e petitions, MP's - whats the point?

This wound me up on Friday night when I read it in The London Evening Standard. I thought my mood would pass but it hasn't so maybe this post will cleanse me of my negativity to all things Parliamentary at the moment.

The first Commons debate triggered by an e-petition turned into a farce last night. More than 240,00 peaople had used a governement website to call for a debate on withdrawing all benefits from convicted rioters. A three hours slot was set aside - but the subject was only mentioned by one MP, Tom Brake.

Regardless of the merits of the petition, they couldn't even be bothered to debate it or express a view.

[maviczap]

So who do they represent then?

Useless bunch of overpaid twonks

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by The Idle Biker

This wound me up on Friday night when I read it in The London Evening Standard. I thought my mood would pass but it hasn't so maybe this post will cleanse me of my negativity to all things Parliamentary at the moment.

The first Commons debate triggered by an e-petition turned into a farce last night. More than 240,00 peaople had used a governement website to call for a debate on withdrawing all benefits from convicted rioters. A three hours slot was set aside - but the subject was only mentioned by one MP, Tom Brake.

Regardless of the merits of the petition, they couldn't even be bothered to debate it or express a view.

Write to your MP and ask why they didn't discuss?

Don't just moan about it on the internet/down the pub etc - raise your concerns with the people who can do something about it.

Is that 24k or 240k? The latter should have gone through a committee for discussion, so the merits of any debate in the house would have been discussed and should be available to the public.

Originally Posted by orose

Is that 24k or 240k? The latter should have gone through a committee for discussion, so the merits of any debate in the house would have been discussed and should be available to the public.

Definitely said 240,000. I assume it did go to the committee who actually set aside the allotted parliamentary time for the debate. It was the debate part that never happened.

They needed over 100,000 e-signatures to trigger the debate

I have just written this to my MP

"I was very disappointed to read in the London Evening Standard
that
"The first Commons debate triggered by an e-petition turned into a farce last night. More than 240,00 peaople had used a governement website to call for a debate on withdrawing all benefits from convicted rioters. A three hours slot was set aside - but the subject was only mentioned by one MP, Tom Brake."
Fos such a monumentous occasion of a debate triggered by the voice of the people I would have expected at least some effort to be given by my local MP and MP's in general.
Is this what we should expect when MP's actually get engagement from the public on an issue in significant numbers?
There are alot of people in the country now asking why should we bother.
"

Originally Posted by hardhat_harry

They needed over 100,000 e-signatures to trigger the debate

I have just written this to my MP

"I was very disappointed to read in the London Evening Standard
that
"The first Commons debate triggered by an e-petition turned into a farce last night. More than 240,00 peaople had used a governement website to call for a debate on withdrawing all benefits from convicted rioters. A three hours slot was set aside - but the subject was only mentioned by one MP, Tom Brake."
Fos such a monumentous occasion of a debate triggered by the voice of the people I would have expected at least some effort to be given by my local MP and MP's in general.
Is this what we should expect when MP's actually get engagement from the public on an issue in significant numbers?
There are alot of people in the country now asking why should we bother.
"

This

[Bri w]

I couldn't find a mention of it in Hansard. Was there even one word raised in Chambers?

[Bri w]

"Dear Sir,

Reference the article in Friday's London Standard pertaining to the e-petition that generated 240,000 signatures.

"The first Commons debate triggered by an e-petition turned into a farce last night. More than 240,00 peaople had used a governement website to call for a debate on withdrawing all benefits from convicted rioters. A three hours slot was set aside - but the subject was only mentioned by one MP, Tom Brake."

Where you in the House, and party to this farce, or didn't you even have the courtesy to respond to the demands of the people? Irrespective of the far reaching legallity of the proposed withdrawel of benefits, the people of this country had raised a question that demanded better respect than that shown to it on Friday.

At a time when engagement with politics and our representatives is at an all time low, e.g. Sir Stuart Bell's record in recent years, I had hoped that the current term of office would see a dramatic turn round in performance from all parties.

Can you tell me why I should continue to care about the politics of this country when it would appear the politicians couldn't care less about the electorate when they ask a pertinent question? Don't forget, those that actually signed the petition are actually those that still care. Disenfranchising those people would leave tumbleweed blowing through our political landscape.

Regards,"

Do you think my MP will respond with more than just a "would you like to contribute to my campaign funds, as he did last time?

[maviczap]

Originally Posted by Bri w

"Dear Sir,

Reference the article in Friday's London Standard pertaining to the e-petition that generated 240,000 signatures.

"The first Commons debate triggered by an e-petition turned into a farce last night. More than 240,00 peaople had used a governement website to call for a debate on withdrawing all benefits from convicted rioters. A three hours slot was set aside - but the subject was only mentioned by one MP, Tom Brake."

Where you in the House, and party to this farce, or didn't you even have the courtesy to respond to the demands of the people? Irrespective of the far reaching legallity of the proposed withdrawel of benefits, the people of this country had raised a question that demanded better respect than that shown to it on Friday.

At a time when engagement with politics and our representatives is at an all time low, e.g. Sir Stuart Bell's record in recent years, I had hoped that the current term of office would see a dramatic turn round in performance from all parties.

Can you tell me why I should continue to care about the politics of this country when it would appear the politicians couldn't care less about the electorate when they ask a pertinent question? Don't forget, those that actually signed the petition are actually those that still care. Disenfranchising those people would leave tumbleweed blowing through our political landscape.

Regards,"

Do you think my MP will respond with more than just a "would you like to contribute to my campaign funds, as he did last time?

Switches printer on and finds 2nd class stamp