We all know that the 'People'
get to vote at elections, albeit an increasing number don't bother, but between them the only avenues available to express
dissent is to take to the streets or raise a petition.
The street protests over the war in Iraq, on 13th February 2003, numbered
around million in the UK and 36 million around the world but as we know
achieved nothing. In general street protests come and go and seldom achieve their
aim.
Petitions, have now been formalised by the government with the ability to raise
a petition on the government’s website. The petitions are up for six months like
this one currently running on Net Zero started by me under THA banner.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
After 10,000 signature you are guaranteed a government response, which we have
had, and if the petition reaches 100,000 you might, but it is not definite,
get a debate in parliament. The petition currently has over 21,000 'votes' and
runs until 27th April this year.
Private petitions delivered to No 10 Downing Street are another route to go
but, unlike the government's official website, do not guarantee a response let
alone a possible debate in parliament.
Either way, petitions or protests, are fairly blunt instruments and
will change little with government's able to ignore both. This
applies to protests and petitions against or demanding changes to
government policy or demanding the government consider a new policy not on their
current legislative programme. In the first case it is true parliament has
to approve the policy but a government with a reasonable majority is seldom
defeated.
So, unless the government initiates a referendum, as they did over staying in the Common
Market and EU exit, the votes on devolution and the one on AV, then the
people are pretty powerless to change a government's mind having to wait until
the next election to voice their opinion.
Our fourth demand 'The People's Consent' gives the people the power to initiate
three types of referendum. The first is to recommend the government
considers new laws, the second is to stop a piece of legislation and the third
allows the people to challenge the decisions of their government or official
bodies - by elected and appointed officials, including ministers and judges.
To prevent endless referendums being raised they would need to meet set
benchmarks before being approved and would only carry weight if the vote, when
held, passed a set turnout criteria and a received a clear majority for the
proposal.
As is apparent government policy is often determined by well-funded
professional lobbying groups so it is time the 'People' had the mechanisms to
demand its government take certain actions or stop a particular
policy. Our petition for a referendum on the government's £3 trillion Net
Zero policy, which has no democratic mandate, is of course a case in point.
After a quick start voting has slowed so I recently arranged for 100 postcards, promoting our petition, to be sent to likely MPs asking them to support and promote our petition. I have other avenues I shall pursue over the coming months but without our fourth demand set in law it is very difficult for the people to be heard.
Finally, as the 'Establishment'
discovered, to their costs, with the Brexit vote, the ‘People’ do have their own
opinions and real democracy should have the mechanisms for the ‘People’ to demand
a referendum.
Niall,
ReplyDeleteIn this article you have referenced 4 occasions when a referendum was held and you managed to get the details of two of them wrong.
Firstly, there wasn’t a referendum on joining the ‘Common Market’, the UK had already joined 2 years previously. The referendum question was whether the UK should remain a member.
Secondly, there wasn’t a vote on ‘PR’. There was a vote on AV, which isn’t a proportional system. So, even though you are a strong proponent of referenda you have ably demonstrated one of the major criticisms, i.e. people often do not understand what they are voting on.
A bit pedandic but fair comment.
ReplyDeleteI of course know the referendum was to stay in the Common Market and as to AV it may not strictly be PR, as STV is, but it is certainly a a new way to vote that is not FPTP.
However, my main point was that the government has offered referendums in the past and we the people should be able to have the mechanisms to get a referendum held on a topic of our choosing or more importantly to STOP a piece of government legislation or to challenge an official decision.
The electoral system the wily Cameron proposed was *less* proportional than FPTP. Perhaps in rejecting it the electorate was less wet behind their ears than might be supposed, but Cameron got his way in being able to say the people did not want electoral reform.
DeleteIt was even more cynical than that. When this referendum bill was passing through Parliament an amendment was proposed to include a proportional option to the bill.
DeleteFor some reason MPs decided not to allow the people a vote on a proportional option. Funny old thing.
Niall, you are allowed to admit that you were wrong. Saying AV is 'not strictly proportional' is incorrect, it is not proportional at all, unless by pure chance but that can happen under FPTP.
Delete