You are here: Home » News »

Democracy – how much is too much?

November 15, 2011 6:33 pm

Author:

Mark Ferguson

Tags:

Share this Article

The power of e-petitions (originally introduced under Labour), but significantly beefed up under the coalition, may be diluted, according to PoliticsHome:

Sources have indicated that ministers are discussing raising the threshold for the number of signatures that a petition needs before it is considered for a House of Commons debate from 100,000 to 150,000, and moving the location of the debate itself to Westminster Hall.

Number 10 has officially denied that any changes are afoot, but a source said the move would enable to Government to avoid regular rebellions from backbenchers on issues popular with their constituents. Last month 81 Tory MPs defied a three-line whip to endorse a motion calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, and a second rebellion on a motion on fuel prices is expected this evening.

A source close to ministers said: “They are considering different options, including changing the threshold and moving the debates to Westminster Hall.”

In recent weeks there have been a number of high profile debates triggered by e-petitions, including on Hillsborough, the EU and fuel prices. As these debates have seen great support from Labour (i.e. Hillsborough) or discomfort for the Tories (over the EU), it will be interesting to see if No.10 genuinely plan to scale back e-petitions, and what Labour’s response might be. It does however suggest that Cameron is increasing concerned about the Tory right.

It is presumably co-incidental though, that James Forsyth today reports that the PM gave SpAds a “bollocking” over leaks, on the same day that this story was leaked…

Lee

Cast your mind back before the election. The Tories were devoid of policies. As election day drew closer, Cameron suddenly had a hatful of policies to announce, all of them populist, like cutting the number of MPs and allowing the public to trigger debates. It was always on the cards that the public would seek to have debates that made governments squirm. That’s what you get for being a populist with nothing substantive to say.
Anonymous

I think to be honest if they change it to 200,000 and people voted by a million on a referendum over the EU it would be refused. As for fuel I suspect that will hit well over 100,000

It does show one thing both labour and the Tories do not like these petitions as labour ended up disliking the FOI.

Democracy is fine so long as the politician have the control
Ian

Petitions are a piece of p$£” to sign, they require no great motivation, not even the need to right. Apart from hanging right wing populist ones backed by news papers making it easy will always get the attention and the votes needed.

Yes have the debate but not in commons time but has a debate in Westminister Hall. This petrol one for example is about stopping a future tax rise, we did that in government at much lower levels without the need for a petition.
- Hugh
  
  You’re quite right, no petition was needed. It just took fuel protests bringing the country to a standstill to persuade Labour it might be an idea to end the fuel duty escalator.
  - Ian
    
    No Hugh of course get your facts right
    
    we also froze rates after that, years after. As for those fuel protest, petrol was less than £1 litre after the tory fuel escalator, which was stopped by labour.
    
    so why no protests now with fuel 33% extra, surely it was not politically motivated, denied of course. I have no problems with political protests but lets be honest what those protests were about.
    - Hugh
      
      “so why no protests now with fuel 33% extra, surely it was not politically motivated”
      
      The protests in 2000 had, at their height 80% public support, at a time Labour was polling over 40%. 29% thought Hague handled it well. There were also protests this May by truckers – they just didn’t capture public support like the ones in 2000.
      
      The escalator (increased in Labour’s first budget) was ended after the protests, not terribly surprisingly. Furthermore, given the hammering Labour’s approval ratings took, it’s not really surprising they were a bit cautious about increasing fuel prices afterwards.
Anonymous

This is interesting Mark.

It also makes me question how the current government are implementing top down changes and reforms with apparently little consultation or public participation?

Issues that come to mind are boundary reviews; proposed reforms to the HOL;
(and putting peers in place, affecting equality of parties?)

*NHS*
Education.
Localism.
Forests.
Planning laws/impact on countryside /green belt land.
Cuts to public services/worker’s pensions/job security.
Local budget cuts; eg loss of so many Suresart projects in past year.

Sometimes these changes appear stealthily applied; but also pushed through rapidly.

As for the numbers signing petitions; it would probably be a mistake to curb this mechanism;
there are precious few ways the public can influence process and policy;
it would only add to the sense of frustration of lack of democratic outlets
and platforms to be heard.

Talking of amazing campaigns and public petitions which capture imagination
and are right on the pulse; 38 Degrees have been fantastic.
I’m sure they have ruffled feathers; but that’s the whole point- to make people think.

Thanks! Jo
- Anonymous
  
  You would think these nasty Tories would do it the Labour way, would you not.
  
  Put everything out to focus groups to get the feeling of the man on the street, then subtly ease the focus groups into the long grass when they didn’t come up with the pre-determined 3rd way line.
- Hugh
  
  Don’t worry too much about the equality of the parties in the HoL, Jo; Labour still has 20-odd more peers than the Tories, despite Cameron’s best efforts.
Anonymous

Currently, I think this link is correct:

http://secure.38degrees.org.uk/nhs-secret-report

Jo
Anonymous

I personally get the impression they are trying to push as much through as possible in a very short time; whilst Labour are in transition/regrouping; and also before the full impact of cuts are felt by much of the country.
Also, there’s a strong ideological aspect to reforms and choice of approach to deficit.

The message being given out;(and it seems to me accepted wholesale by the LD’s)
is that “we have no choice;” and “these are responsible actions.”
As if completely neutral, and accepted wisdom….

Never mind small details like effectively dismantling the “welfare state;”
economic stagnation causing massively rising unemployment,
especially affecting the young; and trebling tuition fees for HE.
Or huge top down reforms of the NHS, in the planning over about 7 years,
but not shared with the electorate.

As far as I’m concerned- it’s more or less the same old Tories; but perhaps using the recession as justification for ideologically applied top down reforms to anything they perceive as the “state.”

I like the idea of coalition government; but most of what I can see looks distinctly Tory in agenda, with a few tweaks around the edges.

Ultimately though, decisions about the economy need to be a collective response.

Also- question of “mandate” for scale of changes- eg NHS!

Jo
- Anonymous
  
  “As far as I’m concerned- it’s more or less the same old Tories; but
  perhaps using the recession as justification for ideologically applied
  top down reforms to anything they perceive as the “state.”"
  
  Don’t see why the Tories need a recession to justify their actions. We all know their feelings on the state – in fact I’m surprised they haven’t gone further than they have.
  
  But don’t worry, when Labour do get back in they will be able to bring the enormous bureaucracy back – a guaranteed 5 years of installing pen pushers into every nook and cranny there is.
Anonymous

As opposed to being a guy who was desperate to be populist, and had a field full of policies all thought through to the nth degree, none of which the public liked.

Labour only has itself to blame.

Latest

Comment
Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

By Glenys Thornton

Monday saw the first day of Committee on the Same Sex Marriage Bill, where it became clear after a three hour debate on how to distinguish Same Sex Marriage from so called “traditional” marriage that opposition to this bill has not gone away. Despite a huge defeat on Second Reading, opponents reheated and repeated their earlier speeches, in part because their arguments rely on belief and prejudice not evidence or fact. So we sat until 11pm debating conscience clauses, Registrars [...]
Read more →
Comment
Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

By Mark Ferguson

Well that was a bad PMQs for Ed Miliband – the second in a row. Perhaps he hasn’t gotten back into his stride after such a long period without the weekly Wednesday joust, but whatever it is, Miliband isn’t hitting his marks at PMQs. Meanwhile Cameron – who has been jousting with world leaders this week – seemed far more o top of his game than we’ve been used to seeing him lately. Alas the problem for Miliband was that [...]
Read more →
Video
Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

Last week it was revealed that the government discussed secret plans to hike interest on pre-existing student loans, meaning that anyone with a student loan will be expected to pay far more than expected. Today, the Prime Minister was asked about this – he spoke for nearly a minute but wouldn’t answer the question. What does he have to hide? How much more does he expect graduates to pay?
Read more →
Comment
Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

By John Woodcock

Across the industrial north, it is striking how old pit villages and industrial towns are proving far less willing to embrace renewable energy than the noisier, more polluting fossil fuels and industries which shaped their identity. Energy companies are getting a nasty shock after mistakenly believing that these communities would not bat an eyelid at a few wind turbines on the surrounding hills because they had been content to make huge slag heaps part of the landscape in decades past. [...]
Read more →
News
Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this (and much more) in your inbox. You can sign up here. Put reckless bankers in jail Britain’s banking bosses should face jail if their decisions force fresh bailouts, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards says today. The commission’s hotly anticipated report urges the Chancellor, George Osborne, to oversee the [...]
Read more →