Brown calls for e-petitions to get debated in Parliament

Great...

While debating what the public want to be debated in parliament is great, it is very easy to hijack these petitions and end up discussing whatever Rupert Murdoch/Daily Mail or other specialist interest groups want:

Death Penalty

Immigration

House prices

Hunting with hounds

Smoking in pubs

Leaving the EU

All things that most liberal (small L) people have very fixed opinions about, but which there are significant interest groups who want changed.

There is a good reason that we elect people to parliament - the general public, by definition, can't understand all the finer points of every potential government policy, that is why we vote based on the general policies of a party. (I for one don't understand the finer points of European Macro economics, but I believe that the party I choose to support does.)

Also, while I do think that there is strong feeling in the country about road pricing, this is certainly an example of faked petition entries and special interest groups whipping the general public into a frenzy before a proper debate had been had.

Great idea

Once Parliament has been forced to have a few debates on Jedi Knights, perhaps they'll understand why electronic voting is a crap idea.

there useless

Every petition I've signed gets the standard "go away" response

That's why the only petition I want to see enacted now is this one.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/shutthissite/

Great, bypass the tabloids

"While debating what the public want to be debated in parliament is great, it is very easy to hijack these petitions and end up discussing whatever Rupert Murdoch/Daily Mail or other specialist interest groups want:"

I think the opposite, right now the only feedback they get is from the tabloids, and that's all knee jerk Murdoch stuff. Now at least they'll get feedback from real people.

I doubt the tabloid newspaper audience is the same as the online audience, so they won't be able to swing the voting that much.

"There is a good reason that we elect people to parliament - the general public, by definition, can't understand all the finer points of every potential government policy"

Tony, is that you? Seriously, I think they have a more realistic world view than the people in power. They don't understand all the implications, but they can warn you ahead of time of anything you've missed. Parliament still gets to debate it, they just don't debate it in a vacuum anymore.

"Also, while I do think that there is strong feeling in the country about road pricing, this is certainly an example of faked petition entries and special interest groups whipping the general public into a frenzy before a proper debate had been had."

How can a *fake* public be whipped into a *real* frenzy? If in doubt they can always call for a referendum to check the real feeling.

I think this is a good thing. I'd also like the right to protests to be reinstated, and a bunch of other knee jerk laws reversed so that people can speak freely, even if they're marching on Parliament wearing turbans and calling for the head of Tony Blair on a pike.

Perhaps it will be and end to knee jerk legislation. You know the kind, News: 'A man raped and killed a woman, the Sun claims he was playing violent video games the previous day'. Politician: 'quick ban violent video games, the Sun claims it's the cause and that's all the information we have to go on because we work in a vacuum isolated from the real world'.

@Frasers

> the general public, by definition, can't understand all the finer points of every potential government policy,

The general public don't really get a chance to understand anything but the broadest points of a potential government policy and even when they *do* find out something they don't like the get patted on the head and told "now you just be obedient little sheeple and keep watching the TV and we'll get on with the important stuff, like ignoring anyone who disagrees with us".

> that is why we vote based on the general policies of a party.

We get *one* chance every four to five years to have our say on what the Government does. They, in turn, parlay that one vote into "well they voted for us and it's in our manifesto, so obviously the people want it", whereas people may have simply voted *against* another party or voted *for* the party in power "because that's what my parents did".

We now have the capability for the public to influence government in a way that hasn't existed since Athens. We shouldn't squander it.

In the not-too-distant future / next Sunday AD

"I doubt the tabloid newspaper audience is the same as the online audience, so they won't be able to swing the voting that much."

I'm sure there's a page somewhere on the government's website that has this kind of demographic data (probably something anonymous with a URL that goes e.g. irlk.acm-stc.gov.uk). Nonetheless this is one of the silliest comments I have seen for a while. The implication is that the millions of people who read tabloids are WRONG or MISGUIDED whereas the intellectual charmers who dominate internet discussion are RIGHT and RIGHTEOUS, and deserve a weightier voice.

The underlying attitude is that we should wrest democracy out of the hands of The Masses and give it to The Right People, who just happen to be the author's peer group.

You believe

"I for one don't understand the finer points of European Macro economics, but I believe that the party I choose to support does"

Yes, well we all have our illusions, now don't we ?

Voting choice

"There is a good reason that we elect people to parliament - the general public, by definition, can't understand all the finer points of every potential government policy, that is why we vote based on the general policies of a party. (I for one don't understand the finer points of European Macro economics, but I believe that the party I choose to support does.)"

Go back say 20 years and I'd agree with this sentiment, but these days what real choice is there? 20 years ago there were clear differences between the top 3/4 parties, you had real choices between the conservatives on the right, labour on the left, libdems/liberals/sdlp around the middle, their views were clearly different and you could pick the party which met those views the closest. These days where is the difference? They all have very similar policies which don't really set them apart, and from history you can see they rarely stick with those policies once in power. Hell just think of labour, for years the supposed champion of the workers, connected with all the unions etc, once in power they suddenly become just like the conservatives!

I'm just disappointed we never seem to get a Raving Looney candidate in our constituancy!

I

Wish there was a "none of the above" option on voting forms. The turnout at the last election was 39% of the electorate I think. How on earth can you have anyone elected on that low turnout?

I am totally confident the none of the above vote would win, which then got me thinking; who do WE the people elect to run our country from this victory?

I think we should have a party set up from a mixture of MP's (there has got to be some talent for running the country somewhere right?) and also people that we vote for in an X Factor style 'Policy Off' where they are held accountable to their policies alongside the MP's should they not deliver or lie.

Handing the politics back to the people?, Gordon Browns first steps in power want us to believe this, but I for one still cant believe how inept and out of touch the government are when trying to "reach out" to its people. Doesnt he realise that interaction is the key? Just do a speech somewhere, go on TV outside the usual "party political broadcast formula"; have a once a month Q and A on the internet; show some innovation and communicate with the people!

Otherwise its a flash in the pan for you my son.

Nik

Structured democracy

E-petitions should just be the starting point for a proper full democracy. Essentially parliament would run as it does now generally setting laws, budgets etc as it sees fit, but e-petitions over a certain level (say 500,000) are merited with a debate in parliament. For such petitions, if more than say 100 MPs agree after the debate a formal online e-referendum could then be announced and run. For these e-referenda there would be a pass mark (say 60%) at and a minimum size for the e-referenda to be considered quorate (say 3m). If this passes, then a full-blown official referendum becomes obligatory, only after a full proper referendum successfully passed would the act be enforced. Rules such as compatability with human rights legislation, limits that an issue can only be raised once every twelve months, fixed referenda day once a quarter (like Switzerland) would generally make the hurdles high enough that only serious issues make it through the net and would ensure that no person is disenfranched by the process.

Would be nice to think we could actually have proper democracy and not the political party farce that allows a government to go to war despite the wishes of the people.

hoi polloi

so what is wrong exactly with an open democratic debate on:

"Death Penalty

Immigration

House prices

Hunting with hounds

Smoking in pubs

Leaving the EU" ?

AndyD 8-)#

Go forth and multiply

I suppose it will save the PM the effort of getting a lackey to write a f*** off email.

He can just stand up in the House and say it, instead.

they're currently pointless

As they stand the e-petitions system is complete spin. I must have signed about 20 since they it was launched and to everyone the downing street response has been effectively "it doesn't matter what you think or how many people disagree with us, we're not changing our stance" It's actually making the government look stupid.

Fury

While a petition with a few tens of thousands of votes, or even 1.5 million for road pricing, indicates a huge strength of feeling which would be representative of a large proportion of the overall population, the governments response is always to treat us as a tiny number of trouble makers, and dismiss our concerns out of hand with the most condescending replies it is possible to author. I've stopped signing them now, as my blood has boiled in fury as I read the regurgitated policy spin delivered with lashings of "we know best" attitude.

Its also reassuring to know that the government has now collected the names and addresses of its most vociferous and vocal opponents, which it no doubt will put to good use in the run up to the next election, once its forced through the ability to disappear people for 90 days on the back of the latest wave of failed terror attacks.