Yeah, I'd say it's certainly better. I don't know which infrastructure petition you mean, I just googled and there are two - 491 signatures and 260.Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R
Is voting for people to decide things for us much better? take the infrastructure bill for example, if the public had a vote on that there is no way it would have gone through, lots of people on here signed the petition against it, should we all have to sign petitions to stop the people that we elect to represent us from doing things that we don't want? that really does not sound right to me.
The public are fatigued by just having one vote per year, the number of people regularly voting on bills would be tiny so instead of having people whose job it is to debate and sort things out* you'd have people with a bit of time on their hands who may or may not have read past the title.
My guess is that there are more MPs who are in it because they genuinely want to make the place better and represent their constituents than there are careerist tw*ts who will do whatever suits numero uno, but unfortunately the latter are the type who rise up. But at the end of the day, it's the people's votes who put them there, so how confident can any of us be that the people would vote any differently if it was on laws?
*and I do accept that it doesn't work brilliantly, you have big business lobbying, weak opposition, days when only about half a dozen can be arsed to turn up, etc
Reply With Quote