In thinking that parliament debating things raised by petitions is performative and designed to placate the electorate?

[Malinia]

I often sign official petitions asking the Government to look at things or reconsider things, and recently I signed one about having by elections when an MP changes their political party.

It got enough signatures to be debated and I read the transcript of the debate and was really surprised and shocked to see that actually they don't do anything except chat about it, there's no action decided and now that's it.

I found this especially annoying as it kept saying that people vote for the person not the party and I don't think that's the case.

So now I think that these debates are a silencing technique and the whole thing is designed to make it look like the Government is listening to us while actually ignoring us.

Aibu?

Here's the transcript if anyone wants to read it.

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-03-16/debates/3369EB1A-E60E-4478-9299-BEF08EA9AA30/MemberDefectionsAutomaticBy-Elections

Most things the government do are performative and designed to placate the electorate 😄

I no longer care about prince Andrew - I care about what's laws and policies are being passed while the world looks the other way

Ha that's true I guess, I think I just really thought these debates achieved something and I'm so disappointed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_and_Branch_petition

It's been like this for a while. It's an feature of direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy. In the UK there are elements of both.

Governments find it difficult enough to push their own bills through Parliament. Private Member’s Bills very rarely become law. There simply isn’t time for anything else, unless a sudden, national crisis, eg XL Bullies, jumps the queue.

The petitions mechanism suffered by being introduced more or less at the same time that social media began to get underway.
I'm sure that the people who created were thinking in terms of pre-social-media times, when it would be genuinely hard to get the required numbers for govt responses and parliamentary time. They thought that successful petitions would indicate real and important strength of feeling.
But once social media caught on, any old echo chamber became able to get a lot of signatures, and the number of signatures no longer correlated with the strength of feeling in the country at large.
I think this petitions system should be ditched or overhauled. It is a bit of a joke.

Debate is exactly what it says on a tin - a chat about a specific topic where parties present diverse arguments. It's quite different to debating a bill or a motion where a vote is expected.
I'll be surprised if more than five members attend petition debates. I think the whole idea of signing online petitions is ridiculous to begin with.

When we only have a choice of a Tory government, or a New New Labour government what do you expect? Enemies of the working people, or traitors to the working people, and all neoliberalist.

I highlighted the following on a thread last month:

Debates on petitions are usually held in Westminster Hall, not the main Commons chamber. All Westminster Hall sessions result in a motion "That this House has considered...." and that's it. There is no voting. A rule to note is that "the quorum for a Westminster Hall sitting is three, including the Chair" - yes - they are that important. You should also note that Westminster Hall sessions take place at the same time as Commons sessions (which are naturally more important).

I agree with OP that the system for parliamentary petitions is performative and placates the electorate, although I wouldn't go as far as to say it was specifically designed to do so.

One of the very, very few petitions that eventually resulted in actual change was one led by Jamie Oliver in 2015 that resulted in the 2018 tax on sugary drinks. Three of the biggest petitions were a 2019 anti-Brexit petition (over 6m signatures), a 2016 petition calling for a second Brexit referendum (over 4m signatures) and a 2025 petition calling for an immediate General Election (over 3m signatures), and all three got nowhere.

Sigh! You sounds like a 5 year old. How are you defining neoliberalism? It’s a phrase that so many people bandy about with no idea what it means.

The political party in power is there because the UK populace wanted them to be. Jeremy Corbyn stood but people rejected his madcap commie grandad / terrorist sympathiser schtik. Live with it.

I work. I am taxed far more heavily than you (unless you also live in Scotland!). The people I see that are the enemy of the working people? the lefties.

NIMBYs who stop building projects due to hedgehogs etc, keep house prices high and prevent working people from having a comfortable standard of living. They also make the UK such an unattractive place for businesses to invest in. How are you supposed to invest I the UK when building a workplace takes years of wading through planning regs. So many potential employers just throw in the towel.

Unions who seem to have completely lost their way. They swallowed the gender nonsense and are doing nothing to protect women’s rights.

The government who’s high taxes on employers make it less attractive to hire people.

I am of no particular political persuasion but if you think any leftie politicians are going to make life better for the working person you are laughably naive.

Sigh! You sound like a bullshitter.

Neoliberalism is the essence of free market capitalism, named following ‘liberalism’ which was the economic system of the British Empire. The liberalism it’s named for is the liberation of capital to do what it wants, ie for the rich to do what they want. So it’s associated with privatization and deregulation, which characterises the economic direction of Britain for the last 40 years. It’s also associated incidentally with an over fascination with trade with no interest in actual making. It creates, as it created in the days of empire, tiered societies relying on family connection and inheritance instead of merit, and has been associated with environmental destruction. Trump is clearly showing us the only direction it ever leads in, the direction of Old Corruption and squalor.

I would have been better off financially under the more socialist years pre Blair. I’m not idly saying that. My parents were better off, and I have put in far more work than either of them did, the people who are on a professional and economic par with me and just a few years older did do financially better. Neoliberalism only ever benefits prior capital and creates inheriting structures which most of us are shut out of at birth.

And do look up the faceted problems of electioneering and representation in Britain, from voting results v representation to the lies of Farage and Johnson over Brexit. Britain is defined as a minimal democracy even on its own terms.

The biggest petition parliament received had over 6 millions signatures.

Agreed . Every petition I’ve signed has not been accepted , a waste of time .

Yes. It’s about time parliamentarians didn’t just react. They should be visionary and proactive. Far too much attention given to minorities who pester. MPs don’t have to pander to this.