Found A Petition To Change This Situation

[ECCOnoob]

10 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

@ResidentI agree with you. If the public had to vote on everything, the country would grind to a halt in 48hours.

I totally agree too.  It's ridiculous that some people think that there's going to be some public vote on every single financial decision.  

 

I have said many times before. For all those whining about the public not having enough say in what their elected politicians do - I'd ask just how much they themselves are getting involved... Just how many of those whining public actually and actively brief themselves about what is going on. How many are reading the minutes, reports, briefings or watching the live debates take place. How many are contributing to public consultations, how many are regularly engaging with their MPs, how many are volunteering to sign up for local groups or committees, how many are attending to watch the local council meetings and  executive committee, how many are contributing to response feedback on applications and planning documents.....

 

No no, far too boring and sad all that.  Much rather tick some box in a online petition and then one can get back to tik tok scrolling and Love Island watching.  

 

People always scream they "want" more say about what the politicians are doing but once they realise what's involved and how boring and dry it all is, suddenly they lose interest.   

[cuttsie]

44 minutes ago, Resident said:

It's idiotic to think that the government, a group elected by the people to run the country including spending taxes would need to ask the public for every spending decision.

If you want to decide how it's spent then become a politician and get yourself elected. EVERYONE is able to do so. 

As for electronic voting. It's been proven that it's not safe from outside interference.  It's horrendously insecure. 

But the Government is not elected by the majority of people ,  

[ECCOnoob]

49 minutes ago, Anna B said:

You Gov has polls and petitions every day of the week. 

What's so difficult? 

 

Anything that keeps politicians in touch with their public is a good thing isn't it? It doesn't have to be binding, but it would give them a taste of what the population in general is feeling at least. 

 

So many politicians are completely out of touch with the real world.

Maybe. But then so many, so called, "real world people" are completely clueless about how the world actually works. Completely clueless about how things actually get built, how things actually get funded, how things are even feasible in design and planning and implementation, how the laws work, how the regulations are applied.  

 

Many more of those so-called "real world people" are in fact totally deluded in their outlook and expectations.  

[El Cid]

6 minutes ago, cuttsie said:

But the Government is not elected by the majority of people ,  

Make their manifestos legally binding? Governments set budgets for the life of the parliament, weekly referendums are pointless.

[Grumpycatweasel]

Ive yet to hear one solid reason why this isn’t the best practice in the future of this country’s government issues going forward 

 

it practically states it in the word “politics”

 

[ECCOnoob]

1 minute ago, El Cid said:

Make their manifestos legally binding? Governments set budgets for the life of the parliament, weekly referendums are pointless.

All well and good, but then what happens if something like Covid suddenly breaks out?  Or the suddenly explodes?  Does the government have to spend years in legal challenges through the courts to try and get there budget and managed or increased?

 

What about the fact that a manifesto is merely  pledge of what the government wants to do, but as you will be aware, every single bill has to go through parliament which gives the opposition parties and indeed all 650 MPs freedom to  debate it, reject it, amend it, which then go through the Lords who also have a chance to debate it, reject it, amend it, before you actually getting something into statute.

 

If a manifesto pledge is not met because the wider parliament didn't vote for it, how can the party be held legally accountable for not fulfilling it? 

[ECCOnoob]

6 minutes ago, Grumpycatweasel said:

Ive yet to hear one solid reason why this isn’t the best practice in the future of this country’s government issues going forward 

 

it practically states it in the word “politics”

 

Apart from the reasons that it's totally impractical, it would cripple the civil service system, it would cause catastrophic delays to everything, the economy would be completely unstable as would employment for many people, and the fact that the the dumb public will be voted on something completely without sufficient facts, context or knowledge of what they are voting on.

 

It is not a bloody game show.

 

Even the most basic of procurement can take months or years to set up, hundreds of pages of documents, contracts and complex negotiations, vast amounts of skills of knowledge from multiple agencies to get things in place.  That's why the government has special advisors and consultants and entire teams of people involved in this stuff. That's why theres layers of debates and discussion and committee. That's why there's legal and regulatory considerations which all have to be checked and signed off.

[Grumpycatweasel]

The current system has our retirement age being increased? Among many other catastrophes 

 

You’ve just called the public “dumb” ? Are you real? Or is this an AI bot relying to keywords? 
 

The public would be voting on issues that need government spending in order of severity 

 

there would still be a need for politicians lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grumpycatweasel]

I’ve actually asked chatGPT to configure a solution to make this a viable option and funnily enough its quite simple 

 

I’ll post this when the time is right 

[ECCOnoob]

13 minutes ago, Grumpycatweasel said:

The current system has our retirement age being increased? Among many other catastrophes 

 

You’ve just called the public “dumb” ? Are you real? Or is this an AI bot relying to keywords? 
 

The public would be voting on issues that need government spending in order of severity 

 

there would still be a need for politicians lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it a catastrophe?

 

Retirement age has barely moved since the 1960s years yet life expectancy has increased by 10 to 15 years.  Perfectly sensible for future projection discussions to be taking place about increases to retirement age and even more sensible when many of the next generation of pensioners will be starting their working life significantly than their predecessors.

 

Yes.  Applying the scenario you are proposing, I certainly do call  "the public" dumb.  "The public" are emotive, reactionary, narrow minded, fickle, manipulated, without facts, without knowledge and without context. 

 

We see it all the time now and you are seriously suggesting they have weekly input at the click of an online vote over high level strategic decisions affecting potentially billions of pounds of assets, investment, global relationships, economics, stability, corporate and civil service operations, essential infrastructure, compliance with legislation or global commitments.