Buzzard Persecution Trial to be sponsored by DEFRA (1 Viewer)

[jezrobson]

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34330

 

[Jack Dawe]

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34330

I've signed it and am now going to sign the other seven petitions on that site about this issue. Seems lunatic to me though to have multiple petitions. How many people are going to sign them all? It just dilutes the effort and makes it less likely that any will reach the required total.

 

[John B (not the sloop)]

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34330

It's not a very well worded petition I'm afraid Jez.

"The government withdraws its plans to spend £375,000 researching a buzzard cull".

Benyon will simply say "My department has never researched a Buzzard cull, and has no plans to". Then it's game over for the petition.

I've signed several of the others though.....

 

[jezrobson]

This petition has the advantage of being the HM government one which will, if there are sufficient signatures force a debate. Unfortunately it takes a week between applying to do it and it going live by which time others have started which I agree dilutes the effort. I also agree that with hindsight the drafting could have been tighter but it makes the point.

 

[redeyedvideo]

Writing to the millionaire, landowning, hunting & shooting minister who created this hare brained scheme may wish to write to him here;

Richard Benyon MP
Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR

which may have more effect than the numerous petitions running at the moment.

 

[Jack Dawe]

He won't see the letters, of course. They'll be passed by his staff straight to Defra to reply to us direct or, at best, to draft a reply for him to sign. But given enough volume of mail at least he'll be made aware of the feeling out here, so it's definitely worth doing.

That's the trouble with our democracy. It's almost impossible for the ordinary individual to reach those who really hold the power. The civil service exists to shield politicians from direct accountability.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

He won't see the letters, of course. They'll be passed by his staff straight to Defra to reply to us direct or, at best, to draft a reply for him to sign. But given enough volume of mail at least he'll be made aware of the feeling out here, so it's definitely worth doing.

That's the trouble with our democracy. It's almost impossible for the ordinary individual to reach those who really hold the power. The civil service exists to shield politicians from direct accountability.

You can reach them at every general election, when they and their party are directly accountable to the voters. Seems a much better way of doing things than e.g. the various methods being trialled in the Arab region over the past year.

 

[dantheman]

You can reach them at every general election, when they and their party are directly accountable to the voters. Seems a much better way of doing things than e.g. the various methods being trialled in the Arab region over the past year.

That's a bit silly. Only in general terms, and there could well be whole rafts of conflicting policies which would mean you couldn't vote for anyone.

4 years is also a very long time for something to be going on without being able to stop it - there could very well be no Buzzards left by then if eg a trial was started and there was no way of stopping/discusssing it otherwise!

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

That's a bit silly. Only in general terms, and there could well be whole rafts of conflicting policies which would mean you couldn't vote for anyone.

4 years is also a very long time for something to be going on without being able to stop it - there could very well be no Buzzards left by then if eg a trial was started and there was no way of stopping/discusssing it otherwise!

So what would you suggest? Revolution every time there's a decision that a single-interest group doesn't like? What about if the opposing single-interest group does like it? Should a Minister resign every time they do something that one part of society doesn't like? What about the democratic choices of other parts of society?

What if Benyon read every single letter, every name on every petition, every post on BirdForum, and had a day long meeting with Mark Avery and Mike McCarthy, but still said "no, I'm going ahead". What then?

All these petitions are doing is threatening to lose him votes at the election anyway. Not chop off his head and put it on a spike. How, exactly, would you 'make' Benyon bend to your will, and democracy work for you?

And what gives you the right to "stop" anything done by a bloke who is the democractically-elected representative of everyone? Would you ask everybody else in the country first, to give yourself a mandate?

 

[dantheman]

So what would you suggest? Revolution every time there's a decision that a single-interest group doesn't like?

Erm, I think this is going way off-topic

Comparing political systems around the globe probably isn't within the remit of BF (or mine really tbh) ... but having a press, having petitions, pms question times etc etc are all things which seem to work to some degree ...


Petitions, the sway of public opinion and in the general media (once the media gets hold of a story) is something which politicians are very aware/wary of ...

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Erm, I think this is going way off-topic

Comparing political systems around the globe probably isn't within the remit of BF (or mine really tbh) ... but having a press, having petitions, pms question times etc etc are all things which seem to work to some degree ...


Petitions, the sway of public opinion and in the general media (once the media gets hold of a story) is something which politicians are very aware/wary of ...

Agree. My point was just that the only 'threat' inherent of all the things you mention (petitions, media etc) is to lose votes at the next general election, which is where I pointed out that you can have your democractic say, like everybody else. But that also means we have to live whoever everyone else votes in, and their policies. Changing our minds mid-term isn't a democratic option.

 

[Jack Dawe]

So what would you suggest? Revolution every time there's a decision that a single-interest group doesn't like? What about if the opposing single-interest group does like it? Should a Minister resign every time they do something that one part of society doesn't like? What about the democratic choices of other parts of society?

What if Benyon read every single letter, every name on every petition, every post on BirdForum, and had a day long meeting with Mark Avery and Mike McCarthy, but still said "no, I'm going ahead". What then?

Instead of ducking the issue, could you suggest some positive steps by which Mr Benyon could be reached on this issue by those who wish their voices to be heard? Or perhaps you would prefer that our voices are not heard. It's easy to be negative.

 

[Nightranger]

Agree. My point was just that the only 'threat' inherent of all the things you mention (petitions, media etc) is to lose votes at the next general election, which is where I pointed out that you can have your democractic say, like everybody else. But that also means we have to live whoever everyone else votes in, and their policies. Changing our minds mid-term isn't a democratic option.

In reference to your final sentence - why? I would argue that changing our minds at anytime is an absolute democratic essential. I voted for one of the coalition parties but I already rued that vote when the coalition was formed. I am puzzled if you are arguing that we cannot oppose anything that we do not agree with until the particular MP comes up for re-election. We only have to live with the parties that someone else votes for insomuch as they are not likely to call an election mid-term, especially if they are unpopular in the polls. However, it is quite a different matter to say we have to accept any tendered policy in that period as this would be undemocratic and nonsensical.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Instead of ducking the issue, could you suggest some positive steps by which Mr Benyon could be reached on this issue by those who wish their voices to be heard? Or perhaps you would prefer that our voices are not heard. It's easy to be negative.

Write to your MP. It's what they are there for, to represent you to the Govt. You surely don't need me to tell you this?

Or do you really mean something along the lines of banging on Benyon's windows at 2 am, or throwing a flour bomb at him?

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

In reference to your final sentence - why? I would argue that changing our minds at anytime is an absolute democratic essential. I voted for one of the coalition parties but I already rued that vote when the coalition was formed. I am puzzled if you are arguing that we cannot oppose anything that we do not agree with until the particular MP comes up for re-election. We only have to live with the parties that someone else votes for insomuch as they are not likely to call an election mid-term, especially if they are unpopular in the polls. However, it is quite a different matter to say we have to accept any tendered policy in that period as this would be undemocratic and nonsensical.

Sorry, but it's the basis of our democracy. The price for a stable Government and country is to have your say every 4-5 years and live with it inbetween. You can write to your MP in between, to represent you to Govt and make your opinions known, and if you don't like the job they do, or their Govt, then you can exercise your influence when asked to vote. We don't really have any right to personally influence policy mid-term, because nobody is asking our opinion at the ballotbox - we've had that chance, and we'll get it again later.

It's been that way for a few hundred years; it's not perfect, but it's about the best there is. I think the alternative is called 'Greece'.

 

[Jack Dawe]

Write to your MP. It's what they are there for, to represent you to the Govt. You surely don't need me to tell you this?

Of course not. But, as I am sure you know full well and I have already written, this is what happens to such letters:

He won't see the letters, of course. They'll be passed by his staff straight to Defra to reply to us direct or, at best, to draft a reply for him to sign.

Next positive suggestion, please - preferably a less naive one.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Next positive suggestion, please - preferably a less naive one.

Flour bomb?!

 

[Jack Dawe]

If that's the best you can suggest, wouldn’t you agree that your original reply to me at post #87, in which you suggested that waiting until the next general election (by which time, of course, the damage to Buzzards will be done) is "a much better way of doing things", was more than a little bit cynical and an irrelevant, unnecessary diversion? Because it certainly looks that way to me.

 

[Nightranger]

Sorry, but it's the basis of our democracy. The price for a stable Government and country is to have your say every 4-5 years and live with it inbetween. You can write to your MP in between, to represent you to Govt and make your opinions known, and if you don't like the job they do, or their Govt, then you can exercise your influence when asked to vote. We don't really have any right to personally influence policy mid-term, because nobody is asking our opinion at the ballotbox - we've had that chance, and we'll get it again later.

It's been that way for a few hundred years; it's not perfect, but it's about the best there is. I think the alternative is called 'Greece'.

What? So you are saying that any government can introduce something that was never in its election manifesto? In this respect, coalition governments need more watching than a single party because it is highly likely that a lot of policies are not what voters have opted for in the ballot box. New Labour changed direction when Gordon Brown took control and everyone was saying how he was not an elected PM. Fair enough but neither was Major until he won the election but the real point is that it is unethical to suddenly change tack and introduce a policy not previously mentioned on any manifesto. You bet your bottom bippy we have a right to object mid-term...or at least try to.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

What? So you are saying that any government can introduce something that was never in its election manifesto? In this respect, coalition governments need more watching than a single party because it is highly likely that a lot of policies are not what voters have opted for in the ballot box. New Labour changed direction when Gordon Brown took control and everyone was saying how he was not an elected PM. Fair enough but neither was Major until he won the election but the real point is that it is unethical to suddenly change tack and introduce a policy not previously mentioned on any manifesto. You bet your bottom bippy we have a right to object mid-term...or at least try to.

In which case voting is taking a punt on your chosen party's ethics, as has always been the case. Of course they "can" introduce something mid-term. There's nothing to say they can't, and everybody is aware that they can. You are perhaps cnfusing your own ethics with someone else's.