Just had my first e-petition rejected by No 10 - What should I do?

[Guest]

My submission

Introduce laws to encourage the formation and success of new political parties

Responsible department: Cabinet Office

Parliament should imaginatively promote democracy by using the law to encourage the formation and success of new parties. It should seek to ensure that this decade is one in which we see the election in large numbers of people who represent alternative opinion from the existing political parties. This need not be done by a change in the electoral system. We have already had a referendum on that matter. But to enhance democracy it should be pursued by all other possible means.

The rejection

This e-petition has been rejected with the following reason given:

E-petitions cannot be used to request action on issues that are outside the responsibility of the government. This includes:

- party political material
- commercial endorsements including the promotion of any product, service or publication
- issues that are dealt with by devolved bodies, eg The Scottish Parliament
- correspondence on personal issues

[french frank]

What should you do? Forget it, I suppose.

Political parties come into being because there's felt to be a specific need, from outside government, and those who feel the need get themselves organised. Both the SDP and UKIP (and the old 'Ecology Party' = Green Party) did just that.

I would be quite interested to know how the Greens managed to get themselves organised enough to form a party of national standing (MEPs and an MP - and counting).

[Lateralthinking1]

Political parties come into being because there's felt to be a specific need from outside government

But only if they feel that there is conceivable access and they can afford it. That is why nothing changes. The petition would have concentrated Parliamentary minds on what democracy means away from self-interest.

I am unsure which of the grounds mentioned applies. Are they not going to discuss caps on donations and even taxpayers' money going into party political campaigns? What is the difference?

[ahinton]

My submission

Introduce laws to encourage the formation and success of new political parties

Responsible department: Cabinet Office

Parliament should imaginatively promote democracy by using the law to encourage the formation and success of new parties. It should seek to ensure that this decade is one in which we see the election in large numbers of people who represent alternative opinion from the existing political parties. This need not be done by a change in the electoral system. We have already had a referendum on that matter. But to enhance democracy it should be pursued by all other possible means.

The rejection

This e-petition has been rejected with the following reason given:

E-petitions cannot be used to request action on issues that are outside the responsibility of the government. This includes:

- party political material
- commercial endorsements including the promotion of any product, service or publication
- issues that are dealt with by devolved bodies, eg The Scottish Parliament
- correspondence on personal issues

I assume that, of the four (though they presumably are not intended to represent an exhaustive list) categories quoted for the purported purpose of illustrating the kinds of issues that are deemed to be outside the area of Parliamentary responsibility, the one applicable to your submission is the first and, pehaps to some extent, also the second. Frankly, however, I cannot see any reasoned argument against this rejection, since I would not personally expect it to be a legitimate responsibility of Parliament to encourage the formation, let alone the success, of new political parties; not only are the questions left open as to who Parliament should encourage to form such parties and how they might be formed differently or more easily under such Parliamentary encouragement than would otherwise be the case, it is impossible to see how the "success" of any such party can be encouraged by Parliament. It would, for example, be neither lawful nor acceptable for the party in power at any given time to use Parliamentary facilities paid for by the electorate as a whole for the purpose of encouraging the success of its own political party, let alone those of any new ones on the block (which would in any case risk being a self-defeating exercise).

Frankly, therefore, I'm as surprised that you've even considered submitting this as you seem to be at its rejection but, leaving that aside for one moment, what are your ultimate motives and aims here? Are you dissatisfied with what you perceive to be an insufficient number of active political parties in Britain today and do you think that the promotion of democracy (that you cite as your reason for petition submission) of necessity presumes the need for greater numbers of active political parties (and, for that matter, do you believe that this might be what the majority of the electorate actually wants?). Whatever your motives and aims, does it not in any case occur to you that the more successful political parties that field candidates in General Elections, the less likely a majority government outcome will become? If so, do you therefore also believe that more coalitions would better serve the electorate than more majority governments would do?

[amateur51]

Lats I think it might be worth dropping these people a line.

I know Steve Pittam & Judith Prager - they're very helpful, straightforward & committed to democracy.

http://www.jrct.org.uk/text.asp?section=000100020002

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks Am.

For ahinton I have just put together off the top of my head this slightly pompous sounding (apologies) piece for discussion:

Parliament was introduced by the Acts of Union. The English purpose of it was to ensure that Scotland would not choose a monarch different from the one on the English throne. While we tend to see Parliament in the modern era as enabling, and think of it vaguely as democratic for that reason, its culture from the beginning emphasized the stifling of outside voices. One can draw a direct line from its original raison d'etre to the dominance of a handful of modern political parties.

I believe that it is this culture that needs to be updated for current times. Inbuilt assumptions about representation in Parliament being structured in favour of a small number of groups has led to narrow policies, an absence of innovative thinking, cosy consensus and remoteness from the broad needs and objectives of the general public. They encourage blase perspectives. They also place service to those political groups by their members above service to the population as a whole.

Change can only come from within. We have proof that the alternative hasn't worked. If there are insufficient numbers of enlightened individuals in Parliament to work towards changing the political structure, then this needs to be nudged. In short, almost every MP recognises that current political parties only represent a narrow range of viewpoints and it would benefit us all if they worked hard to address this.

I have no comments whatsoever on the benefits or disbenefits of coalition. My view is that democracy should have no time for the manipulating of systems so that they deliver a desired result. It should start on a level playing field which incorporates the old and the new and is fair to each. Sadly this is not the case at present, nor is it anything like any system being proposed.

[ahinton]

Thanks Am.

For ahinton I have just put together off the top of my head this slightly pompous sounding (apologies) piece for discussion:

Parliament was introduced by the Acts of Union. The English purpose of it was to ensure that Scotland would not choose a monarch different from the one on the English throne. While we tend to see Parliament in the modern era as enabling, and think of it vaguely as democratic for that reason, its culture from the beginning emphasized the stifling of outside voices. One can draw a direct line from its original raison d'etre to the dominance of a handful of modern political parties.

I believe that it is this culture that needs to be updated for current times. Inbuilt assumptions about representation in Parliament being structured in favour of a small number of groups has led to narrow policies, an absence of innovative thinking, cosy consensus and remoteness from the broad needs and objectives of the general public. They encourage blase perspectives. They also place service to those political groups by their members above service to the population as a whole.

Change can only come from within. We have proof that the alternative hasn't worked. If there are insufficient numbers of enlightened individuals in Parliament to work towards changing the political structure, then this needs to be nudged. In short, almost every MP recognises that current political parties only represent a narrow range of viewpoints and it would benefit us all if they worked hard to address this.

I have no comments whatsoever on the benefits or disbenefits of coalition. My view is that democracy should have no time for the manipulating of systems so that they deliver a desired result. It should start on a level playing field which incorporates the old and the new and is fair to each. Sadly this is not the case at present, nor is it anything like any system being proposed.

Thanks very much; that certainly goes some way to outlining why you've done what you did. HOwever, the problems that I have with it - and that I still have with the premises of your initial submission (for whose specific motivations and aims you have nevertheless yet to account) - are as follows.

Whilst you're broadly correct in your remarks on the origin of Parliament in Britain, this relevance of this particular aspect of its status will inevitably be up for grabs when the Union dissolves, as is far from unlikely - so what then?

As to your second paragraph, whilst the principles that you outline are welcome and the statements that you make are not necessarily untrue, I remain to be convinced that specifically blaming the institution of Parliament itself for these possible and actual shortcomings rather than ascribing them to the attitudes of individual elected members thereof is, I think, less than fair and, for that matter, arguably less than democratic; "inbuilt assumptions" are capable of demolition or rebuilding without the need for more active political parties and, au contraire, increases in numbers of active political parties would of themselves be no guarantee that such assumptions would be any less "inbuilt" than they may be now.

Your paragraph 3, whilst again embracing issues of genuine concern, gives me no reason to believe that those issues would, or indeed even could, be addressed merely by the existence of greater numbers of active political parties, especially were the electorate's voting decisions to make little or no difference to the identities and party affiliations of the occupants of Parliamentary seats following each General Election; however, there is another factor at work here which I do not believe that you have taken sufficienly on board - and that is the outcome of Margaret Thatcher's overtly expressed desire some three decades ago to pull not only the Conservative party but all the active political parties to the right, one inevitable consequence of which (whether or not it may in truth be ascribable to her personal credit or discredit) is that the differences between the main active political parties today are considerably less than they were pre-Thatcher and there appears to be little obvious certainty that the addition of more active parties to the political arena would of itself make any difference to this state of affairs unless sufficient numbers of the electorate could be persuaded to vote for their candidates on the assumption that these new parties really are - or at least seem to be - quite substantially different to any of the main ones that we have today.

As to your last paragraph, I do not see how it would be possible for democracy to "start on a level playing field" without the prior establishement of such a playing field and, not only could this obviously not be brought about overnight, it also remains unclear how and under whose auspices it might be created over however long its creation might take.

So - what remains unexplained after this is how and why you might expect Parliament to have a duty to the electorate to encourage the creation of new political parties, how and why it should be expected to encourage the "success" of such parties, what kinds of difference in General Election results you might expect if the majority of constituencies field considerably larger numbers of candidates in them and whether or not you assume that such a situation would be more likely to bring about coalitions, especially given your expression of reluctance to comment on the benefits or otherwise of coalition in the first place.

[Flosshilde]

While I largely agree with the basic points Frenchie & ahinton make in their first posts - that political parties arise from a felt need, rather than any government action - I don't think that the subject of your petition was 'party political' in the usual sense, since it did not refer to any existing parties, nor say where on the political spectrum the new parties should be.

However, I don't think you'd get anywhere protesting about it.

I think the time for submitting evidence to the enquirey into party funding is past, but did the report make any reference to funding new parties? Its main proposal (or the one that got most publicity) seemed to be that parties should be funded according to the votes they got. A new party, of course, won't have gained any votes as it wouldn't have participated in an election, so it wouldn't get any state funding - making it even more difficult to start one up.

[Lateralthinking1]

Flosshilde - You note a particular concern of mine. It should send a shudder down every spine that funding for a future election should be based on votes cast in the previous one. That will strongly reinforce the semi-dictatorial nature of a system in which the same old political parties are elected time and again. Yet another inbuilt advantage over and above political parties not yet formed and of course those that exist which are not elected. It is actually the reverse of a golfing handicap, if I might use that analogy. It is wholly typical of these times that it is seen broadly as acceptable. Perhaps the phrase "survival of the fittest" should be changed to "survival of the fittest-and-especially-assisted" because this is now generally the way. Philosophically it is perverse but I suspect we can learn a lot about power which now requires boosters and discards most other components. Call it feeble.

Turning to ahinton, that the relevance of Parliament's status based on the Acts of Union will be up for grabs when the Union dissolves is an interesting observation. I think you are right and hence that my idea could be ahead of its time. It is then that questions will be asked. For example could England live with almost permanent Conservative rule, as it seems would be likely, just as there was one party rule for many decades in the economic power house that is Portugal? Expect yet another constitutional crisis. Far better I think to address the issues now. Of course, one party dominance is a different matter to multi-party dominance but prospects of that would surely introduce a broader dialogue. Be ready for a scenario in which deals are done quickly "for the sake of democracy" to give Labour and the Lib Dems even more privilege in comparison to, say, the New English Radicals.

Actually, I do not blame Parliament as an institution for its horribly set ways. Indeed I am more inclined to blame individual representatives both now and historically. While the culture began with the Acts of Union, those Acts in another sense were a kind of small "c" conservative reform. Reform therefore has never been specifically prohibited by its standing as some once witnessed with the Reform Acts. The emergence of the Labour Party is another case in point. There were also Communists although by 1980 when I decided I wanted to invite one to my school, it was to the Lords that I had to go. The poor old Commonwealth Party had long been forgotten. People like John Nott had stopped pretending they were National Liberals and no one was being elected on that ticket anymore. The SDP was about to do something rather bigger than the Greens do now and it was all portrayed in the media as like defying the laws of gravity. The old reactionary tone of the place was becoming universal, aided and abetted by changes in schooling, university entry, private enterprise and European politics where bloody big boxes were now best apparently.

Margaret's stated intention to move all political parties to the right did not require a socialist equity of movement. Ironically, where it appears that there is little difference between the major parties, it is generally because the Conservatives have hardly moved at all. My feeling about that statement is that it was like much in politics, both deep in conviction and shallow. It sounds like it was one of those clever soundbite remarks - "The Lady's not for turning" - while at the same time having Friedman and Joseph in its undertow. They no doubt saw clearly the way the world was turning and was being turned and, of course, they were as blinkered as a horse. The comment did not apply to the National Front, as was, for how further right could that go before falling off the edge completely? When one looks at the e-petitions site what is shocking to a liberal is the sheer number of submissions that are very right wing indeed. That suggests perhaps in some ways that the ex-PM failed in her objectives. My assessment of that situation is it represents the minimal access to ideas the general public is given. It then turns inwards to baser instinct. It is encouraged by a system that accommodates the "unacceptable" being the only opposition with a bit of strength on the outside.

A level playing field can be created overnight, at least in political terminology. A week can be a long time in politics, as Wilson said. Even if it isn't, there can be a sea change within months. If a smoking ban, the start of a war on Iraq, the ending of an American space programme, and the go-ahead to a hundred Chinese airports can be introduced "overnight", then virtually anything can be with the will to do it. Parliament could quickly pass legislation introducing into the schools curriculum education on the setting up of political and semi-political groups as a part of its citizenship agenda. Just as there are rightly requirements on those coming into this country to accept British values, so it should be that those values are presented as in a process of development rather than merely static. This appears already to apply to every area other than democracy so why not here? And even in politics tuition, electoral reform considerations are permitted but maybe that's because they will never win the day and are hence no threat.

Similarly local authorities should be required by Parliament under legislation to provide adult education courses in forming political parties. Charities, large neighbourhood groups, those who shop at Tescos, world music aficionados - there is no reason why any of these and many more should not be seeking election to Parliament. They are prohibited from doing so because of a lame acceptance of the status quo, encouraged by the existing parties in Parliament, and of course the all important funding issue. Parliament should open its mind to the possibility of putting a cap on existing donations and only providing taxpayers money to parties that have never fought an election before. Some money could go to FoR3. We welcome frenchfrank to Westminster.

[french frank]

Charities, large neighbourhood groups, those who shop at Tescos, world music afficionado - there is no reason why any of these and many more should not be seeking election to Parliament. They are prohibited from doing so because of a lame acceptance of the status quo, encouraged by the existing parties in Parliament, and of course the all important funding issue.

But a political party has to stand for political ideals, ideals which relate in a general way to governing the country. Why would Tesco shoppers or world music fans have any political opinions in common with each other? Why would they want to be elected to parliament other than to pursue their own narrow interests? Their problem in getting elected wouldn't be funding: it would be the fact that most voters wouldn't want to vote for them.

[Serial_Apologist]

Flosshilde - You note a particular concern of mine. It should send a shudder down every spine that funding for a future election should be based on votes cast in the previous one. That will strongly reinforce the semi-dictatorial nature of a system in which the same old political parties are elected time and again. It will give those an inbuilt advantage over and above political parties not yet formed and of course those that exist which are not elected. It is actually the reverse of a golfing handicap, if I might use that analogy, and it is wholly typical of these times that it is seen broadly as acceptable. Perhaps the phrase "survival of the fittest" should change to "survival of the fittest and especially assisted" because this is now generally the way. Philosophically it is perverse but I suspect we can learn a lot about power which now requires boosters and discards most other components.

Turning to ahinton, that the relevance of Parliament's status based on the Acts of Union will be up for grabs when the Union dissolves is an interesting observation. I think you are right and hence that my idea could be ahead of its time. It is then that questions will be asked. For example could England live with almost permanent Conservative rule, as it seems would be likely, just as there was one party rule for many decades in the economic power house that is Portugal? Expect yet another constitutional crisis. Far better I think to address the issues now. Of course, one party dominance is a different matter to multi-party dominance but prospects of that would surely introduce a broader dialogue. Be ready for a scenario in which deals are done quickly "for the sake of democracy" to give Labour and the Lib Dems even more privilege by comparison to, say, the New English Radicals.

Actually, I do not blame Parliament as an institution for its horribly set ways. Indeed I am more inclined to blame individual representatives both now and historically. While the culture began with the Acts of Union, those Acts in another sense were a kind of small "c" conservative reform. Reform therefore has never been specifically prohibited by its standing as some once witnessed with the Reform Acts. The emergence of the Labour Party is another case in point. There were also Communists although by 1980 when I decided I wanted to invite one to my school, it was to the Lords that I had to go. The poor old Commonwealth Party had long been forgotten. People like John Nott had stopped pretending they were National Liberals and no one was being elected on that ticket anymore. The SDP was about to do something rather bigger than the Greens do now and it was all portrayed in the media as like defying the laws of gravity. The old reactionary tone of the place was becoming universal, aided and abetted by changes in schooling, university entry, private enterprise and European politics where bloody big boxes were now best apparently.

Margaret's stated intention to move all political parties to the right did not require a socialist equity of movement. Ironically, where it appears that there is little difference between the major parties, it is generally because the Conservatives have hardly moved at all. My feeling about that statement is that it was like much in politics, both deep in conviction and shallow. It sounds like it was one of those clever soundbite remarks - "The Lady's not for turning" - while at the same time having Friedman and Joseph in its undertow. They no doubt saw clearly the way the world was turning and was being turned and, of course, they were as blinkered as a horse. The comment did not apply to the National Front, as was, for how further right could that go before falling off the edge completely? When one looks at the e-petitions site what is shocking to a liberal is the sheer number of submissions that are very right wing indeed. That suggests perhaps in some ways that the ex-PM failed in her objectives. My assessment of that situation is it represents the minimal access to ideas the general public is given. It then turns inwards to baser instinct. It is encouraged by a system that accommodates the "unacceptable" being the only opposition with a bit of strength on the outside.

A level playing field can be created overnight, at least in political terminology. A week may be a long time in politics as Wilson once said and even if it isn't there can be a sea change within months. If a smoking ban, the start of a war on Iraq, the ending of an American space programme, can be introduced "overnight", then virtually anything can be with the will to do it. Parliament could pass legislation introducing into the schools curriculum education on the setting up of political and semi-political groups as a part of its citizenship agenda. Just as there are rightly requirements on those coming into this country to accept British values, so it should be that those values are presented as in a process of development rather than merely static. This appears already to apply to every area other than democracy so why not there? Even in politics tuition, electoral reform considerations are permitted but perhaps that is because they will never win the day.

Similarly local authorities should be required by Parliament under legislation to provide adult education courses in forming political parties. Charities, large neighbourhood groups, those who shop at Tescos, world music afficionado - there is no reason why any of these and many more should not be seeking election to Parliament. They are prohibited from doing so because of a lame acceptance of the status quo, encouraged by the existing parties in Parliament, and of course the all important funding issue. Parlaiment should therefore open its mind to the possibility of putting a cap on donations and only providing taxpayers money to parties that have never fought an election before.

I certainly agree strongly with that last sentance, Lat. But I fail to see what motivation parliament, consisting as it does of the political relationship of power at any given time, not some constitutional abstraction as you appear to imply, would have in instituting facilitations for the setting up of new political parties. Political parties arise from the issues arising at any juncture in the same way the balance of power as expressed by the electorate expresses itself; they appear initially as pressure groups fighting to preserve or abolish this or that, and if they can gain enough supporters and enough dosh from them or supportive interests, they might grow into political parties wishing or not to put themselves up for office at local, national or European level. It is an organic process - nobody in the Establishment is going to hand out (or down, since it would be a pretty patronising as well as deliberately misleading initiative even were it to happen) advice let alone readies that could lead to their own disestablishment; it all has to be learned grass roots up, by trial and errol, as my Bristolian friends would put it.

[Lateralthinking1]

frenchfrank - Respectfully I disagree. Shops - even forums - are forever tailoring to a "constituency". Absolutely everything is a "survey" made solid. Here's another example - radio stations. Sometimes these groups keep it narrow - the playlists of Classic FM - and sometimes they broaden out - Waitrose Essentials. Interestingly it isn't just income related although that plays a part. Your house, your car, your ethics - they know who everyone is and have their kinds of people. And we know who we are.

In cities or neighbourhoods, it is even more natural. I know what the common themes of the locals here are and they join in areas where existing parties divide. How about a London Party or the Party of Yorkshire? I think they are more self-defining than the political packages on offer. Certainly this would be true of the Muslim Party or the Jewish Party, not that I would particularly like to see them. It might even be true of the Union of Walkers, the Scientists, Proms 2015 and the Horticultural Front. In apparently narrow bases, there are often distinct broader philosophies which help by being differently shaped.

s-a - I agree that no politician is going to do it unless compelled, hence the e-petition. My idea was put forward to change the perspectives inside the house as much as any outcome, albeit temporarily. The very reporting of it would shift public perceptions.

On your other point, the main parties seem to me to be rather like paying taxes or attending funerals. The public sees them as an inevitable part of life but has no enthusiasm. It just feels held to ransom. When people want 5 Live's Saturday sports programme to be replaced by a programme reporting mass gatherings of 92 distinct political groups in stadiums we might be getting there.

[Serial_Apologist]

frenchfrank - Respectfully I disagree. Shops - even forums - are forever tailoring to a "constituency". Absolutely everything is a "survey" made solid. Here's another example - radio stations. Sometimes these groups keep it narrow - the playlists of Classic FM - and sometimes they broaden out - Waitrose Essentials. Interestingly it isn't just income related although that plays a part. Your house, your car, your ethics - they know who everyone is and have their kinds of people. And we know who we are.

In cities or neighbourhoods, it is even more natural. I know what the common themes of the locals here are and they join in areas where existing parties divide. How about a London Party or the Party of Yorkshire? I think they are more self-defining than the political packages on offer. Certainly this would be true of the Muslim Party or the Jewish Party, not that I would particularly like to see them. It might even be true of the Union of Walkers, the Scientists, Proms 2015 and the Horticultural Front. In apparently narrow bases, there are often distinct broader philosophies which help by being differently shaped.

Slogans:

The Union of Walkers - "We set the pace"

The Scientists - "We are in full knowledge of all the details"

Proms 2015 - "Your request is our command"

The Horticultural Front - "We are the one true grass roots party"

[Lateralthinking1]

Slogans:

The Union of Walkers - "We set the pace"

The Scientists - "We are in full knowledge of all the details"

Proms 2015 - "Your request is our command"

The Horticultural Front - "We are the one true grass roots party"

(FoR3 - "Now it's YOUR call")

[Serial_Apologist]

frenchfrank - Respectfully I disagree. Shops - even forums - are forever tailoring to a "constituency". Absolutely everything is a "survey" made solid. Here's another example - radio stations. Sometimes these groups keep it narrow - the playlists of Classic FM - and sometimes they broaden out - Waitrose Essentials. Interestingly it isn't just income related although that plays a part. Your house, your car, your ethics - they know who everyone is and have their kinds of people. And we know who we are.

In cities or neighbourhoods, it is even more natural. I know what the common themes of the locals here are and they join in areas where existing parties divide. How about a London Party or the Party of Yorkshire? I think they are more self-defining than the political packages on offer. Certainly this would be true of the Muslim Party or the Jewish Party, not that I would particularly like to see them. It might even be true of the Union of Walkers, the Scientists, Proms 2015 and the Horticultural Front. In apparently narrow bases, there are often distinct broader philosophies which help by being differently shaped.

s-a - I agree that no politician is going to do it unless compelled, hence the e-petition. My idea was put forward to change the perspectives inside the house as much as any outcome, albeit temporarily. The very reporting of it would shift public perceptions.

On your other point, the main parties seem to me to be rather like paying taxes or attending funerals. The public see them as an inevitable part of life but has no enthusiasm. It just feels held to ransom. When people want 5 Live's Saturday sports programme to be replaced by a programme reporting mass gatherings of 92 distinct political groups in stadiums we might be getting there.

I see what you mean Lat; this would certainly work as one possible model of the soviet, the neighbourhood/works council as originally envisaged. But seeing it arising our of an e-petition seems as illusory as a flea climbing up the back leg of an elephant intent on having sex with the elephant. These things arise as a challenge to existing power structures - dual power - not from non-existant benevolence on the part of those who will always cling to power, unless you can first get a government elected on a radical programme committed to sanctioning such new organs of power... and that in itself involves a whole other set of preconditions worthy of discussion elsewhere - the thread's gone rather quiet of late. To grab an even worse cliche, I think you're putting the cart before the horse.