Page 1 of E-Petitions - Democracy In Action Or Cranks` Forum?

BBC News is reporting the Government has published details of the first batch of E-Petitions - where the public can petition for Parliamentary debates.  Subjects collecting the support of more than 100,000 signatures can lead to a proper debate in Parliament, and possibly even legislation if enough MPs jump on the bandwagon.

More than forty of the first 200 topics are calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty, and not surprisingly that has dominated the discussion on the BBC News website.  I would hope that we can avoid a similar hijacking on this topic - if we want to have a proper discussion about the death penalty, let`s open a fresh thread.  This one is about the E-Petitions themselves, if that`s agreeable.

First off, I think the idea is prone to misuse - any idiot with an axe to grind can start one of these E-Petitions.  Secondly, it provides a bandwagon for people to jump on to.  Before you know where you are, Parliament is discussing the ideal length for cucumbers and the scientific measurement of the male knee.  Just the kind of crap the right-wing press is constantly accusing Brussels of foisting on the UK.

We have enough trouble with MPs being able to table Private Members` Bills.

J Mark Oates

---

It`s Only A Hat, Darling.
Belonging To A Small-Headed Man of Limited Means
Who Lost A Fight With A Chicken.
sprockethole.myreviewer.com

Any idiot can start one but as you`ve already pointed out it would take another 99,999 to potentialy lead to a debate.
Can`t see it working other than as a source for the media on quiet days. I seriously doubt that anything drawing enough sigs won`t have already been on the table in some other way.

Even if it does result in a debate Parliament will have cut the nuts off of it by draughting the question in a subtly different `parliamentary acceptible` way.

Snaps

Every Third Car

---

I used to be with it, but then they changed what `it` was.
Now, what I`m with isn`t it, and what`s `it` seems weird and scary

Quote:
as you`ve already pointed out it would take another 99,999 to potentialy lead to a debateBut the dangerous thing is 49,999 idiots signed up to a petition to make Jeremy Clarkson PM.  Somebody could start a petition as an ironic joke and because the honourable member for Knuckle-dragging-in-the-wold takes it seriously a couple of days` worth of Parliamentary time goes up in smoke.  We get precious little real work on our behalf out of those shiftless, nest-feathering halfwits as it is.

J Mark Oates

---

It`s Only A Hat, Darling.
Belonging To A Small-Headed Man of Limited Means
Who Lost A Fight With A Chicken.
sprockethole.myreviewer.com

Quote:
Mark Oates says...
But the dangerous thing is 49,999 idiots signed up to a petition to make Jeremy Clarkson PM
Hey, who are you calling an idiot?

I think it could be a good way of encouraging the huge numbers of people who show no interest in politics, don`t vote etc to get involved and have a say.

I can see that it could be misused and people could use if for ironic jokes which could then go wrong etc, but surely if someting ridiculous managed to get 100,000 signs, surely the MPs have the sense to discuss it briefly and then dismiss it?

Miikey - present company excepted, of course ;)

Fluff - if we want to get people properly interested in democracy, then why not go the whole hog and have a proper experiment in people-politics?  Reality shows have shown us the possibilities of phone and text voting.  Why not set up a programme like the Weather Show that the Beeb`s been running recently - give viewers a few fairly mundane topics to debate and vote on, and actually make them Acts of Parliament?  If people genuinely take to it, tv voting could replace either the Lords or the Commons or both.

I suspect once the novelty had worn off, good old British apathy would set in and viewers would desert in droves leaving the running of the country to the cranks and the control freaks.

J Mark Oates

---

It`s Only A Hat, Darling.
Belonging To A Small-Headed Man of Limited Means
Who Lost A Fight With A Chicken.
sprockethole.myreviewer.com

The power of the internet, and social networks like Twitter and Facebook mean that any mad e-petition can quickly gain 100,000 votes.

After all, it didn`t take much to drag some old rock song to number one to stop the X Factor, did it?

It really worries me that these e-petitions will make an even bigger laughing stock of our government, causing our MPs to spend even less time in the House of Commons, and preventing the REAL issues from being discussed.

In theory, it was a great idea, but in practice, it is so easily open to severe abuse.

Quote:
Fluff - if we want to get people properly interested in democracy, then why not go the whole hog and have a proper experiment in people-politics? Reality shows have shown us the possibilities of phone and text voting. Why not set up a programme like the Weather Show that the Beeb`s been running recently - give viewers a few fairly mundane topics to debate and vote on, and actually make them Acts of Parliament? If people genuinely take to it, tv voting could replace either the Lords or the Commons or both.
Why not?  A lot of people don;t vote or get involved because they feel their views are not represented and they don`t actually get a say.  Lets find some way of doing that and see how many people suddenly show an interest!

Quote:
Mark Oates says...
Before you know where you are, Parliament is discussing the ideal length for cucumbers and the scientific measurement of the male knee.
I could be wrong but I thought that just because a petition hit 100k votes doesn`t mean it will go before Parliament.  I was under the impression that they would be a committee set up as a buffer between the e-Petitions and Parliament to decide on whether it`s worth passing over for discussion.

In 2008 when the people of California voted in the presidental election they also voted for propsition 8: whether to change the law to take away the right to same sex marriage. Over 50% of the votes were to do so (which was the requirement, in some other states the requirement is 2/3 majority to change a law). Other states also voted to "save marriage" by defining it as man+woman only.

More direct control is something I would want us to have: if there were fewer bigoted/selfish/stupid people.

I want MPs who will do the right thing <pause for laughter>, not necessarily the popular thing.

---

www.soundalikes.com ~*~ glitterkat.stumbleupon.com