I believe that the Public Petition, as explained here and here ,is a good idea not only for the reason that it should generate a significant amount of publicity - HEors hope to make this the biggest public petition ever, which would almost certainly generate media interest, - but also because it provides a format for ensuring that as many MPs as possible are approached and are made aware of the fact that there is huge, widespread resistance to the state policing of families and that this will cost their constituencies far more than they bargained for if Badman style proposals are implemented.
On balance therefore, I do think it would be a great idea if as many constituencies as possible were covered, and if people do come forward to volunteer to act as co-ordinator for their area.
13 comments:
I have offered for my area but I already know my MP will be hostile. She has already said she agrees with the Govt in a letter to a member of my home ed group.
Anyway, Although there have been some questions and doubts about the way this was set up I just want to make sure we protest as loudly and firmly as possible.
But what exatly is happening on Dec 3rd? Does anyone know yet?
I think the precise dates are still being thrashed out. Will post as soon as they are all confirmed either way.
They running out of time to get it though!
Hi Anon,
I think you may well be right. Looking at similar bills and their passages, it has taken longer than they have got..
eg: Education and Skills Act 2008 took about a year:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/educationandskills.html
===================
The Education & Skills Bill
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/4787638.stm
was introduced: 28 Feb 2006
Second reading: 15 March 2006
Committee stage: 20 & 23 March, 25 & 27 April 2006, 2,9 & 11 May 2006
Report stage: 23 & 24 May 2006
LORDS
First reading: 25 May 2006
Second reading: 21 June 2006
Committee stage: 5, 12, 18, 20 & 25 July 2006
Report stage: 17, 19, 20 & 24 October 2006
Third reading: 31 October 2006
ROYAL ASSENT: 8 November 2006,
So took about 8 months.
But I understand that it could take much less time..(down to a few months) if we are unlucky.
We also have to watch out for Statutory instruments which could be introduced far more quickly and yet could be just as devastating.
Even if we aren't unlucky, I think the petition well worth doing, simply so that we can tell the next government what we think of these ridiculous proposals and the waste of money that they would represent.
Who cares what those fools do at parliament we be taking no notice of them! We just be saying no!
Ultimately, yes, anon, I do agree!
Glad to hear that Carlotta! you watch them 2morro at queens speach its so funny! sit back with a nice cup of tea cherry cake and have a good laugh at them!
"I think the precise dates are still being thrashed out. Will post as soon as they are all confirmed either way."
So you are privy to details us plebs aren't then?
Hi Tech,
I have signed up as the person to co-ordinate gathering signatures in my area. Someone else (I think not EO connected) has now set up a Yahoo group for petition co-ordinators where details of how to do it are being thrashed out.
I don't think there is anything particularly secretive about it. I haven't been asked not to share info from it, and would do so if there was anything of use to everyone else...
I’m suspicious for a number of reasons:
The website won’t allow you to read the petition before signing to coordinate it in your constituency.
The page gives no author and doesn’t link in from anywhere that would give you insight as to who the author is.
I have heard that signing up generates a thank you from an EO trustee and that the page origin is EO owned.
I don’t like the potential inference that registration is acceptable.
I especially don’t like this inference in the light of no Tories being willing to say outright that they will not impose regulation.
There is only hear-say to indicate that Graham Stuart MP is anything to do with it. There is nothing on his own website to indicate anything about it. There is nothing on the petition website to indicate his involvement.
What’s the sudden hurry? It is putting pressure on people to sign and coordinate before they have had time to discuss and think about it.
It was said that AHED were involved. Apparently they were not, but maybe members of the list (who didn’t have remit to speak on behalf of members) were? Maybe the same with other organizations such as HEAS.
The only info people are working from is a release made by EO on the EO list and pasted wholesale into Dare To Know, and onto other lists. There is no opportunity given to scrutinize behind this release because the petition wording was being kept secret so that people didn’t take it upon themselves to print it off and duplicate it within constituencies without someone coordinating each constituency. Well, that’s what we are told. The release by EO doesn’t give the contentious parts of the petition that have come out on lists subsequently. Dare to Know (which I’m used to trusting and relying upon) didn’t give the whole petition wording, but that wasn’t obvious until I saw the whole of it on a list.
There is too much scope for duplicity.
The petition leaves the route open for another review. We don’t want/need another review. We’ve had so many. We need to work with the 2007 one. Maybe some research would be useful, but I wouldn’t trust anything from the Government, who are out to suppress and undermine home education.
Is it John Holt who said about lifting plants constantly to see if the roots are growing? Maybe research is also intrusive?
Hi Anon,
The website does now allow you to read the petition before you sign, so I think that problem has now been addressed.
As I understand it, the petition wording was sorted by Graham Stuart's office. I now cannot recall where I read this, but it must have been on one of the lists, if it was not on the petition site itself. Apparently this type of petition has to be formally worded, and has to pass muster on various grounds, otherwise it will be rejected outright. Some of the criteria it must meet are listed here:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/publicpetitions.cfm
"I have heard that signing up generates a thank you from an EO trustee and that the page origin is EO owned."
I think this was originally the case, but is no longer and whilst EO members are definitely involved..(I have recently rejoined EO as an ordinary member for example), it is not specifically an EO petition and has involved others who are not EO members.
"I don’t like the potential inference that registration is acceptable."
I do agree that the wording could have been tighter, but am thinking that the overall thrust is clear...we have spent so long thinking about the minutiae of the wording in the law that I think we are hypersensitive to the nuances everywhere, but overall, I think the message comes across pretty clearly really.
I think we will have to press this point home with the Tories all over again once they are in power...but but but, the Tories are very aware that the country is SO broke...I think the argument to them will be..."hey, stop a minute. What is going to cause children more pain? Being left to get on with their education, unhindered and saving the country a packet, or else being interfered with and then having to pay back a HUUUUUUUMUNGUS national debt for the rest of their lives. Lets get real here!"
However, I think the above is actually an argument for another day, post election, when the Tories will be happier to make swingeing cuts in public services left right and centre.
"There is only hear-say to indicate that Graham Stuart MP is anything to do with it. There is nothing on his own website to indicate anything about it. There is nothing on the petition website to indicate his involvement."
I gather he has written something just this afternoon...saw this via Twitter, and also on FB..but don't have links to hand...will post them when I find them again.
"What’s the sudden hurry? It is putting pressure on people to sign and coordinate before they have had time to discuss and think about it."
The Queen's Speech tomorrow..which will probably contain that clause. We need to have as many MPs on board aware of the potential resistance to the Badman proposals, so that we can slow the passage with debate about amendments.
"It was said that AHED were involved. Apparently they were not, but maybe members of the list (who didn’t have remit to speak on behalf of members) were? Maybe the same with other organizations such as HEAS."
I believe that there were plenty of people involved who are not EO, but am not sure that they saw themselves as representing anyone other than themselves.
I am sorry about not including the whole wording here initially. I had actually only seen a precis of what was included prior to posting and on balance that it would work out OK, and thought I would run with it. I do agree the actual wording could have been tighter, but am still pretty happy with it. I think it will do what as much as we can possibly hope for.
"There is too much scope for duplicity."
Well, I guess you are right. We could all be being hoodwinked, but my guess is that we aren't - at least on this occasion.
Am really hoping that the Tories will see that we actually save the country a massive amount of money...and that they should just count their blessings and leave us alone! We can still make this argument whatever this petition says or however it could be misinterpreted!
Hoping this does allay some anxieties?
hi Carlotta yes it does allay my anxietes thanks!
Graham Stuart's Tweet:
"As I tweeted over the weekend, given the scale of the challenge I think that there is an opportunity for home educators, and all those sympathetic to Home Education, to work together. But I have no problem if it is not possible for some people to work with others, or some would rather campaign separately.
Petition
A public petition, presented by several MPs (perhaps at the same time), calling on the Government to think again about the Badman proposals, would be a good way (among many) of raising awareness of the issue in Parliament. The text of the petition I have suggested is set out below. As with any petition, if you don’t agree with the wording, don’t sign it. Anyone is welcome to submit their own petitions but it would be best if everyone stuck to this wording even if it isn’t exactly what they would have written. We are trying to win support and awareness in Parliament and want to win MPs over, not annoy them with evidence of fractiousness and division."
Post a Comment