91Èȱ¬

Commentators discuss the government's re-launch of an which promises to debate suggestions that get over 100,000 signatories. So far the site has been dominated by two petitions - one to bring back the death penalty and another to keep the ban.

when the public is asked for its opinion, the death penalty always rises to the top to no avail:

"If a debate is secured, it will doubtless be heralded as a great victory for people power, transparency etc. I'm not so sure. Perverse though it sounds, capital punishment is an easy debate. MPs will gaze into their navels and ruminate on all manner of philosophical questions and legal quandaries before deciding, by an emphatic margin, against lifting the ban. I usually baulk at making predictions, but I'd put my house, pension and golf clubs on that being the outcome."

The if the attempt to regain the public's trust by re-establishing the e-petitions site could backfire:

"If the restoration of the death penalty goes to parliament for debate and is then rejected by it (as it is bound to be), will people feel they have got "more power" or will they feel even more let down by their politicians? Instead of responding to the expenses scandal with phoney displays of humility, thereby raising false hopes of people power, MPs should just go straight for a bit and then, over time, re-establish their dignity as the people's independent elected representatives."

On Twitter Keith Edkins points out a problem if the petition to keep the death penalty ban reaches the critical amount of signatories:

petitions call for a ban of trans fats and speed bumps, which she says are over-shadowed:

"It seems a shame that a great idea for direct government looks set to be dominated by this debate.
Ìý
"Among the calls to bring back hanging, legalise drugs and change motorway rules, there are some creative ideas on the website."

at the potential of the new scheme:

"It appears that the government has already raised unrealistic expectations of a new era of debate. The backbench committee charged with considering petitions for debate was promised time to stage one a week, but will now be given less than one day a month. All the same, there is a strong chance that Parliament will now debate the death penalty for the first time since 1994, when MPs voted by 383-186 to retain the ban."

the tight spots the last government was put into from its e-petitions:

"When the last government launched a simple petitions service on the Downing Street website, Westminster mocked the plan. Many of the petitions were frivolous. But they were popular, too. One, arguably, had an effect on policy, frightening ministers away from road pricing. That exposed an obvious dilemma: causes that rally support are not always ones that politicians are keen to endorse."

Director of the smokers' lobby group Forest "save us from this e-petition mania":

"My worst fears about this Government initiative/gimmick are being realised. All afternoon the e-petition website has carried the message 'Sorry if you're experiencing problems accessing e-petitons. There is currently a much higher level of demand than we expected'.
Ìý
No doubt every pressure group and activist in the country in busy submitting a petition. Every nutter too. God help us."

Finally, Assistant editor of New Statesman Helen Lewis-Hasteley has a tongue-in-cheek solution: