a bit..eh..
otherwise you stand the risk of sounding like a paragraph out of a thesis..and peoples eyes will just glaze over..
and i’m sorry..i’ve read it three times..and i’m not sure what you are trying to say in your last comment…
and as for sniffing that you won’t talk to anyone who is disrespectful to you..?..well..!
i mean..don’t you have aspirations to enter parliament..?
i think there’s a fair bit of that ‘disrespect’ stuff going on there ..eh..?
toughen up..!..eh..?
and as for your being told i disrespected you..?..(you haven’t been talking to ivan sowry..?..have you..?..)
if you call my opposition to you getting your present role..disrespectful..
well..so be it…
and as for what i deem your invisibility since then..(as i predicted at the time)..
well..if that’s disrespectful..i guess i’m guilty again..
i’m also totally disrespectful for the apparent total lack of energies/effort being put the animal welfare issues..and the cannabis reform issues..
and at the total failure of the greens to sell to the new zealand people the climate-change solution formulas you have developed..(what’s it called..?..”it’s too hot.!”..?..or something..)
(and this at a time when people are crying out for just that..!..go figure..!)
so if all of that falls within your criterea of disrespect ..i’m afraid it’s gonna have to be a case of ..’so be it’..
(and um..on a purely literary level..i’d try and use the third person removed a bit more..eh..?
there’s a tad too many ‘i’s..eh..?..)
otherwise…carry on..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
b.t.w…when you have some time…cd you tell us how the greens are planning to sell/publicise that climate-change formula..?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Phil i no what u mean i wrote to Metiria about 6 months ago about the amount of nicotine we are drinking and feeding to the fish we eat and have still not had a reply.apart from some facitious reply from someone in jeanettes department when i tried to pursue it with her. i’ve read posts from Mertiria about indian coral and birds but no response on the poisoning of our waterways.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel
Which is where the discursive/deliberative dimension comes in with its link to the public sphere. This allows us to participate in a mass democracy through the exchange of ideas and opinions if not actually making the decision in all cases
The discursive is here now. We have the internet blogs and forums. The ability to build consensus rapidly is far greater as the reach of the net improves and the speed of the net increases. This could be a feature of the future that we can leverage to improve the political process.
No?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s about 1.5 million minutes in an election cycle. Even ignoring the need for sleep and toilet breaks that’s a lot less than one minute per MP per voter, let alone citizen.
One problem with the I want to have dialogue with any MP at any time of my choosing line of direct democracy is that it really doesn’t work in a reality based universe – unless we increased the size of Parliament by a few orders of magnitude and I’m not sure how that would fly in a referendum.
I suspect one reason we don’t see more politicians engaging in blogs is the expectation of direct contact on demand that it can set up.
While the discursive is here now, the volume of information created is not something any single person, or office can keep up with, and is only going to become greater. The ability of the net to build (and show) consensus is only as good as the structures set up to facilitate the digestion and expression of that information. And all too often it is not good enough, a recent internet based poll comes to mind.
And, of course, on the internet, as in the classroom, it is often the one who shouts loudest who is heard, not necessarily the one who is considered and engaged.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ, yes I reckon internet discussions do have the potential to enhance discursive democracy and consensus formation. And given that I believe that green ideas are good ideas I do hope that greater dialogue will enhance the spread of green ideas because they will prosper in an environment which is all about the discussion of ideas. We need more green blogs.
And Pip, I agree that one person can’t keep up. I sure as hell can’t!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi interseting figures Pip which probably explain why we are were we are at, the tabaco lobby and big truck lobby have staff with time to pursue these busy politicians and make their voices heard while the people who pay and suffer the consequences are to busy just trying to cope and deal with the results of this skewed system to have much impact on the people they elect.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good point Pip, but I still believe that it is possible to skim through a lot of content here on the web. Moreover, if there is a form of rating (check slashdot or “the motley fool”) it is easy to find the most important and the most agreed on (highest rated) concepts.
This isn’t too difficult to conceive of, but isn’t present here.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)