What is the point of e-petitions?

Top Gear presenters Is this how the cabinet would look if e-petitioners had their way?

Related Stories

E-petitions stand every chance of proving popular, and maybe even too popular for their own good.

Any petitioner securing more than 100,000 signatures will expect a debate in the House of Commons.

These will take place in time allocated for backbench debates, of which just six days remain before April.

The leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young, says extra time may be allowed. It is understood an additional six days could be provided.

But the slots are much sought after by MPs with their own subjects for debate, who even if granted more days might not be willing to hand them all over to the concerns of petitioners.

If successful petitions outnumber spaces in the parliamentary schedule, frustration could result.

Already the Daily Express says 65,000 people have expressed support for a referendum on EU membership.

They would all have to sign up on the e-petitions website for their opinions to count, but it indicates the target figure might be easily obtainable for some causes.

'Bit tougher'

Earlier this year the Sun won 100,000 supporters for its own petition to freeze fuel tax.

In 2007 almost 1.8 million registered their objection to road-pricing on the now defunct Downing Street petitions site. A demand to make the TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister got almost half way to that target.

Start Quote

Tony Blair said there were always 1.8 million people against road charging, now we have their e-mail addresses”

End Quote John McTernan Former Blair adviser

One of the campaigners for a death penalty debate - Paul Staines, who blogs as Guido Fawkes - is an unlikely advocate for a higher bar.

He said: "I'm very confident that I'll get 100,000 signatures in a matter of weeks if not months and I think that they should perhaps make it a little bit tougher if they are going to take this seriously."

Just hours after the publications of the first petitions, Sir George Young gave a clear hint that this could happen.

He said: "We do want to monitor it to see if we've got the threshold either too high or too low.

"This is a new initiative and we've set a 100,000 because we think that's roughly the right target but if lots and lots of petitions sail through that barrier then we may need to see if it should be higher. If none of them are able to reach that target then we may need to lower it."

Getting a debate is one thing, though. Changing the law is quite another.

The debates that will follow petitions will allow the House to express an opinion, not force the government to act.

However, some argue that helping the public engage with politics does not need to lead to legislation.

John McTernan, a political adviser in Downing Street under Tony Blair when the Number 10 petitions website was established, said the former prime minister had been relaxed about opposition to road-pricing on his own site.

He said: "When people said to Tony Blair there were 1.8 million people against road charging. He said there were always 1.8 million people against road charging, now we have their e-mail addresses."

'Let it burn'

In the end Mr Blair sent the signatories a long e-mail explaining his thinking on the subject, although road-pricing never came to pass.

There is nothing new in petitioning Parliament.

It first became widespread in the reign of Henry IV and MPs have long been able to deposit petitions in a large green bag at the back of the Speaker's chair in the Commons.

Attitudes have changed over time.

In 1640 a Commons committee which considered a petition found it, in the words of the official record of the time, "of no better Consequence than to be burnt".

Come 1661 such was the disruption caused by mass petitions Parliament had to pass an act against tumultuous petitioning.

E-petitions - already available in Scotland and Wales - changed the system again, not only allowing modern campaigners to collect signatures much more easily than their forebears, but also to display a running total of support for each campaign.

The debates generated in Parliament and beyond by petitions on the new website may not prove as tumultuous as their 17th Century predecessors, but they may well make it much more difficult for popular petitioners to be ignored.


More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 77.

    This is a total waste of time and money. Just how much of PUBLIC money has been spent to set this farce up? It won't matter how many signatures any subject gets, this government will just do what its been doing all along, it will ignore the opinions of the people. The only time they might pay attention, is when the next General Election comes around, but not before.

  • rate this

    Comment number 76.

    For every petition there should be an automatic 'anti-petition' which should be given equal publicity as the original. It might then be possible to actually judge the public mood.

    That said legislation based on who shouts loudest is often bad legislation and had unintended consequences

  • rate this

    Comment number 75.

    There are too many petitions about capital punishment which are not going to make any difference as the petitions against capital punishment have too much support.
    But there are lots of other good petitions such as PRISON LABOUR check out http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2153

  • rate this

    Comment number 74.

    It is too easy to comment by computer. If people had to write a proper letter it would cut down the number of thoughtless and facetious comments and would be used only by people who have a serious and well thought-out point to make.

  • rate this

    Comment number 73.

    Indeed, what is the point?
    I commented in the Sun on-line debate: "This opinion survey is an nonsense and totally meaningless, if its aim is to reflect the opinion of the people of Britain about the 'Death Penalty?
    I succeeded in voting more than Ten times, colleagues also registerrd multiple votes, even contacts in the USA and Australia registered multiple votes"
    They didn't post my comment?

  • rate this

    Comment number 72.

    38. BMT
    They won't make govt change/adopt or take on new policies."

    Maybe, maybe not. But, would it be better not to be allowed to have any input at all, except at general elections?

    We want more democracy, then some people complain when they try to improve things.

    If they do change things based on the petitions, you'll just get complaints that they're weak and bowing to pressure or whatever!

  • rate this

    Comment number 71.

    48. Johnofdouglas
    It is not clear how and where I can initiate an e-petition."

    If it's not clear to you, you probably shouldn't try and do it. The big button saying 'create a petition' is a clue - tricky I know.

    "I would like to initiate an e-petition to find the number of people who would prefer the UK to come out of the EEC"

    There is already a petition or two for that.

  • rate this

    Comment number 70.

    45. florere
    People will be able to raise petitions for stupid things and it is just going to be a waste of tax payers money sorting them out"

    Of course people will raise petitions for stupid things. But, they need to get a lot of support to get it to the stage where it will be 'considered' for debate. If it is stupid, then they'll consider it for 10 seconds and reject it. Not much cost there.

  • rate this

    Comment number 69.

    And so the UK slides inexorably toward the current fate of the US and the fate of Rome and all other democracies: MOB RULE.

    Politicians and parliament are appointed to lead - not to enact a tyranny of the majority. (And certainly not a figurative majority governed by opinion polls).

  • rate this

    Comment number 68.

    Surely there should also be an option to sign AGAINST the petition, as well as for? The threshold can then be set to require the "fors" to outnumber the "againsts" by 100,000 or a suitable percentage.

  • rate this

    Comment number 67.

    A mere 100,000 people have no right whatsoever to call for any debate on what happens to the rest of us. This petition nonsense is an expensive,time-wasting farce. Our politicians should spend more time representing the majorities who put them there.

  • rate this

    Comment number 66.

    A petition is pointless if a counter petition isn't produced at the same time.A petition is released for bringing back the death penalty but the petition not to bring back the death penalty doesn't show its results until next year.It isn't democratic,or representational,it's just a time-wasting farce.And no,the death penalty is barbaric and uncivilised,even if some criminals do deserve it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 65.

    It says a lot about the quality of the e-petitioners that very few of them have read the instructions - step 1, search for a petition that already says what you want to say. . . .

  • rate this

    Comment number 64.

    The e-petition calling for Jeremy Clarkson as PM shows exactly why e-peitions are not the way to run the country. It shows that self-selecting ignorant minorities pander to the egos of an attention-seeking celebrity whose sole attribute is a persistent ability to make crass remarks on television.

    Now, should an e-petition call for Charlie Brooker as PM, however, I'll be all for them.

  • rate this

    Comment number 63.

    I feel the Tories are pumping all of this as a cover and smoke screen. What they should be really debating is Murdoch and what relationship Cammeron had with him and News International.

  • rate this

    Comment number 62.

    So to cut through all the political speak in that story all it means really is :

    Give your opinion but its not like MP's will give two hoots about it...

  • rate this

    Comment number 61.

    It would be useful if those creating e-petitions were actually aware of the facts relating to the law they're disputing. There is little point in debating something that already exists, or the courts/tribunals allow. The death penalty for one is barbaric, but worse still some citizens want to remove our human rights. They may not all be agreeable to everyone but there has to be a compromise

  • rate this

    Comment number 60.

    I am disgusted that the BBC and the Coalition give someone with such a questionable background as Paul Staines the respectability of a public debate. For those not aware of this mans poisonous past, Google Paul Staines. He is not a fit and proper person to front a subject as serious as the death penalty.

  • rate this

    Comment number 59.

    Prior to the last General election lord Ashcroft financed an "on-line polling organisation" called PoliticsHome. Much of its questionning pertained to issues of interest to the Conservative party, and many of the results defined Conservative "media utterances" but not manifesto contents. The sham of "asking the people" merely provides the extreme an opportunity to voice their bile.

  • rate this

    Comment number 58.

    Francis Maude has taken politics to its lowest point, the "political system" was pretty low after the "expenses scandal", followed by the "X-Factor" elections "agreeing with Nick", (having been in discussions for several months prior on strategy). Now we have the "loonies out of the woodwork", has nobody seen Peter Cook's "The Rise, and Rise of Michael Rimmer"?


Page 1 of 4


More Politics stories



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.