A fascinating exchange took place on the Today programme in the 08:50 slot on Friday 29th July with Sarah Montague interviewing The leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young on the latest plans to open up Parliament to the public through the form of email petition. As was made clear in the introduction this was not really all that new, as the Blair administration introduced a very similar mechanism in their use of the No10 website. The difference is this is asking us to address Parliament and not the Government. Such subtleties are important, but to the person writing the petition they may not seem earth shattering. However Sir George is clearly enthusiastic stating ‘Its part of a process of bringing the House of Commons closer to the people we represent, making it more accessible’

Sarah then brought in Professor Stephen Coleman of Leeds University and as the two men debated it became clear that their difference was not on a matter of principle – both agreed that Parliament needs to hear the people who elect the MPs, but rather the way in which the message is developed. 

This Parliament, like the previous Government wants to have a proposal to which 100,000 people agree and then subject to legalities and reasonableness the backbenchers might give up some of their 20 or so days each year to debate these matters. What was not referred to was the hard work that Natascha Engel, MP for NE Derbyshire is doing to ensure the Government sticks to its commitment to provide space for backbench debates. If Sir George continues to put a barrier up for these backbenchers, then they might be less persuaded by our bright ideas in any case.

However Professor Coleman suggested that a simple undeveloped thought with 100,000 names attached would not actually be as much help to Parliament as could be the case if a more deliberative process was offered to the people Sir George would like to be closer to. Rather than asking 100,000 friends to agree with our statement, we should instead be allowed a forum to help refine and develop the initial idea Prof Coleman suggested. However Sir George appeared to be uncharacteristically defensive. He pointed out that Parliament is a Forum for Debate (as if our society is under threat from too much debate) and his view appeared to be that deliberation was the domain of our elected representatives, and not something we mere electors should trouble our unrepresentative heads about. In what seemed to be an incredibly ironic turn of the discussion Sir George fell into the trap that so many elected leaders do – he proved that whilst he was proud to declare how deliberative the chamber is, that he was incapable of being deliberative outside of it with a mere Professor and Radio host. Little hope for us then who get a chance to make a statement and use our social networks to find 100,000 people to support us.

I for one would be willing to sign an e-petition that requested that we be allowed to help deliberate and shape ideas for Parliament to consider. My instinct is that this would bring us a great deal closer to a participatory democracy where Political Parties would become a great deal less important and a great deal fewer mistakes such as we have seen in the last year from this coalition Government would be made. This might get us closer to world peace too, and then home in time for tea.