Petitions in the UK are useless

Petitions in the UK — particularly those on the official UK Parliament Petitions website — often draw criticism as "useless paper tigers" because while they give the illusion of influence, they frequently result in limited tangible outcomes. Here's a breakdown of why many people view them this way:

---

1. Lack of Binding Power

• No legal obligation: Even if a petition gets over 100,000 signatures and is debated in Parliament, the government is not required to act on it.

• Symbolic debates: Parliamentary debates on petitions often have low attendance and no follow-up actions.

---

2. Government Responses Are Often Formulaic

• At 10,000 signatures, the government must respond in writing. But these responses are frequently boilerplate, vague, and non-committal.

• Ministers may restate existing policy rather than engage meaningfully with the issue.

---

3. Political Expediency Trumps Public Opinion

• Petitions that go against the government's political agenda are easily dismissed, regardless of how many people support them.

• If a petition aligns with political will, it may lead to change — but in such cases, the petition likely wasn't the cause, just part of the optics.

---

4. Debates Don’t Equal Decisions

• Petitions can trigger debates, but debates don’t lead directly to laws or reforms.

• Many debates are held in Westminster Hall rather than the main House of Commons chamber, reducing their impact.

---

5. Low Barrier, Low Commitment

• It takes seconds to sign a petition. While that encourages participation, it also means the signal-to-noise ratio is low — it’s easy for politicians to disregard.

---

6. Petition Saturation

• There are so many petitions, and so many reach the threshold for debate, that it’s impossible for Parliament to treat each with serious weight.

• This volume diminishes the impact of each individual petition.

---

Summary:

UK petitions can raise awareness and mobilize public interest, but they rarely lead to direct political change. They are tools for expression, not power. As such, they’re often seen as safe pressure valves — ways to let the public vent without forcing real action.

Petitions are fine, but....

Good luck to those who petition to stop Brexit. But however impressive the number may appear this is no way to run a proper (not pseudo) democracy. Emotional hype should not be able to demand petitions on a willy nilly basis. Either the instrument is a permanent fixture of the democratic system (as it should be) or it is an instrument for demagogues - however well meaing they might be.
Applied to Brexit it is not clear why there should be any attention paid to such petitions. The people have spoken in 2016. Many elections the world over are won on narrower margins. If anyone criticises the 2016 vote (insufficient quorum) the same could be said to the original decision to join the EEC or subsequent major changes in the EU's constitution.
Petition to stop Brexit

Petition - second best

'Should Donald Trump be prevented from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom?' This is a Petition on the UK Government Website and it has attracted more than a million supporters.
But the word petition already leaves a sour taste in the mouth. It tastes too much like asking someone superior and powerful to grant a favor. Much better to give it the legal form of a binding referendum, that way no energy is wasted in signing up and disappointment is prevented. The last thing the reigning Politocracy wants is to be told what to do by the citizens.

Posting Comments poor Substitute for Direct Democracy

While posting to Media Websites (or phoning in to TV or Radio programmes) might be a good way to let off steam it is a less-than-satisfactory way to participate in the formation of Legislation. Whether it is 100 or 1000 posts, the effect is the same (or should one say the lack of effect?).
Only Initiatives, Petitions and binding Referendums ensure that the will of the Majority of the Voters is respected. And that means that it should not be left to the Governments to decide when a Vote is to be held, and on what issues.

Citizens Initiatives - need control by referendum

In the present system of 'Pseudo Democracy' it is easy for vociferous minorities to push legislation into a direction that is in contrast with the interests of the majority of the citizens. Small groups can dominate Twitter or protest on the streets while a complicit media hungry for news gives the impression that a much larger part of the electorate is behind the goals promoted by such groups. Even innocent activities that are a positive contribution towards more and proper Democracy can be abused if not properly designed. Case in point the progress of the European Citizens Initiative that wants to put a 'Right to Water' into legislation. The cause may be perfectly valid - but do we really want this to become a new human right? Only in the EU or on a global basis? Many voters may have their doubts and therefore would want to have a say in the matter. The danger is that just putting this issue up for consideration by the EU authorities put the matter on the same level as issues promoted by any Lobby. Legislators are prone to put minority interests on the agenda even if they are against the majority interest as they are desperate to collect any and all votes in order to climb above the magical 50% approval rating at the next election.

UK: Public will be given right to petition for Bills

Not only is this latest proposal made by the establishment parties condescending (who 'gives' the citizens what rightfully is theirs in any case?) but also just another trick to lull the electorate into a false sense of democratic progress. Does it really make any difference if a petition that is supported by 100,000 signatures is 'ensured' time for a Commons debate (likely to be a near-empty chamber)?