The PM has a new gimmick. We are invited to petition him via the interweb thingy.
Now I think it interesting in itself that a Prime Minister should so wrap himself in the purple to invite petitions, as if he were sovereign and we the petty subjects whose wishes he might deign to consider. But the content of the petitions themselves is getting quite weird.
Leading the pack is a petition to repeal the Hunting With Dogs Act 2004. But there is also one to “ignore the petition to repeal the hunting act 2004” and another (which no-one has signed) to “to ban the signing of petitions asking to repeal the hunting act 2004”.
Some are gloriously vague (“change renting laws in UK”); some insanely specific, requiring arcane knowledge and an odd personality to understand, let alone support. (E.g. We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to require A-G energy-efficiency ratings to make explicit the A+ and A++ categories (and any future, higher categories), so that consumers are aware that energy efficiencies greater than ‘A’ can be achieved with products so rated.”) Some are both vague and specialised at the same time. Some founded on malapropism. There are numerous semi-duplications, where individuals who might agree with an earlier, simpler, better-supported proposal, have added their own refinements, not caring that it may be a distraction from the main cause.
In short, all the faults of that fetish of radicals, participatory democracy, are on display. As are pretty much all the green-ink political obsessions.
My favourite: “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to replace the national anthem with ‘Gold’ by Spandau Ballet” – I urge you to support it. But there is something to give joy to everyone.
I agree with much of Guy’s posting; especially that bit concerning “purple” and petitioning. I also suspect that the whole thing is little better than an exercise in distraction and diversion: would that be trolling?
However, I must take issue with the following:
Thus, I am an exaple of the very thing Guy is complaining about. This repeats our long-standing, though cordial, disagreement on the actual wrongs of the National Identity Scheme.
So just what is it that makes each of the following better than their converse:
(i) earlier: surely implies having less thought than later; should this just read “better thought out”;
(ii) simpler: this does has its points, but if things were simple, there would be no disagreement;
(iii) better-supported: I am reminded of the difficulties with democracy, which risks foundering (especially with government and journalistic help) on the unthinking predudices of the massed peoples (concerning which, “earlier” and “simpler” are interesting components).
Best regards
There are a couple that people reading Samizdata might be interested in signing:
for a referendum on EU membership
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EUreferendum/
scrap ID Cards
They will of course be ignored, but could prove a little embarassing for Labour and help prove that ID Cards are not wanted.
Yes, Nigel,
But my point is less in opposition to refined consideration, of which I am a fan, than that offering refinements to other proposals misses the point of a “participative” process, just as surely as vagueness does.
The popular petition or proposition form excludes debate, trade-off, alternative, or rational discussion, which is one of the prime reasons it remains a shibboleth of the inheritors of the New Left. For those who expect The People to intuit what is right (i.e. agree with their own policy preference) in defiance of such bourgeois conceptions as evidence, reason, contending interests, or stability in human institutions, it is highly desirable that the middle be excluded.
We shuld all sign the one urging the PM to “stand on his head and juggle ice cream.”
I would also like to add this one to the list of libertarian petitions:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/
I feel petitions AGAINST specific laws (such as ID cards and the one above) that will give the government more reasons to get involved in people’s private lives are somewhat more useful than general axe-grinding ones (Ban this, ban that etc..).
Generally, though, it seems that TB has calculated that the population is diverse enough such that few policies (that he doesn’t agree with) would emerge with enough popularity. I hope on Europe and ID cards that calculation might be proved incorrect.
OT, a victory for the blogosphere:
LINK(Link)
h/t Insty
Doesn’t mean that the site owners can’t, though. Nor does that ruling protect us against the UK’s much more severe defamation laws. So please don’t all post libellous comments. It isn’t OK.
In re. petitioning the fons et origo, see:
(Link)
For the recond, I do not have an encylopaedic memory for these things, but myself wrote on the subject at the time, in a post called “Petitioning the monarch”.
something makes me doubt that this(Link) one will be listened to…
I’m delighted that, after a bit of refinement to the original petition, I’m now in agreement with Guy.
Best regards
Sir, do get on the programme please. Been submitting this on the petitions list for some time, including posting the link on No2id!
I do notice that any really serious requests that might just ask Blair something awkward to respond to are promptly deleted and not even acknowledged as having been posted (“computer error, awfully sorry old chap”). Example are the petitions that he suspend his position should he be questioned under caution on the Honours Abuse scandal, that he provide full details on his revolting wife’s use of public funds for her own personal benefit or that he release the security services report on the death of senior government advisor David Kelly and so on, none of which even appear on that list.
Surely one should “petition” the monarch (as, I believe, Mr Harrison did when he was cheated of the longitude price – and George III made sure that justice was done, whereas everyone else had cheated and abused Mr Harrison for years). Surely Mr Blair is not claiming to be King?
Perhaps it is part of the move to a Republic (in all but name) – after all many of the monarchist names (“Her Majesties ……” or “the Royal ……” ) and symbols have been removed from public bodies in recent years (and new security organisations, such as S.O.C.A., do not require their employees to sware an oath of loyality to the Queen).
Whether one thinks that the state should exist or not, surely it is better that government employees have a loyality to something other than the political masters of the day (and a loyality to “the people” is so vague as to be useless).
In the United States there is at least loyality to the Constitution (unread though it largely is) and many groups of government people, such as the Armed Forces, still sware loyality to it – rather than sware the meaningless “Pledge of Allegiance” (sworn to the flag and a lot of silly language – written by the socialist Bellamy brothers [Francis and Edward] because they hated the principles of the Constitution of the United States – few Americans seem to know the story of the Pledge, an unholy alliance of the socialist Bellamy brothers and 19th century flag making companies).
In this counrty there is no formal written constitution and the unwritten constitution depends, in large part, upon the role of the Monarch.
Without the role of the Crown the constitution here falls – and I certainly would not like to see it replaced with the sort of written constitution that modern politicians, administrators and academics would be likely to come up with.