I was interested in Baroness Murphy’s observation that the blogosphere is “populated by the sad, the obsessed, the eccentric, the fanatic and the ignorant”. I suppose I may qualify under two or three – even four? – of the headings! I try to keep my fanatical observations to my own blog.
However, I was not sure what substance there was to today’s story about e-petitions. It appears to be based on someone in Government saying that the Government plan to proceed on the commitment to introduce a form of e-petitions. That appears to be about the extent of it. The subject has been explored in considerable detail by the Procedure Committee in the Commons in the last Parliament. The proposal was initially welcomed by the then Government, but it got cold feet when the cost was realised. My own concern was not one of principle. I can see the value of utilising such a means of channelling public support for a particular proposal. My concern was and is practical. There are dangers in setting up such a system if there are not then the resources to assess the proposals and process them in such a way that demonstrates that the concerns are being taken seriously. I am also not clear why the proposal now being advanced is to utilise a government website (Directgov) rather than a dedicated parliamentary site, unless (as intimated by the Goverment’s 2009 response to the Procedure Committee) it is the practical one of cost.
If the proposal is to be taken seriously, it requires not only funds but also parliamentary time, resources and the commitment of MPs.
It doesn’t cost, in fact it saves.
We have 600 million of cash for funding the lords.
MPs can’t vet the proposals and put them into a decent form. They get cash for that, in buckets.
Then we have a proxy vote for what gets implemented.
Lord Blagger: Oh, given the comments of Baroness Murphy, I am just so tempted…
Simples isn’t it.
Nice cheap, no issue about those awkward petitions.
You can carry on ignoring what the electorate want, and the electorate can finally get the democratic right to say no to those who’ve engaged in whole scale larceny.
For example, 6,800 billion of debts, with interest. 300,000 per household. All run up without any mandate.
No doubt some will say, ah, but there is a contract. We contracts have particular features, namely they have to be equitable, and both sides have to consent. I don’t consent to the borrowing for spending on past services that I have received, or for the looting by politicians. It’s not a contract.
Lord Blagger: People can and do make their views known to parliamentarians. It was correspondence from constituents, rather than public disorder, that finally put the nail in the coffin of the poll tax. People can and are heard. E-petitions may be one way of enhancing communication, but only one way, complementing existing means.
You may well boast that constituents reveal their opinions to their MP’s or even Lords but are they listening? Or, are they lying in order to get votes knowing full well what the public really want, such as on our forced open door immigration policies, Uni fees and so on? Then, once elected, renege within weeks on the promises given. This has been the experience of us all for decades now.
There is however room for manouvre by the public. We could demand that those who make promises to get our votes be held accountable by those who vote for them. Once they make their u-turn we must demand they are thrown out of office quickly without recourse.
Along with this there should be no such thing as a safe seat. That is not only unacceptable it is a void vote. It means the outcome is known prior to the ballot and that must be a fix. However likely it may appear that a certain area will vote in a certain direction it is invalid in reality. People vote on the situation they find the country in at the time of the election. Because the situation now has grown narrower and narrower between the parties it makes it impossible to be sure of a so called safe seat.
More independents must be offered for election with very different theories for running this country, as no man appears to be happy with what we now have. The slant to one or another has become unacceptable. Labour is off to a tangent and in chaos over idiot policies, and the Conservatives have lost their sense of proportion on, for one thing, noblesse oblige.
A good thought would be if those who come from wealthy families in our present HofC and the professions decided to ‘now’ pay for their university education, they can afford it. Doing nicely I see. And those bankers, a few thousand pounds for the privilege of robbing our collective social fund shouldn’t it a hardship should they?
Another way to get some real democracy would be for the kind of referendums they have in Switzerland. Their people, when unhappy with a policy call for a vote. See how we would like the real tone of genuine democracy for the British people.
Why not bring a bill for it if you want to return trust in our system?
I try to keep my fanatical observations to my own blog.
Ha! Ha! There really is some very good seasonal humour here!
I’ll have a read and leave some post, noble Lord! (knowing how much I enjoy the cult of personality)
There have to be a practical considerations too; with average constituency sizes of 65, 000, MPs must find it difficult to gauge public mood which makes decision making a lonely business.
If people emailed their MP their pop3 would overflow. If they phoned the line would most likely be busy and if they booked an appointment they might get to see their MP just before the next general election.
MPs know only too well how daft people’s views can be; the challenge is to engage with those with an informed view. But who are these people and just how do you engage with them after all one wants to become re-elected and again in receipt of a handsome salary as an MP or perhaps a minister.
An elected Lords on the other hand would have a degree of freedom in this respect. They would come to the house self sufficient so making the correct but unpopular decisions would not see their lifestyle choices impacted if they were ultimately voted out of the house. This virtue is lacking in the lower house.
Senex: There are indeed difficulties in guaging the views of constituents on issues. On your last paragraph, if you substitute unelected Lords for elected Lords, it makes much more sense.
First of all for an MP’s POP3 to overflow the voting public would have to put hand to mouse rather than pen to paper, so how many constituients even put pen to paper?
simonwelburn: Rather a lot, particularly constituents writing to their MP. Several million items of mail flow into the Palace of Westminster each year. I am just about to table the question I put down each year asking just how many items of correspondence were received in the previous year.
Good it would be interesting to know.
So let the commons come up with the ideas subject to some rules.
1. Compliance with the Human rights act.
2. Borrowing by the government is illegal.
3. Spending has to specify the taxation.
Then the result gets put to a referenda by proxy.
So unless MPs come up with daft ideas, and its not unknown, you just have to look at early day motions for plenty of examples, the excuses about, they will be hanging them, are moot.
All easily funded and it costs less. Just get rid of the retirement home for the elderly failed MPs, namely the lords.
Lord Blagger: Given your sojourn in Switzerland, you will be familiar with it as the leading nation in holding referendums. Has anyone there taken up your idea?
It is, incidentally, more appropriate to refer to referendums rather than referenda. Referendum is a rare Latin gerund for which there is no plural.
Switzerland has an established set up. Periodic referendums on different topics.
So there is an established mechanism. However, politicians don’t like it because they can’t dictate. The electorate does because they have the final say.
You can petition. Depending on the change there are different hurdles to overcome.
The difference is that in CH, people have learned to take responsibility for their votes because they have done so for a long time.
If you switch to such a system in the UK, people haven’t had this education. So I’m not in favour of petitions causing a referenda as a result. It’s the other way round.
Let politicians create a law, and allow the electorate the say as to whether they want it or not. Democracy in the Athena sense.
For example, it deals with all the questions of bias in the current voting system. It’s yes/no on an issue. Different constituency sizes, different levels of voting between the parties, spread of vote. The stuff that gives Labour a 9-10% edge. It’s all irrelevant. When it comes to each issue, one person one vote.
It even deals with the loopy petition issue. Although MPs aren’t immune. That genius running the labour party at the moment has a scheme to pay motorists cash (their own) if the drive slowly. Less his cut of course. Worthy of any nutty proposal.
sad, the obsessed, the eccentric, the fanatic and the ignorant”. I suppose I may qualify under two or three – even four? – of the headings! There must be innumerable literary and historical remarks about people who take an excessive interest in Law.
Being adorned with four such medals, as above, can not be good.
Still doesn’t add up to more than a couple of petitions.
What you’re really claiming is that its democratic if a few can get the law changed by some letter writing to MPs, but millions signing a petition can go jump.
Sums up politics today. Elected dictatorship.
Lord Blagger: Correspondence and petitions are not mutually exclusive. Each has a role to play. Both have been part of the means by which people seek to influence Parliament for rather a long time.
But you’re post is all about the negatives.
Costs too high – solution axe the lords. 600 million gets a lot of petitions.
Control. You want money to control what gets petitioned. Why do you want the control? If the majority want something, then why should you oppose democracy and dictate? Apart from that being what you currently do?
Lord Blagger: It was based on the realisation that it needs to be done properly and not half-heartedly. I have argued the value of e-petitions, and petitions generally, including in my submission to the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. I was also engaged in advising the new Backbench Business Committee in the Commons on how it might go about selecting topics for debate, and one suggestion I advanced was taking into account petitions received by the House.
Lord Blagger: I should add that I don’t undertand your point about control. Resources are needed to ensure that the Commons can show that it has taken submissions seriously. Given the number of petitions already received, there isn’t time to debate them all. The House needs a mechanism other than debate in the chamber to consider their merits.
You can have a threshold.
However its still all talk and no trousers.
The public get no say. You stated you don’t want us to have a say on any issues. As you know, its actually very cheap. Nominate any MP as your proxy, and they cast your vote as your proxy. Just one MP has to provide a website where individuals can choose, and everyone can have the choice.
Total cost about 20 million a year on top of the 100 million a year voter registration process.
Lord Blagger: Not for the first time, you claim I have said something I have never said. It is ridiculous, indeed palpable nonsense, to say that I don’t want the public to have a say on any issues, when I have been arguing the case for developing ways in which they can have a say. It is worth noting that my ideas tend at least to attract some support, whereas as far as I can see your idea, though constantly repeated, has garnered no support from readers.
You may wish to bear in mind the injunction of Clement Attlee to Harold Laski following the 1945 general election.
In reply to Baroness Murphy’s comments in your opening paragraph, Lord Norton, I fear many people in “power” underestimate the full despair & unadulterated frustration that so many of us feel now in this country. The “E forums” of modern day interaction can be a sanity saver, not to mention, a healthy venting process that alleviates the strain of harsher protest notions.
Both houses really do need to tread a careful line, the feeling of clutched power and projected images of Bond Villains (or tantamount to) are increasingly easy to sketch out in the frustrated minds of society. There is not a good feeling or atmosphere on any level in this country, so comments such as Baroness Murphy’s need to be mulled fiercely over before the publish button is pressed.
On e petitions; Any public interaction and influence – no matter how costly and maybe abused – would be welcomed by myself. Far be it from me to raise a fist in revolution, but the balance of “power”, and the semantics of the word itself, need to be reined in and addressed. Public perception is crucial in bringing about a degree of harmony that we no longer have.
Jason Reed: My concern has been to ensure that petitioning is taken seriously. I have favoured a committee on petitions. The House of Commons used to have one, but it was abolished in the early 1970s. The Procedure Committee of the Commons – I link to its report in the post – came up with a well-considered scheme for e-petitioning. As I indicate in my earlier response to Lord Blagger, I also see a role for the new Backbench Business Committee in the Commons – which selects the topics for debate in 35 days each year – in drawing on petitions as a means of identifying issues of concern to people outside the House.
Thank you for your reply Lord Norton. I find your own particular blog and forum progressive and heartfelt. I also find myself agreeing with your broad points on this, obviously procedure is something I will bow down to as I don’t know this area.
Your concerns on being taken seriously is something which I agree and understand. This is a double edged sword also: –
Case in point of this concern was the ‘Your Freedom’ website launched in the summer;
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/
A nice idea, but the practice was farcical and quite worrying in a few aspects. There was some legitimate and heartfelt debate to be found on this site, but there were also some parties that abused. The abuse, however, was on both sides – the mischievous public, but also those who moderated the site and controlled the output. There was a real air of “we’re listening, but you have to say what we want to hear” this ended up damaging relations even further. All round, this was shame as the premise was a valid and good one but.
The balance on both sides will be hard to strike, maybe plain old common sense needs to be employed more as this seems to be a modern day casualty.
My Lord, we need far more than just petitions to be heard. Our law and law making is complex, individual pieces heard seperately that appear to make great sense to those pushing them. However often it is the case that the interaction of one with another creates effects not thought of and these need to be heard and can only be heard from those experiencing the effects.
I have given an instance elsewhere of Councils reclaiming 85p in the pound from those who are in receipt of Housing/Council Tax benefit and working. With tax that is £1.07 lost to those people for every pound earned above a certain level.
It is an absurd situation which may have just been overlooked by Government because of inexperience in that situation. Often the people experiencing this are not educated and can`t work out the sum but they know working harder makes them worse off.
I`m tempted like Baroness Murphy to state e-petitions are mostly silly and the people who sign them not educated or imbecilic but unlike Baroness Murphy I won`t then go on to state it`s ok for the same people to elect members of the House.
Of course we could build yet another layer of bureaucracy, of Administration to oversee such things as e-petitions but then aren`t we repeating the spending of the Labour Government ? I can see the concept of Big-Society in this but it won`t work, we have a capitalist culture, power goes with money, greed and selfishness. For all their socialist values where do the big Union and Labour leaders live ? Exactly ! Power is about me and money.
Government need autonomy otherwise society doesn`t work but it has to be balanced. Where will e-petitions lead ? No where, just another layer of administration and costs. We constantly hear of polls where the public are against Government action, does it change anything ? Nope ! So what makes people think e-petitions would ?
Are people really going let Government patronise them some more ? Do you really believe Government haven`t heard your grumblings already and totally ignored them ?
E-petitions would be good for one thing alone, the promises you`ll get next time there is an election. Remember the Conservatives “No rise in VAT”
David Cameron:
“We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.”
Nick Clegg:
“We see absolutely no reason to raise VAT because we have done our homework, we have identified where money can be generated and where money can be saved.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/raise-vat-tax-tories
They`ll tell you there was a reason and they`ll tell you there was a reason we reject your e-petition too.
Note: There is at least one other inconsistancy in Housing/Council Tax Benefit which leaves claimants worse off due to errors in the way the system is constructed and implemented.
The Councils I have dealt with for people have been unable to understand the complexity of the system and unwilling at the best of times.
Losses experienced by those on benefit have a very detrimental effect all round. As the complexity is great I have found no one willing to listen as of yet.
If government pursued tax avoiding individuals with the same fervor they do those on various welfare benefits how full the coffers for government spending would be. In fact, it is becoming very clear that there would be no shortage of funds to feed the starving, house the poor and take care of the elderly, in a civilized fashion, if all those Cayman Island accounts were scrutinized the way they should be. It appears that right now we have foxes governing the chicken coop. Not likely to be into cleaning up the process early.
Nevertheless, from the recent revelations of Swiss bankers and other minions, one must assume to request such observance would enmesh those who are on all sides of the Houses, upper and lower. It suggests so many have secrecy jurisdiction themselves, so their dealings with bankers and the using of public funds to keep them afloat, should not be a surprise to any of us.
I don’t think it ever was a surprise, just hard to prove.
It’s very simple. Top 35 petitions get to be debated.
The advantage I can see is that its 35 days taken out preventing the commons from creating a bigger mess than they have at the moment.
I look forward to the benches debating the merits of banning sandals with socks and other matters. It has the advantage stated above.
Lord Blagger: The 35 days are for debating declaratory motions, so it is not clear whst mess the Commons could create. And it is not that simple, unless you have clear criteria governing the submission of petitions. I am not sure there is much point debating issues for which the Commons may have no responsibility and which are not matters of public policy. Your suggestion could also be restrictive. Why only the top 35 motions (by which I presume you mean the ones that get the most signatures)? If several overlap, you could debate them in one debate. If they are on limited matters of public policy, you could limit debate to two or three hours and thus free up time to debate more motions. Hence you could debate more than 35.
Lets have debates on Clarkson for President.
As I’ve said, the advantage is whilst they are debating, they can’t be screwing up other things.
Meanwhile the rest of us can worry about paying off our share of the government debts. 300,000 per household.
No oversight their from the Lords
Lord Blagger: Not for the first time, you claim I have said something I have never said. It is ridiculous, indeed palpable nonsense, to say that I don’t want the public to have a say on any issues, when I have been arguing the case for developing ways in which they can have a say. It is worth noting that my ideas tend at least to attract some support, whereas as far as I can see your idea, though constantly repeated, has garnered no support from readers.
==================
Well, you’ve rubbished referenda on issues.
For example, we were promised in manifestos referenda on Europe. However by ‘renaming’ the consitution, they go ahead anyway.
Why didn’t the Lords turn round and clearly say, its in your manifesto, no go.
As for the argument, that its readers of a blog that decide things, that’s the same as the Lords. A small minority make decisions and the rest suffer.
6,800 billion of government debt and all the Lords do is add to it by their excessive spending on themselves.
Lord Blagger: Not for the first time, you claim I have said something I have never said. It is ridiculous, indeed palpable nonsense, to say that I don’t want the public to have a say on any issues, when I have been arguing the case for developing ways in which they can have a say. It is worth noting that my ideas tend at least to attract some support, whereas as far as I can see your idea, though constantly repeated, has garnered no support from readers.
So come on. I’ve read most of your posts, listen to you on the box.
What’s your proposal for me having a vote on at least the major issues?
1. Taxation
2. Borrowing
So far I haven’t heard you mention anything on the electorate getting a say.
Lord Blagger: I have spent more than twenty years arguing the case for reforms that will enable people to have an input into the legislative process, which means actually having an input through being able to express and argue theie case. Fortunately, a great deal of this is on the record. A ‘say’ is more than a tick on a box. It entails people having an actual input into deliberations on public policy.
But that’s the problem.
You want people to give ‘input’
You don’t want people to make the decision.
You want to dictate.
Having a say is irrelevant because people like you just ignore it for party political or financial reasons (selling changes for cash, remember you don’t think that’s a problem).
Why shouldn’t the electorate make the decision?
After all they pay the cost.
Lord Blagger: Repeating untrue statements don’t make them true. I don’t want to dictate and there is nothing at all to suggest I do. You have the habit of reading into comments things that are not there. I am getting sick and tired of your claims that I don’t think selling changes for cash isn’t a problem. That’s not what I said but your capacity for understanding what others say appears remarkably limited.
Since you’re comment that it wasn’t a problem that Truscott and co were offering cash to change legislation for cash because they wouldn’t get away with it has disappeared from the blog (I can’t find it), perhaps you would care to repeat exactly what you did say, preferably with a link to the original post.
By the way, it is a criminal offence of fraud to take money for something you can’t deliver.
Now I suspect you’re quite embarrassed by your post, hence your attacks on me. Aren’t there guidelines on this blog about use of language, or does that just apply to comments about Lords, not comments about the public? Probably. One rule for the Lords, we don’t care about the little people.
Looking forward to a link to your original post, if it hasn’t been censored.
Lord Blagger: You comments rather prove my point. You jump to completely unfounded assumptions. As far as I am aware, all the ‘old’ posts (pre-May 2010) still exist and I’m not embarrassed by anything I have written and I have never sought to remove any posts I have made. Having virtually made a career of criticising me and others on this blog, you then have the temerity to object when you are criticised. I’m sorry, you really should take on board the comments of Harry S Truman.
Off Topic but important
For those with a view on IPSA please do the short online survey.
http://www.ipsa-home.org.uk/Consultations_January2011_Annual_Review.html
I think public opinion should be drawn to this so MP`s alone are NOT the only views submitted.
Unlike you, I critique your ideas. You, on the other hand, attack the person.
The exception is people like Truscott and “he who shall not be named”, where its the behaviour that’s the issue.
So, perhaps you’ll answer the question I posed you.
When you say that you want more people to have their ‘say’, you really mean that people are consulted. You’ve never in anything I’ve read said anything about letting us make the decision.
Even if we take the referenda on AV. That isn’t really a vote on an ‘issue’, since all it changes is who gets to dictate. As you well know, because of the work of Arrow, it isn’t going to give the results that people think it will.
Voting directly on issue, doesn’t suffer from the problems pointed out by Arrow.
Lord Blagger: You do not critique my ideas or that of other bloggers. It is not a critique to attack someone for something they have never said and it is not a critique to keep repeating assertions that have no basis in fact.
Having a say to my mind actually involves expressing a view. Elections are the means by which electors choose people to act on their behalf and through which ultimately they control public policy but in the interim engage in dialogue with them. Elections are in many respects the least difficult things to organise relative to getting in place robust mechanisms for ensuring electors can contribute their views in between elections. At an individual level, constituents can correspond with their MP (service delivery) but at the level of policy it is an inefficient process. The challenge, as I argued in a recent article in the Irish Journal of Public Policy, is to develop the means of ensuring people can be heard and members of the legislature have some ideas of the views of their constituents. This is not a problem confined to the UK but has fairly general applicability. At the aggregate level, referendums are fairly inefficient devices for reasons I have previously adumbrated. Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws has been exploring the idea of deliberative democracy, which involves far more engagement through debate. (See her evidence to the Constitution Committee in its inquiry into referendums.) At the level of legislation, the challenge is to ensure there is a mechanism for input. The Coalition Agreement includes proposals for input (including a public reading day) and the Commons now has Public Bill Committees, something I had been advocating for twenty years or more. I also favour online consultations, which have variously been employed by committees to good effect. Other ideas were embodied in the Constitution Committee 2004 report, ‘Parliament and the Legislative Process’. There have been some significant improvements, but there is more that can be done. Achieving change requires a great deal of effort and mobilising support.
Having a say can me, tell us what you think, but we will make our own choice. The dictator option.
Having a say can also mean, you get to make the decision along with other people. The democratic choice.
The problem with representatives are these.
1. They aren’t elected. You’re a prime example of this. We have no control over you.
2. They don’t do what they say. ie. They fail to implement manifesto promises.
3. They lie. It’s illegal to lie about another politician. It’s not illegal to lie to the electorate. VAT rise and Cameron
4. They do things not in their manifesto. VAT
5. You are forced to vote for a package and not an individual issue
6. If you vote for a losing candidate you get no say. You have no input.
7. When you say ‘expressing a view’ which is it? A view on the candidate or the policy. It’s a view on the candidate, not policies. See above for examples.
8. All your view on consultation are just that. It’s top down. Dictatorship with the odd focus group and lobbying.
9. Where is the ability for the electorate to force MPs to consider and/or implement a policy?
Lord Blagger: Oh dear, where to start. You appear not to understand the concept of the term representative (see Hannah Pitkin’s seminal work). MPs, as representatives, are elected and (another sense of the term) act on behalf of their constituents (which does not necessarily mean acting as a delegate). Parties, as Richard Rose’s research shows, are actually very good at implementing manifesto promises. Not fulfilling them is the exception and not the rule – people just focus on the exceptions. It’s not illegal to lie about another politician, other than in rather limited (electoral) circumstances. Of course parties do things at times that are not in their manifestos. Manifestos do not anticipate all possible eventualities, including war and other crises. It would be crass (and dangerous) to argue that they should be confined to what is in their manifestos. MPs act for all their constituents and any constituent can seek the MP’s help regardless of whether they voted for the MP or not. Regardless of how one voted, one can participate in online consultations, submit your views to committees and sign petitions (and indeed post comments on blog – you may even get a response). My views on consultation are demonstrably not top down: how on earth is a petition top down? The Government will shortly be introducing a measure with a recall provision. Electors cannot vote on every issue being considered by Parliament. The Lords may get through 20-30 amendments today to the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill. Leaving aside the practical issues of allowing everyone to vote on each of these amendments, we know from the Audit of Political Engagement that most prefer to leave it to parliamentarians. Those that are interested in amendments can have a say through MPs and peers, and do so on an ever-increasing scale. No, I’m not representative. I’m not supposed to be. The Commons is the representative chamber, which is why it can ultimately get its way.
Your assertions are demonstratively false.
Why shouldn’t they be constrained to what is in their manifestos?
For example, the economic climate hasn’t got worse since the election. However we have had two examples, one each way of the problem.
1. The lib dems voting for moving loans from the state to the individual, transferring the risk, whilst keeping the rewards for the state.
No change of circumstance, but a breach of a signed manifesto promise.
2. Implementation of a VAT rise, when not in a manifesto.
3. MPS don’t act for consitutents. They might vote for the advantage of some, but equally they vote to the disadvantage of others.
4. You haven’t been pushing petitions. You’ve been pushing consultation, and that’s top down.
5 Leaving aside the practical issues of allowing everyone to vote on each of these amendments, we know from the Audit of Political Engagement that most prefer to leave it to parliamentarians
And for those that don’t you’re going to dictate. There is a class you want to dictate too.
There are lots who will nominate a rep of a party of their choice. That’s different from a first past the post representative who in lots of cases isn’t from a party of your choice. You are disenfranchised as to policy.
Hence the nomination of a representative for a proxy vote. One that you can change mid term if you so wish. Any one who say votes labour, can always nominate the winning Tory if that is what they want. It isn’t.
ie. It solves lots of problems.
1. Fixed terms and unpopular governments.
2. Vote for a losing candidate and your vote is wasted.
3. Constituency sizes
4. Other biases in the electoral system (you know what they are)
It’s cheap. The current registration cost 100 million a year. What is the cost of adding the name of your proxy to the form?
Lord Blagger: There was not a single comment in my comment that was false, demonstrably or otherwise. End of.
6,800 billion of debts, with interest. 300,000 per household. All run up without any mandate.
Easy answer Blagger.We’ll have to charge more to those who want to enter the country.
It may be in their countries that the bill has been run up.
The problem with petitions, whether electronic or on paper, is that they encourage sloppy thinking. A petition is thrust under your nose, literally or metaphorically, and you go with the flow of it and sign, so endorsing the wording on the petition. So your view carries none of the caveats and nuances which a letter or email might. In a sense they have the same downside as referenda – the devil is in the form of words used, and who decides that. I am not quite on a par with Edmund Burke but I would be deeply depressed if I felt the poll tax died simply because MPs of the time read their in-trays. I would have hoped that on reflection they had come to realise, BY THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT, that it was a non-runner that should have never been let out of the traps in the first place. The petitions and letters should have confirmed rather than created that judgement. Do MPs no longer have the gumption to decide anything themselves?
Dan Filson: Yes, but tell that to Lord Blagger!
I’ve posted that I’m not in favour of petitions at the start. Mostly because of the issues you raise.
MPs have no gumption, they just troop like cows through the lobby.
Now, make it so people can have an equal say, and the trick is to make it cheap. You can save nearly 100 million a year by my proposal, and MPs have to pay attention.
As for ideas like the Poll tax, if the government has to convince the electorate, they can try. If they fail because its unpopular, so be it. It’s actually a bonus for the parties. It’s democracy, and its not a problem.
So, tax rises and borrowing have to be subject to a vote by the electorate. ie. You can’t spend or borrow unless the electorate agrees. What’s wrong with that?
Lord Blagger: As all the recent studies of MPs’ voting behaviour has demonstrated, they don’t vote like cows through the lobby.
Really? So why are the whips being paid money?
The evidence is against you.
MPs need whipping to behave like cows and troup through the lobby.
The need public flogging for the frauds.
No doubt some of them have managed to put flogging in Shepherds Market on expenses too!
So no comment on the democracy issue either.
Why should the electorate pay for politicians mistakes, when they haven’t been asked on the issues?
e.g. I’ve never been asked about the debts of government. Why should I pay?
It’s down to a question of contract. I can only participate in a contract if I agree. You can’t force me.
Lord Blagger: The evidence is not against me. Quite the reverse. Mine is not based on anecdote or passing observations. My comments on vot8ing behaviour are based on exhaustive research of every vote in the House of Commons. I suggest you read Philip Cowley, ‘Revolts and Rebellions’ and ‘The Rebels’, as well as looking at the revolts.co.uk.
Whips are essential for management and communication and for ensuring two-way flow of views between frontbenchers and backbenchers. Again, I can suggest some relevant reading.
Lord Blagger: There was not a single comment in my comment that was false, demonstrably or otherwise. End of.
================
So, what about the referenda on Europe?
A little lie, its not a constitution, its a treaty, and the same clauses go through.
In the manifesto, a hard promise and yet MPs vote on it contradicting your claim that they don’t go against manifestos.
The Lib dems. Big show on student loans. In the manifesto. In power, and woops, we’re going to directly vote against our manifesto.
So the claim that I made that politicians should be banned from implementing things not in their manifestos, or from directly voting against what they said still stands.
Your claim ‘they are good at doing what they said’ is either a very weak claim, or a sign of a complete lack of reality.
So answer the question.
Why shouldn’t MPs be held to their promises and banned from implementing what they haven’t disclosed?
It’s not democratic to be elected on a lie, is it?
Lord Blagger: Again, my earlier comments on manifestos were based on serious research and not on anecdaote or generalising from an N of 1 or 2. If you research party manifestos over elections in recent decades, quantify the total number of promises embodied in each one, and then research how many have been implemented when a party has entered government, then you can generalise about fulfilling manifesto promises. Parties have a good record of implementing their promises. Some are not fulfilled, for whatever reason – not least that some become moot or events occur that make them impossible to fulfil. One cannot anticipate every eventuality. If a party fails to fulfil an important promise, the electorate can throw it out at the next election. Parties know that.
It is neither democratic nor undemocratic to be elected on a promise that is not implemented. It may be unwise, despicable, reprehensible, and possibly suicidal, but it is not germane to the definition of democracy. What is germane is what action electors can take.
What is germane is what action electors can take.
============
And the answer really is b***er all.
Lets see why.
In the case of the very quick breaking of manifesto promises by the lib dems, what actions can the electorate take?
Nothing. They are stuck for about 5 years.
In 5 years what action can they take and what compromises do they have to make in order to exercise them?
Well, they have to vote against what may well be their self interest for at least one parliament, by voting against the lying MP who said one thing to get elected, and did something else. They may well end up with an MP they don’t want just to get rid of the liar.
So 5 year of not getting what you were promised, plus another 5 years of getting something you don’t want.
It’s a shoot yourself in the foot option.
Recall is one option. The best one is to cut the crap and allow the electorate a direct sa on an issue.
Indeed it is fraud to be elected on a lie. To take that one step further, if you fraudulently offer a policy view in order to get the public to vote you into office, it indicates you knew full well what the public wanted in order to be elected as ‘their’ representative. Once in office as the representative only to find you have changed your view, implies a desire to deceive in order to obtain gain.
I believe that to be an offense against the crown. ‘Fraud.’
Therefore, any and all elected officials should be charged with fraud if found to be deceiving the electorate in this fashion.
And add to this the term, ‘no taxation without representation.’
Representation is accountable. The electorate must make those who vie for office accountable for their commitments to the cause of constituents who vote for them. They believed at the time of voting they were to be represented in office by men/women of like minds. And that their cause was for the benefit of those constituents. To deviate from this promise is an outrageous deception.
Likewise, to once have office and follow policies the electorate was not made aware of during the run up to an election and only wheel them out once in power, is equal in deception if not more so. For example, Blair Brown and Straw, etc, deciding, behind closed doors, to have an open door policy on immigration in order to change the ethnicity of the country to follow a policy of multiculturalism. And to do so whilst fully being aware of not having been elected had they advised the population of their intention. In other words, they knew they would not have been elected had they been honest with the people.
This is not representation, it is ‘misrepresentation’ and should be unlawful in a any democratic society.
Hense the right of the citizens of this country to have the power to call for a referendum, as they do in Switzerland, should the policies being followed be found to be unacceptable to the electorate.
Had this been available to the British public we would not now be in the mess we are in.
Maude Elwes: It is not deception to put forward proposals which you believe in and intend to implement, but then find you are not able to implement them. It is up to the government to explain why it has failed to do so. Promises may be made in good faith on the basis of imprecise information (e.g. the true state of the economy) or may not be implemented because of events that could not be anticipated getting in the way (e.g. a recession limiting the money available). The ultimate sanction is political: the Government can be swept out of office.
Lord Norton: You are side lining. You must not go to the people with policies you know will get you voted into office and then decide, once in office, that it cannot be done. That is preposterous. It is fraud, because, the representative should have done his homework and having done that homework, put forth only those policies that can and will be implemented. Policies that are in his own sides manifesto. Anything outside the manifesto should go to the country for a referendum before being put into practice.
What you are describing is a scenario of ‘too many rats, I will work to rid you of them.’ Only later, after being voted in, saying, ‘sorry, rats don’t come when called, who knew.’
Politicians know well in advance what party policy is going to be. They know where they are being led, unless, you have blatant liars in the front. As with those who told us emphatically, ‘no increase in University fees,’ or, those who hid the truth of their extraordinary decision to change the ethnic make up of our society, without once telling us of their plans for multiculturalism. It was foisted on the people, like it or not. No vote and no debate.
As I wrote above, they do this when, should the public be aware of them, policies would not be voted in by the electorate In these circumstances they are not being open but duplicitous. No one in their right mind would vote for many of the policies government bring into place after the election is over.
The policies drip out bit by bit to a stunned, frustrated and confused people.
This has to stop. And a good way to stop it is, to throw the bounder out who lied to the people in the first place. And throw them out at once. Then the public should have a right of a vote of ‘no confidence’ toward a government which has lied.
Whips are essential for management and communication and for ensuring two-way flow of views between frontbenchers and backbenchers. Again, I can suggest some relevant reading.
==================
1. Why do they have their little books hidden away in locked safes?
Shouldn’t the contents of those books be forced into the public domain?
2. Has a whip ever offered a job to a rebel to get them to vote in line with government policy?
3. Has an MP been told they will be sacked from committees etc for rebelling?
4. Ditto with selection problems.
5. Has an MP every been offered or (denied) a peerage on the basis of voting.
It’s all done by nods and winks, old boy. Nothing in writing, you understand.
Still blackmail or bribery though.
But I concur a whipping system is a necessary component of our party political system, not least to guide those stumbling blearily through the lobbies in an all night session. What it needs is some members of each House to have the gumption occasionally to defy them when they are pushing the wrong vote.