An initiative that seems to have sneaked under the radar, but is attracting some interesting contributions, are the various e-forums set up within the Conservative home page. Under the auspices of The Public Services Improvement Policy Group the forums are tasked with finding "long term solutions that will secure lasting improvements in our public services". Using a range of consultative fora, particualrly the internet, the review will be designed as a result of "drawing on the experiences and ideas of people across the public services. Practitioners, public service employees, public and professional bodies as well as users are all contributing to this policy review". Taking just one example, it seems a range of practitioners and users are submitting their key gripes; in theory this could highlight the problems in the current system and has the ptoential to produce policies that satisfy users if there is a clear link between contributing and gaining improvements. The key, however, will be how funding is balanced out. I remember one prominent politician once arguing that political marketing, or producing the policies the public want, is largely impossible: get them in a room, he said, show them the percentage funds dedicated to each area, ask them if they want more doctors should we do this by cuttign the number of police? The reason for the problem is that maximum funds are wanted in every area but public shy away from the tough decisions of real politik and will not argue for divertign funds from one area to another: in other words they want everything! Thus any listening campaign can appear to be no more than rhetoric and a marketing device unless the product matches the promises. Will this suffer the same fate or is it to usher in a more consultative and interactive democracy?