The politics story of the day appears to be that concerning proposals to allow the people to petition Government and, if 100,000 signatures are collected, to have that issue debated in the Pantomime Parliament.
I am not going to get excited. While the idea sounds good in principle, we've been here before.
Remember early summer and the 'repeal bad laws' website which Nick Clegg revealed was a sham that they had no intention of acting upon? How is this going to be any different? It won't be.
Instinctively, I should be wanting to rail against Labour MP Paul Flynn who has argued: "The blogosphere is not an area that is open to sensible debate; it is dominated by the obsessed and the fanatical and we will get crazy ideas coming forward."
No Flynn, love... far be it from politicians to listen to those they are paid to represent.
But he also argues - probably rightly - that: "If we get the e-petitions in there will be some asking for Jeremy Clarkson to be prime minister, for Jedi and Darth Vader to be the religions of the country."
Already, we've seen one of the blogger celebrities, supposedly a libertarian, arguing that we should use it to reintroduce the death penalty.
What an utterly repugnant way of thinking.
It instantly put me in mind of a soundbite from Alex Jones in which he argues: "Not democracy, not mob rule - two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."
Though it is all academic because they are never going to do anything about anything we suggest, anyway. We know that already from the sham public consultation exercise on scrapping bad laws.
One of the more interesting quotes comes from The Guardian in which a 'Government source' is quoted as saying: "It may well mean that we see some difficult issues raised, such as withdrawal from the European Union, but that would put the onus on parliamentarians to convince one another of the many benefits of staying inside the European Union. You would have to win the argument."
Parliamentarians would have to convince each other? Why is that then? Because they know it is a waste of time trying to convince we, the people?
So, as an exercise in closing the gap between the public and the politicians, it is already a waste of time.
All that they are going to do - at best - is sit around and tell each other how they, the politicians, are right... and how they know best.
And maybe if all some have to offer is the reintroduction of the death penalty, they might have a point.
So, while this story makes for an interesting end of year distraction, I see nothing in it of merit to make me wish to step away from the position that the WRITTEN constitution - the Bill of Rights 1689, Habeas Corpus, Magna Carta et al - is the best way of ensuring that we live under freedom and in security.
Our constitutional documents - when applied - would protect us from tyrannical governments.
They would also protect us from tyrannical bloggers and the wolves of mob rule.
See also:
The Spectator - Government by Signature
John Redwood MP - Online Petitions and Democracy
Douglas Carswell - A Step Towards Direct Democracy
Daniel Hannan - Citizens' initiative procedures will restore our democracy
0 comments:
Post a Comment
This blog seeks to uphold the right to free speech. However, comment moderation is used to prevent the posting of comments which could be considered libelous/offensive etc. We do not, however, guarantee to publish all comments and we reserve the right to refuse to approve any comment submitted at our discretion. Views expressed are those of the comment author and do not neccesarily reflect those of this blog.