Slashdot Mirror


Three Months of Britain's e-Petition System

eldavojohn writes "The idea seems simple. Provide feedback for your government via the internet. If enough people sign a petition, address it. That was the idea when an e-Petition site was launched in Nov 06 for Prime Minister Tony Blair. The BBC is reporting on the million or so petitions that the PM has received since the site went live. While most petitions are rejected or ignored, they have a top ten with one petition having 600,000 signers. Is this a valid way to provide feedback to the government or merely an exercise in keeping the populace happy?"

5 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. How about a ballot instead? by troll+-1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm from the UK, lived in the US for many years. This irks me a bit. When I first came to the US I was surprised at how much Americans get a real say in how their government runs.

    In many states people vote on everything from whether to build a dam to who's gonna be their sheriff and fire chief. In some places they even vote for judges. In the UK it seems the best they can ever do is a petition, which of course carries no real weight. When I lived in California I was amazed that people actually got to vote on medical marijuana. In the UK such a concept would be considered outrageous. I mean, a county in England, unlike a US state, couldn't even vote to extend pub opening hours. Tough decisions like that are always left to wise men in parliament.

    While I think the idea of an e-petition is good, I'd much rather see some real democracy. I don't remember a referendum ever in the UK about anything.

    Sorry for the off-topic rant, but it had to be said.

    1. Re:How about a ballot instead? by TheDugong · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm from the UK and live in Australia, which is somewhere between the US and the UK in this respect.

      The problem with "real democracy" is that there are a lot of ignorant people.

      For instance, Toowoomba in Queensland (QLD) which is under severe drought recently had a vote on whether to start using recycled water for drinking water, like most modern cities outside of Australia. The vote ended up being "no". The leader of the no campaign's main argument seemed to be that people will call the town "Poowoomba". The vote was held regardless of the fact that there was no other viable option anyway.

      The "wise man in parliament", QLD premier Peter Beattie, has now basically said "tough luck. There is no choice. Water is going to be recycled."

      The problem now is that will there be enough water in time.

      I am in no way anti-democracy and will defend ignorant people having their say. However, sometimes my jaw literally drops at the ignorance of a lot of voters (and the administrators for that matter). Surely there has to be some kind of happy medium?

  2. Big success for the government by Dan100 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This website was a stroke of genius for the government. Before, every few months they had the very embarrassing spectacle of the large wad of a paper petition being hand-delivered to Downing Street, usually with the petitioner flanked by photographers, with the result that the petition and its issue was splashed across the newspapers the next day.

    The last one I know of was a anti-drink driving campaign last December, where the parents of a teenager who'd been killed by a drunk delivered 16,000 signatures to No 10 calling for tighter drink-driving laws. The poor lad's picture was in all the papers the day after.

    Since the introduction of this website, that's all stopped. These petitions garner nothing more than a short story buried in BBC News. Downing Street is over-joyed as it has cut off another source of embarrassment.

  3. Re:Validity? by AGMW · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If road pricing was in place and I knew that driving on a motorway between 7-9am would cost me more than driving outside of that time I would see if I could change my travel plans. In effect reducing road congestion, which is the whole point of the bill.

    That's actually a good point and potentially worthwhile, but could this be achieved by other means because I REALLY don't want a tracking device in my car!

    A short story: A friend was recently called by a bunch of blackmailers who threatened his family unless he paid them some money. He obviously called the police who whisked him and his family away to a safe house and stationed an armed response unit near his house for when he came back to recieve the next call (somewhat surprising his father-in-law!). They caught them, as it happens, but there is NO WAY IN HELL that he will allow his wife and kids to drive around in a vehicle that ANYONE could track, and therefore aid in the finding and kidnapping of his family. It just won't happen! And don't tell me that "only the authorities" will have access to the system because I've worked in IT for over 20 years and I just don't believe you!

    Let alone the concept of the Gov being able to track you. I seriously don't swallow the "congestion" argument either as it must be incredibly expensive to throw this technology at the problem when a row of toll booths could do much the same, and increasing tax on petrol (move the Road Fund Licence - UK Only - onto petrol too!) will mean you pay more for a more thirsty car, or if you drive it more aggressively, or if you drive in rush hour. Not perhaps quite the granularity of satallite tracking, but way-way-way cheaper to setup!

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk