This has been a truly dreadful year for British Parliamentary & institutional security, particularly the last seven days.

Firstly, a group of fathers' rights protestors threw a flour bomb (dyed purple) at Tony Blair during Prime Minister's Questions. Link

Then, on Monday, another father's rights campaigner, wearing a Batman costume, managed to get onto a ledge at Buckingham Palace, near the balcony most often used by the Royal family for greeting crowds at weddings and other special occasions. Link

This Wednesday, five pro-foxhunting protestors managed to break into the the debating chamber of Parliament itself, causing suspension of debating while they were removed. Link

And then today, the Sun newspaper (part of the News International empire of Rupert Murdoch, though that is only for context and not relevant) revealed that an undercover reporter was able to smuggle a dummy bomb into the Parliament building the day after the hunt protestors had caused heightened panic over security. Link

Clearly, the traditions of the "Mother of Parliaments" are severely antiquated, and in desperate and urgent need of overhaul. We Brits should be thankful that all of these interlopers were of peaceable intent, and not set on killing or injuring anyone. I'm emphaticaly not fishing for an assessment of how quaint or alien British Parliamentary procedures are compared to America or anywhere else. (Nor how fabulous they are, or how urgently they should be adopted elsewhere.)

However, these issues do raise a wider point that is applicable in all democracies. Public access to elected representatives is a cornerstone of all democracies - anyone can get a walking tour of the White House and other important and sensitive governmental buildings as part of their rights as a citizen (or, often, as a tourist).

There may also be a link to the stories from America where election rallies for both presidential candidates try, and generally succeed, to prevent not just security risks, but any dissenting voices, from coming to the fore.

So my questions for debate are:
In these nervous times, how should we strike a balance between the safety of our elected representatives from attack, and the legitimate need to give citizens access to their elected representatives?

Should politicians be the ones to decide how much access they permit citizens to have? Should such access be codified somehow? Is it already?

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Julian, I saw the news story on Batman (heard Robin never made it to the ledge) and the group who made their way into parliament. To your point, very lucky their intent was non-violent.

Most American citizens will unfortunately never see their US representatives in person, much less have the opportunity to discuss topics of the day. Instead we’re relegated to phone calls and emails which will undoubtedly be handled by their staff.

As far as I know, there are no requirements that members of congress spend X amount of time in their districts. We can’t allow the politicians to choose whether or not they should spend time with their constituency, most will certainly vote that down. I can’t remember the last time my Senator even visited our district with the exception of running for re-election or attending a rally/fund raiser for a fellow party member. I’m sure he has, but it’s never advertised.

I’ve always subscribed to the thought that it should be mandatory that US congressional members be required to spend at least 3-4 months ‘back home’, holding town all sessions, setting up one-on-one appointments and rubbing elbows as they did when they ran for office.

In these nervous times, how should we strike a balance between the safety of our elected representatives from attack, and the legitimate need to give citizens access to their elected representatives?

Should politicians be the ones to decide how much access they permit citizens to have? Should such access be codified somehow? Is it already?

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Access? Who has access?
I have emailed my elected officials, all of them, on a few pertinent issues, and the responses are typically canned, non-committal, and sometimes even nonsense. Maybe this is the reason some go to such extraordinary lengths to get their elected officials to take notice? If they are in office for the wrong reasons, they don't deserve protection.

Politicians do not represent the little guy as much as they do their big contributors. And access is likewise dependent on the amount of money you contribute to them. So, I would say that they are already determining who gets access.

My thoughts? I am unhappy with the process as it is. They will come to your door and beg for your vote, but once elected they become strangers.

Should politicians be the ones to decide how much access they permit citizens to have? Should such access be codified somehow? Is it already?

What are your thoughts on this issue?

My interaction with elected officials started about a half century ago. I got a copy of Boys Life with an ad quoting a "special price" on a set of fishing gear for readers of the magazine. I believe the price for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts was $29.95 plus shipping. In my father's Popular Mechanics, the same company advertised the same set of fishing gear and the identical photograph for $19.95. I pointed out the discrepancy to my father. He told me to look through the Boys Life magazine, find out who was in charge, and write a letter of complaint.

Dwight David Eisenhower, the "Honorary President" of the Boy Scouts at the time, sent me a nice note explaining that when he walked into his office, mine was a letter he grabbed from a mailbag, and he thought it was nice to have an easy problem to solve. On a conference call, he had spoken to the Publisher of Boys Life and to the Fishing equipment manufacturer, and they had agreed to correct the situation. A few weeks later, I got a Boys Life magazine in which the ad showed the lower price, and promised a refund would be mailed to any Boys Life readers who had paid the higher price. I was seven or eight. I was satisfied, and I threw the President's letter away. I also wrote to politicians with the full expectation of getting a response for the rest of my life.

My father belonged to the same Masonic Lodge as Gerald Ford. When, as a retiree, Mom and Dad couldn't get a mortgage approved to build the new house they had saved for all their life, Dad gave him a call. Mom claimed he co-signed the construction loan, but regardless, construction was started the same day the phone call was made.

In Midland, Michigan, we had a national Congressman who made a point of being available to talk to voters at the farmer's market on Saturday mornings. His name (Lou something) eludes me at the moment, but when he retired; the newspaper commented on the fact that he intended to continue to talk to voters there. On strike for six months in 1974, I wrote a letter to him in Washington outlining how many voters I felt were directly affected by the unresolved strike. I used to joke that it was the only "unanswered letter" I ever sent to Washington. A federal mediator was in town a day or two later, a contract was negotiated, and the strike came to an end.

My ex-wife became a very active lobbyist in Lansing over an issue related to her work. As a result, I grew to know a few people in the state legislature, their opinions, and the mechanics of getting a bill passed into law. The main lobbyist for the other side mentioned to a mutual acquaintance that she was planning a week's vacation in another state. Six year's of deadlocked lobbying (over a single word) resulted in placing a new law on the governor's desk that week.

I know that a handful of us, armed only with facts, lobbied successfully against the construction of a nuclear power plant in Midland. It was finally built using natural gas as a fuel.

I expect, based on a half century of experience that when I write a letter to a politician, that it will be answered. George W. Bush has never acknowledged a single letter which I have sent to him via e-mail or snail mail. His tour to reach the undecided voters,


seems to be aimed solely at his base, "The Haves and the Have Mores." I have reached the conclusion that George is campaigning hard to sway the undecided wealthy Republican voter, if there is one.

As to the rest, I can click on my city's web site and drop a note to the mayor and get a response. I probably write more letters to my Senators and Congressman (Republican) than I send to the newspapers. (And I enjoy seeing my name in print.) I've been a radical activist for half a century, and I know that most of the answers I receive are boilerplate responses that are likely chosen by a staff member; but only one politician consistently fails to answer my letters.

Whether this is a democracy or a republic, the politicians are our elected representatives, and we should be able to communicate with them so that they can effectively represent us. Sending an e-mail to Washington now requires getting past some filters, and I suspect that the process helps them to deal with reducing the amount of Spam they get. Do I need to be able to shake their hand, look in their face, and tell them what I think? In a world where assault weapons are once again legal, I suspect that we are past that.

In America, a politician should not be able to say, "I'm President for Life, and you need to sign a loyalty oath and contribute the maximum amount to my party in order to hear me tell you how great life is under my rule." Perhaps GWB is simply trying to get a better result in the polls than Saddam Hussein got in his last election. Perhaps it is just that he believes his staff when they tell him that is possible...

George W. Bush has to be the most inaccessible politician that I have tried to communicate with in half a century. And I believe that I heard on the news that a woman was arrested for asking him, "Why did my son have to die?" What would have been wrong with a compassionate response such as, "I don't know, but if you'll leave your son's name with one of my staff, I'll try to get you an answer.."?

I am surprised.

Here in backwards old-fashioned Britain (my words, not yours ), almost all Westminster politicians have homes in their constituencies, and hold "surgeries" at least monthly where their can be visited in their constiuency offices by any member of the public who wants to talk to them. (Within the last deacde, one MP and one of his contituency staff were attacked and badly injured at their surgery meeting by a mentally ill man who had taken a sword with him. From memory, the party staffer actually died from his injuries.)

The only exceptions tend to be those politicians in high government office, whose diaries mean that they cannot hold such surgeries quite so often, though they still do so.

In my experience, and that of my family, they are also assiduous in their correspondence - they do answer letters, emails and phone calls eventually. Of course, some send out stock letters, but they are at least signed personally. But from what I have heard and seen, most do take the time to compose a personalised letter. Whether they actually solve the problems raised in their mailbag to their correspondents' satisfaction is, of course, another matter.

So I find it rather strange that America, where democracy etends so much further across public life (at least in the sense that DA's, sherriffs and other such positions are elected offices), does not have a similar tradition. Certainly the public can go on walking tours of the White House, can't they - something we Brits cannot do at 10 Downing Street?

I can see that the sheer logistics of distance and population might make constituency offices harder (especially for politicians who represent places a long way from Washington DC), but I had assumed that access to representatives would have been, if anything, more commonplace, at least away from the heady heights of presidential administrations.

How come Americans are not up in arms (literally or figuratively) about this?

In these nervous times, how should we strike a balance between the safety of our elected representatives from attack, and the legitimate need to give citizens access to their elected representatives?

Here, staffs pretty well insulate their bosses but they will often see you if you are a constituent within their district.

Should politicians be the ones to decide how much access they permit citizens to have? Should such access be codified somehow? Is it already?

The larger the representative's constituency, the larger the need to allocate individual appointments with those constituents.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

I have met with many politicians over the years and have testified before legislative committees on various consumer issues. I have yet to meet one who is not quite adept at listening and agreeing with the problems concerning many issues and then accepting huge contributions from special interest groups that insure his access to sufficent funds for re-election and voting in exactly the manner those generous PAC'S want him to vote.

As for Batman, the Palace Guards should have seen the Batmobile and known what was up! At least they nabbed Robin.