Too Much Democracy They Say, Cheeky Twats I Say. There Is Not Enough Direct Democracy.
Bloody cheeky twats, there is not enough democracy.
The petitions only trigger debate, nothing has actually been done about it all they still decide for us, there is no direct democracy in this country.
The only way you will get that is vote for Ukip or an Independent candidate.
NO MORE VOTING FOR LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, CONSERVATIVE AND LABOUR.
They only lie and cheat their way to power, then do not give a toss what the people want afterwards and especially as they are supposed to work for us not milk the system dry to get as much money as they can.
From the Mail
Too much democracy! Embarrassed by the success of
e-petitions, senior MPs want to make it harder for
people to have their say
Consider raising signature threshold from 100,000
MPs claim debates waste valuable parliamentary time
Cameron says he remains ‘committed’ to the scheme
Secret talks are being held about watering down voters’ newly-granted power to trigger debates in Parliament, following a series of embarrassments for the Government.
Ministers and senior MPs have discussed raising the threshold for the number of signatures needed on e-petitions before they can be considered for discussion in the House of Commons.
Another idea is for debates to be relegated from the Commons chamber to the backwater of Westminster Hall, normally only attended by a handful of MPs at a time.
Conservative MP Philip Davies, who sits on the backbench business committee that decides which petitions should be debated, said: ‘Our committee has helped re-establish the faith of a lot of voters in the democratic process. The Government should be pleased about that rather than interfering like this.
The extraordinary manoeuvres came to light on the day that MPs passed a motion triggered by an e-petition demanding that the Treasury considers scrapping a 3p rise in fuel duty due in January.
Senior MPs appear increasingly concerned that they have created a monster with the e-petition scheme, which forces them to consider debating an issue in the Commons once an online petition attracts more than 100,000 signatories.
Its critics had warned that the Government’s plans would allow the Commons to be hijacked by campaigners, and would mean MPs spending precious Parliamentary time debating proposals that have little or no chance of becoming law.
But ministers insisted it would revitalise public engagement with Parliament in the wake of the expenses scandal – even if it forced MPs to confront difficult issues.
Popular: Since the site was launched in the summer, several petitions have attracted the required home of signatures – and have then been debated in the Commons
Since the scheme was launched in the summer, several petitions have attracted the requisite number of signatures remarkably quickly.
They include a call for a referendum on Britain’s future in Europe, the release of secret documents on the Hillsborough tragedy, stripping rioters of their benefits and curbing immigration to prevent Britain’s population reaching 70 million.
The backbench business committee assesses the petitions that reach 100,000 and decides whether the issues should be given time from the 35 days allocated during each Parliamentary session for non-governmental business. Successful petitions then have to be sponsored by an MP who leads the debate.
The scheme has led David Cameron into a series of public relations disasters. The worst came in a debate last month over a referendum on Britain’s future in the EU, which saw the Prime Minister suffer the worst rebellion on the issue ever staged by Tory MPs.
Senior colleagues said Mr Cameron blundered badly when he decided to turn a backbench vote, which was designed as a non-binding expression of the view of Parliament, into a trial of strength.
Despite the Prime Minister imposing a three-line whip – the toughest possible party instruction on how to vote – and threatening members of the Government that stepped out of line with the sack, 81 Conservative MPs defied him and voted in favour of a referendum.
And last night MPs called on the Treasury to scrap fuel duty rises planned for next year and nodded through a motion calling for a new price stabilisation mechanism. More than 100 MPs – including 83 Tories and five Liberal Democrats – had backed the motion.
Attempts to change the e-petition system just months after it has been introduced will trigger accusations that the Government is fighting shy of rebellions from MPs over issues popular with voters. A Government source confirmed last night that while the Prime Minister remains committed to the ‘principle’ of e-petitions, discussions were taking place over whether to tighten up the system.
One petition, on the treatment of British citizen Babar Ahmad, wanted in the U.S. on charges of terrorism, has already been tacked on to another debate on extradition treaties in Westminster Hall. Others could follow the same route.
Contrasting views: Philip Davies said e-petitions had restored voters faith in the democratic process, but Natasha Engel said the Government had not thought the scheme through properly. Both are members of the backbench business committee.
‘There are discussions,’ said one source. ‘We did say from the start that we would see how this worked. If Parliament is getting 100 petitions a year which attract 100,000 signatures, then people will ask if it’s sensible to change the threshold.’
Natascha Engel, the backbench business committee’s chairman, said the Government had ‘not thought through e-petitions at all’ and suggested the system was spiralling out of control.
She said there were now false expectations that a petition attracting 100,000 signatures automatically means a debate and vote in Parliament, followed by a change in the law if MPs backed the motion.
In reality, Commons leader Sir George Young writes to the committee, asking them to consider a debate and a vote, which has no binding impact at all on Government policy.
The chairman said ministers had suggested doubling the threshold for signatures, but admitted doing so would prompt public ‘outrage’
‘They can’t raise the threshold: I think that would just send the signal to the public that politicians and Parliament can’t be trusted, when e-petitions were brought in to address that problem in the first place,’ she said
Senior MPs are understood to be proposing a system similar to Scotland’s, in which a special unit corresponds with people proposing e-petitions and discusses whether the issue would be best addressed with a debate, a select committee inquiry or an amendment to a Bill.
Labour’s petition website, which was not accompanied by the right to trigger issues for consideration by the Commons, was suspended ahead of the general election and then shelved by the Coalition.
It too hosted a series of highly embarrassing campaigns, including demands for former prime minister Gordon Brown to resign.
A Downing Street spokesman said there were ‘no current plans’ to change the system, adding: ‘100,000 remains the qualifying threshold for a referral to the backbench business committee.’