The first has been doing the rounds of the blogosphere – raises interesting questions on what should be transparent (govovernment data) and not (private diaries) – but what about about drawing the boundary line? In the end, transparency is no substitute for (uncorrupt!) democratic control, I reckon:
There is no questioning the good that transparency creates in a wide range of contexts, government especially. But we should also recognize that the collateral consequence of that good need not itself be good. And if that collateral bad is busy certifying to the American public what it thinks it already knows, we should think carefully about how to avoid it. Sunlight may well be a great disinfectant. But as anyone who has ever waded through a swamp knows, it has other effects as well.
The next two are nothing to do with e-democracy, but caught my eye anyway.
How charities and be effective, make a difference, and still be self-financing. Though to be fair I didnt see much about revenue sources other than Gloag’s millions:
A model for making sure charities are well run, not just well intentioned. Shame it’s one of the Gloags that have done it.
And finally a bit on a fundamental flaw in the UK’s polity:
Why it’s impossible to invest in a long term fix to the poverty trap. Frank Field was stymied, and Ian Duncan Smith will be too.