Petition-Led Politics the Way to Go?

[Chil1234]

Some ideas knocking around at the moment of having anything that raises enough petition signatures (online presumably) would then get debated in parliament.

I'm not sure about this one. How would it be controlled and policed, for one? Given that one of the biggest popular movements this year was a FB campaign to hero worship murderer Raoul Moat, the potential for mischief is quite large. And whatever happened to leadership?... Focus grouping may have its place in other areas but I'm not sure it's the way to govern a country.

Guardian piece here.

How about a petition for a vote of no confidence?

And yes, you're right - there are enough idiots out there that they really shouldn't be even contemplating this sort of a commitment. The coalition is too wobbly as it is without throwing the views of potential nutters into the mix.

i guess their are criteria being built in

I am really in 2 minds about this. I like it in principle but there will have to be a very subjective judgment made about what is taken seriously (e.g. what Prolesworth said) and what is debated in the commons...........so essentially it will be used to back and further the government's agenda. So for that reason, I think it will prove to be a smoke and mirrors illusion of power and ultimately a bad thing for people power.

I think govt by internet referendum is clearly where we are headed. We can all 'like' or red arrow or whatever policies. Millions o this already on forums and websites up and down the country. It is just a matter of time.

On the whole, given the right pig's ear the current govt is making of it, I'm inclined to say that's a good thing. Athenian-style democracy (the high-tech version) is coming your way soon.

Referenda are a really bad way to govern because complex issues have to be dumbed-down to a simplistic 'yes'/'no' question. 'Four legs good, two legs bad' as someone once put it. I think pigs' ears are far more likely if a government can't take unpopular decisions.

If you want Athenians democracy how do you pick which 10% of the population get too vote?

We already know what happens when you increase direct democracy - look at California for instance. The public vote for lower taxes and higher spending, and then wonder why everything gets ducked up. Representative democracy allows for unpopular but necessary decisions to be made, in a way that direct democracy completely precludes.

I don't disagree that it's not perfect, but I think it is still inevitable - thanks to the internet, too many people are used to having their voices heard and their opinions expressed on matters of importance to them on a daily basis. The means to do this now exist, thanks to the internet. I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle - whether you like it or not, I think there will be a much more direct say in politics very soon.

After all, we're debating it here - we're a perfect example of jumped-up voters.

'Peodos heads on spikes' seems like a good idea to me! I would not go that far! capital punishment would be very popular, and fit for some crimes! I'm sure many would have liked Ian Huntley, swinging from a rope, but IMO he should rot in jail!

Are people saying that the majority should not be listened to?

What I would worry about is that the more educated would rally themselves and put foward petitions that would not be in the national interest.

I say listen to the public! and not the so called 'intelligentsia' of Primrose Hill/Muswell Hill/Notting Hill Gate!

On the plus side, fox-hunting would be back....

if their was a ref for fox hunting it would very much be anti

Referendum maybe not but they're only talking about petitions having a minimum number of sigs. Countryside Alliance has massive support and could sort that one at the drop of a waxed jacket!

Clutha. Not necessarily.

you would be ignoring all the polls and public opinion throughout the years opposing fox hunt and supporting the ban

not to mention the news story yesterday, whereby many of the tory MPs that said they would vote for a repeal of the hunt ban before the election have now said that when (if?) the gov gets around to its manifesto commitment to have a free vote on the issue, they wont now vote for a repeal, due to overwhelming public opinion against it.

There was never massive public opinion against fox-hunting. Most people didn't give it a second thought. The pro-hunting Countryside Alliance march 2002 was as impressive a turn-out as anything I've seen since. A Labour majority took the PR opportunity get one over on the 'toffs'.. that's all.

Anyway, from what I've seen, hunting is carrying on in better shape than ever! And if they want to swing my way with a few hounds there are at least three foxes I'd like to nominate as collateral damage :)

there was a massive anti opinion

one opinion poll stated 90% anti during blair's
first 2 years, as he was getting roundly mauled for backtracking and delaying the promised ban from his manifesto at that time..

the CA marches were indeed large.
that just indicated the CA were well organised mobilising their support, and indicated the large pro hunting numbers inside that community, not the general populace.

and of course, dont forget the other point i just made that was on the news 2 days ago.
if the public mood wasnt against a repeal, why would all those tory MPs be worried?

The thing about fox hunting, is that it's less important than, oh, everything.

less important than some stuff, more important than other stuff