10 signatures reached
To: Parliament
To Make Government more responsive to the Electorate
This petition requests that parliament enact and implement an Act of Parliament so that any Secretary of State or Minister in the Government must be removed from Office if a petition of 150,000 voters requests this. To ensure stability of Government, the Prime Minster alone would not be included – only losing a parliamentary no-confidence vote would require the Prime Minister’s departure. The departure from Office would be immediate, upon the signatories reaching the threshold. The deposed minister can of course remain as a back-bench MP for the constituency that elected them. The number of petitioners needed has been set quite high (petitions regularly reach 70,000 signatories) to prevent vexatious or minority concerns from predominating. Any Minister so removed would have to remain outside the Government for a minimum term of 2 years before the Prime Minister could (if they wished) invite them to return to Office.
Why is this important?
If a Minister in the Government saw the number of signatories rising beyond – say 120,000, it would be open to them to stick to what they believed to be a point of principle (whatever the personal cost to them), or hastily propose that the issue will be immediately reconsidered and interested parties consulted with, provided the Minister was able to remained in Office long enough to do so. Other than this, there would be no appeal from this verdict of the Electorate.
This would immediately make the Government far more responsive to, and aware of the needs and wishes of the voters who put them in Office; it would increase democracy – Government by the people, for the people. It would return power to the people – the electorate –which is where it belongs, and it would (rightly) ensure that government is by consent of the Governed. Government Ministers (including Secretaries of State) would need to keep “looking over their shoulders” to ensure that they remained fully aware of the Electorate’s reasonable expectations. The Prime Minster (of whatever party or coalition) and the Cabinet would have to consider most carefully what Bills to proceed with, for fear of losing a valued member of their team. Where a Government Minister lost Office by this process, a Prime Minister might have considerable difficulty finding any one else willing to accept the Poisoned Chalice of promoting whatever the unpopular legislation had been. It would reduce cases of “single-issue politics” occurring at an election –many “single issue politics” issues would be resolved (and the issue would be closed and finished with) at each and every decision of the Government.
This would also make the whole matter of Internet petitions far more worth while. People would know that it really could make a difference if enough people signed – the petition could not just be ignored by those in power. Those faced with unfairness and injustice would re-double their efforts to get more signatories, knowing that it really could change the outcome of the matter under discussion.
There would probably be strong opposition to this proposal from current members of the Government (whatever Government is in power whenever this measure is proposed). Ministers have nothing to gain from this proposal, but it does threaten their self-interests and any attempt to impose doctrinaire positions or non-manifesto items. The shadow cabinet would similarly oppose it – particularly those who hope to be in power come the next election and gain a portfolio, as they would then have to live with this measure. Back-bench MPs have absolutely nothing to fear from this as it is totally separate from the “recall of MPs”; it applies only to Government ministers. Many Back-bench MPs might in fact see an opportunity for a quick promotion into the empty shoes of a minister who was diplomatically inept or out of touch with the electorate. (One thinks of the alleged old Royal Navy toast; “Here’s to a short and bloody war and a quick promotion”!)
No Health Minister would close a hospital (or it’s A&E or Maternity departments) unless they were certain that they could convince all the local voters of the necessity to do so. No minister of Immigration would engage in dubious deportations of a promising A level student or a young mother with two small children, for fear of losing his ministerial position. Bedroom tax, reduction of Legal Aid, the Lobbying Bill and the spread of Academies might all have been defeated if such a constraint had been in place. No secretary of state would overturn a local planning decision unless he was sure that he could argue the case – and equally a minister aware of strong and widespread local feeling against a planning appeal would have a strong incentive to consider the needs of those most affected by the planning issue. No minister of transport would plan new a train-line or a motorway if it caused planning blight or if it passed through a site of Special Scientific Interest or an area of outstanding Natural Beauty, unless he was sure of support from a vast majority for his sacrificing the views of a tiny unrepresentative minority. Similarly Wind Farms and individual wind turbines could not be installed, nor could “Fracking” occur against the wishes of a significant number who were opposed to such actions.
It has occasionally been suggested that it should never be a crime to assassinate a member of the Government – thereby ensuring that only those who truly want to act for the benefit and welfare of their country would accept Office. This is a kinder and less violent alternative.
This would immediately make the Government far more responsive to, and aware of the needs and wishes of the voters who put them in Office; it would increase democracy – Government by the people, for the people. It would return power to the people – the electorate –which is where it belongs, and it would (rightly) ensure that government is by consent of the Governed. Government Ministers (including Secretaries of State) would need to keep “looking over their shoulders” to ensure that they remained fully aware of the Electorate’s reasonable expectations. The Prime Minster (of whatever party or coalition) and the Cabinet would have to consider most carefully what Bills to proceed with, for fear of losing a valued member of their team. Where a Government Minister lost Office by this process, a Prime Minister might have considerable difficulty finding any one else willing to accept the Poisoned Chalice of promoting whatever the unpopular legislation had been. It would reduce cases of “single-issue politics” occurring at an election –many “single issue politics” issues would be resolved (and the issue would be closed and finished with) at each and every decision of the Government.
This would also make the whole matter of Internet petitions far more worth while. People would know that it really could make a difference if enough people signed – the petition could not just be ignored by those in power. Those faced with unfairness and injustice would re-double their efforts to get more signatories, knowing that it really could change the outcome of the matter under discussion.
There would probably be strong opposition to this proposal from current members of the Government (whatever Government is in power whenever this measure is proposed). Ministers have nothing to gain from this proposal, but it does threaten their self-interests and any attempt to impose doctrinaire positions or non-manifesto items. The shadow cabinet would similarly oppose it – particularly those who hope to be in power come the next election and gain a portfolio, as they would then have to live with this measure. Back-bench MPs have absolutely nothing to fear from this as it is totally separate from the “recall of MPs”; it applies only to Government ministers. Many Back-bench MPs might in fact see an opportunity for a quick promotion into the empty shoes of a minister who was diplomatically inept or out of touch with the electorate. (One thinks of the alleged old Royal Navy toast; “Here’s to a short and bloody war and a quick promotion”!)
No Health Minister would close a hospital (or it’s A&E or Maternity departments) unless they were certain that they could convince all the local voters of the necessity to do so. No minister of Immigration would engage in dubious deportations of a promising A level student or a young mother with two small children, for fear of losing his ministerial position. Bedroom tax, reduction of Legal Aid, the Lobbying Bill and the spread of Academies might all have been defeated if such a constraint had been in place. No secretary of state would overturn a local planning decision unless he was sure that he could argue the case – and equally a minister aware of strong and widespread local feeling against a planning appeal would have a strong incentive to consider the needs of those most affected by the planning issue. No minister of transport would plan new a train-line or a motorway if it caused planning blight or if it passed through a site of Special Scientific Interest or an area of outstanding Natural Beauty, unless he was sure of support from a vast majority for his sacrificing the views of a tiny unrepresentative minority. Similarly Wind Farms and individual wind turbines could not be installed, nor could “Fracking” occur against the wishes of a significant number who were opposed to such actions.
It has occasionally been suggested that it should never be a crime to assassinate a member of the Government – thereby ensuring that only those who truly want to act for the benefit and welfare of their country would accept Office. This is a kinder and less violent alternative.
