Monday, March 19, 2007

How Not to Run E Petitions: Example No 94

Yet another example of how the Number Ten E-Petitions have become a farce HERE.

4 comments:

Laurence Boyce said...

It is absurd the way that petitions are rejected because they’re supposedly not in the remit of the government or something. As if all the other petitions which are in the remit of the government are going to be acted on instantly. Petitions are just an opportunity to flag up an issue. They should only be rejected if the language they employ breaks the law in some way – this would be a tiny minority.

I’m still annoyed that my petition to remove the vote from old people got rejected. If questions concerning the electoral franchise are not in the remit of the government, then in whose remit are they exactly? And why were numerous petitions allowed which asked for a lowering of the voting age – same principle.

SimonW said...

Perhaps they are correct to reject it. Local authorities have a variety of powers which they use for the benefit(?) of their residents. Do we want central government interfering in local issues when the local authority and local residents are the democratic means for resolving issues? It's "devolution". Has the use of a local referendum been considered as a way of representing the views of local residents. I believe there are far too many e-petitions being accepted resulting in "valuable/good/important(insert your own adjective here)" ones being ignored.

mitch said...

Re: Tracey Crouch. She describes herself as a 'Conservative Parliamentary Spokesman' but is not an M.P. What is a 'Conservative Parliamentary Spokesman'? Is it a made up job title for people who can't get themselves elected but want to imply membership?

Anonymous said...

Mitch

I believe it is a term used to describe candidates. They can't call themselves candidates because it would trigger election expenses rules.