And certainly one has to admit its not like the United States hasn't stuck its nose in a lot of other countries' politics. I had hoped that sort of thing would decrease what with the demise of the USSR and the end of the Cold War and all, but it seems to have stayed the same (or increased?)

But two wrongs don't make a right. I'm sure the better part of the House of Commons could set a better example than that, even if it's just by not taking the debate seriously. But one MP did actually make the same point as I'm trying to make, that barring someone for hateful speech isn't protecting freedom.

After all, who gets to decide what hateful speech is?

P.S. Ricky, before you decide where I sit on the political spectrum before I even do, I agree with the NYP headline (I'm With Stupid). The last 16 years has been a complete lack of imagination on the part of the voters as far as nominating (and electing) statesmen to federal office (as opposed to party hacks), particularly to the presidency. 2001 to present has been a complete lack of true leadership and statesmanship as far as the federal government goes.

I'm sure the better part of the House of Commons could set a better example than that, even if it's just by not taking the debate seriously.

Just to be clear on this, almost everybody who showed up at that debate was a showboating leftie who treated it as an opportunity for virtue signalling. The 'better part', by which I assume you mean the greater part, of the HoC wasn't actually in attendance. The reason I'm criticising the government is because they had the power to block it from happening at all and didn't take it.

sass

The reason I'm criticising the government is because they had the power to block it from happening at all and didn't take it.

We should be clear for Hackers sake. The House of Commons is not the Government...
Thats a distinction that i think is important.
Sass I don't think that the government gains much from clamping down on the House's ability to remonstrate about any issue... It just looks like the controlling power that, in actual fact, it is ...
Allowing the blowing off of steam on issues like this allows for public debate even if an issue that is going no where... Perhaps occasionally one of these debates might actually gain traction, and change policy.... who knows. In this case the practical aspect of banning President Trump would eliminate that possibility.
Plus, what if he just wants to go golfing?

Hacker the parallel in the US would be the 378 votes on ending the ACA. Pointless but allows the hotheads to posture.
(Especially pointless now as more states sign on and the positive effects become baked in with the electorate. )

In general I don't disagree Ricky, but in this specific case I do. As I've already said, it's never going to be in the national interest to ban the President of the United States from entering Britain. This is something that we would simply never do under any circumstances, and even to raise it as a possibility in such a high-profile way is something that could have profoundly damaging consequences for us. Now as it happens I don't think that Trump is going to win, but that's beside the point. I don't think Jeb Bush or John Kasich are going to win either, but if 100000 people signed a petition to ban them from Britain you can be damn sure that the government would not be tabling a debate on the subject. You can get 100000 people to sign a petition on almost anything. Comfortably more people than that signed a petition on the same website which called for Jedi to be recognised as an official religion. At some point common sense needs to come into the equation. Donald Trump has been specifically singled out for the sake of a virtue signalling exercise and this could quite easily backfire spectacularly. It's a stupid thing to do.

sass

You can get 100000 people to sign a petition on almost anything.

I suppose. But this was a little more popular.
They are at 577,000 !
I think the government response ion the site is fine.


https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003

Yes for my sake let's be clear. And let's be clear, that they didn't even hold the debate IN the House of Commons, but in some committee chamber elsewhere in the parliament building. Sounds like Her Majesty's Government--or the members of the House of Commons, whatever, I know what the difference is--doesn't take the debate very seriously. Certainly they didn't let it interrupt more "important" (or actually important at all) government business.

And Ricky, how many people can sign on and "sign" the petition with little more effort than hitting the "like" button on Facebook?

JimHackerMP wrote:For being "meaningless" the BBC is making a big deal about it.

But it is meaningless as it will not have an iota of impact on Trump's ability to come to the UK.

hacker

And Ricky, how many people can sign on and "sign" the petition with little more effort than hitting the "like" button on Facebook

If you went to the site, you could see it was one signature per email address...
About as reliable as the old petitions on clipboards I used to sign when confronted on the street. And yet those petitions were respected And so were paper petitions received in Washington for various causes.. None exactly 100% accurate or fool proof.

We do have to recognize that at some point voting will be done online... Its a natural progression to democratic participation, efficiency and cost effectiveness.,...If the security aspects can be guaranteed. (Since voting machines have their issues anyway ...)
Voting, or participating in democracy needn't be difficult or onerous...

JimHackerMP wrote:And Ricky, how many people can sign on and "sign" the petition with little more effort than hitting the "like" button on Facebook?

I have signed petitions on the UK government site (not that one, I hasten to add). You have to provide a name and valid UK address as well as an email address to be verified by responding to an email. They can check that the names and addresses tally as well.

That doesn't prevent anybody from signing it dozens of times of course, all they'd need is a lot of different email addresses, which is not hard to obtain. You can quote any address you like. I can't imagine anybody would actually do that when there's no purpose to it, but it could be done.

Sassenach wrote:That doesn't prevent anybody from signing it dozens of times of course, all they'd need is a lot of different email addresses, which is not hard to obtain. You can quote any address you like. I can't imagine anybody would actually do that when there's no purpose to it, but it could be done.

Indeed.

I get the impression that the originator of the petition was being ironic and probably didn't expect it to be accepted let alone get over half a million signatures and a debate.

It is not a foolproof system, by any means, but all that 100,000 signatories gives is a chance of a debate. Every other previous petition that has reached that mark has been considered. Since the last General Election, petitions have been looked at by a backbench committee (so not the PM, or the Leader of the House Chris Grayling). The Committee has a Labour Chair but the majority of members are Conservative. They also put forward the "anti" petition for the same debate.

This was brought in by Cameron and once you start allowing petitions it becomes politically difficult to interfere with them. Especially if officially it is supposed to be dealt with by a backbench committee and not the government. I think they did not want to set a precedent.

Ah, I didn't realise that the Leader of the House had no input. That possibly explains things.

The petition system is a pointless gimmicky PR exercise. Classic Cameron.

And yet those petitions were respected

Yeah. I'm sure they did.

The petition system is a pointless gimmicky PR exercise. Classic Cameron.

See?

JimHackerMP wrote:

And yet those petitions were respected

Yeah. I'm sure they did.

You could do a little research to check.

This is the list of all petitions, in order of number of signatures. Nearly all of those that received over 100,000 have either been debated already, have one scheduled, or have not yet closed

There were two which have not https://petition.parliament.uk/petition ... ot_debated

One was calling for a vote of no confidence in David Cameron, and the Petitions Committee says it does not have the remit to hold such a debate. Such a vote would lose anyway as the Conservatives have a majority, but confidence votes are special processes.

Another was calling for the arrest of Israeli PM Netanyahu when he next visits the UK over the 2014 conflict. The Government had already responded to the petition to point out that under UK and International law it could not arrest a serving head of government as they have legal immunity.

You may think this latter one similar to the Trump one. But the Trump one was calling for him to be barred entry (which we can do for heads of government if we want), and the Netanyahu was calling for him to be arrested if he came here.

The petition system is a pointless gimmicky PR exercise. Classic Cameron.

See?

Well, yes, I think it is largely. Cameron is far more about style than substance. At the same time, it does provide a means of getting issues on to the parliamentary agenda that may not come from the Government or opposition, and at the very least will mean the government has to respond to the petitions that get over 10,000 signatures.

But it can easily be hijacked, and the reality is that many of the petitions will result in no actual change to policy. Large ones may signify a popular public view, and that in turn might "nudge" things.

I tend to think they are mainly a fruitless exercise, but as they exist, I have signed some.