Energy Efficient Light Bulbs

Recent news about a possibly-EU-wide regulation about the use of energy efficient light bulbs has generated some consternation among our diligent but search-incapable petitioners.

The first thing I did upon noticing so was to look for actual news reports on what the actual regulations were or were going to be. This proved remarkably difficult; oblique references on the BBC site were singularly uninformative.

I can, in fact, find only two articles online on the subject: one from the Independent and one from the Scotsman. Both articles agree that a group of EU leaders had "called" for the phasing out of incandescent bulbs in favour of energy-saving bulbs - though there is not description of the official nature of this "call". A BBC Magazine article mentions "plans" to phase them out "by 2011", but again, does not describe the legislation thus involved.

All the same, this apparent absence of officialness has not stopped our petitioners.

We have a range of petitions demanding that the plans be stopped:

• The petition is entitled Save the traditional light bulb and retain freedom of choice
• The petition is entitled make the UK public aware of the environmental, safety, security and practical problems associated with energy efficient light bulbs
• The petition is entitled not allow the EU to refuse use of proper Edison lightbulbs, replacing them with energy efficient bulbs
• The petition is entitled Not force everybody to use energy efficient light bulbs
• The petition is entitled continue the availability of incandescent light bulbs

Now to be fair to these petitioners, they are asking for marginally different things for marginally different reasons. Ish.

Then we have two counter-petitiono, entitled Ban the sale of non-efficient light bulbs in the UK and entitled Ban non-energy efficient light bulbs, plus a related one, entitled Ban the sale of light fitting which cannot accept low energy light bulbs which would have, in the long term, much the same effect.

And finally we have two more government-specific ones on a related topic: entitled legislate for local authorities and housing associations to provide at least one energy efficient lightbulb to its tenents and entitled Make ALL councils change street light bulbs to energy efficient ones, so that they are also doing their bit for the environment, without charging us extra for the privilege!

I'm by no means convinced of the rights and wrongs of the case. On the one hand, energy efficient bulbs are good, and for general lighting I wouldn't use anything else. On the other hand there are more specific usages - I have a very nice angle-poise-style light which is quite recent and won't take CFL bulbs; it would be a shame to have to throw that out in a couple of years, and wouldn't be terribly energy-efficient, or environmentally friendly, either! My mother says, too, that with her not-great eyesight for close work CFLs just don't output good light for needlework and so on, yet. They may do in the future, great strides are being made, and indeed there are possibilities for LED bulbs in that way as well, I think - but they're not quite up to scratch yet and little old (and middle-aged) ladies all over Europe are going to be put out by this, by the look of things.

But mostly I'm pissed off by people's inability to search, dammit!

Compulsory Voting Twice

Joy for the duplicated lunatics!

The first petition is entitled Pass a Law making Voting compulsory and the explanatory notes say

"With the trend in low voting turnout becoming higher with each election, it should be made compulsory to vote at all elections, to get a true picture of the government that the british people want. None of the above should be included on the vote form so that those who do not hold political views are seen to be voting."

The second petition is entitled make it compulsory for all voters to vote in elections for government and the explanatory notes say

"Too many people in my opinion complain about legislation passed by elected officials of this country. Voting should be made compulsory to establish a true representative government of the people. For those uninterested in who wins ensure a new catagory is placed on every ballot paper stating "none of the above". Consideration should also be given to moving election dates to a sunday to allow maximum time for all to vote. A fixed penalty fine of £5.00 could be implemented for none compliance, to be given to charity."

Now, considering that if you click on the "Create a Petition" link you're told

"Before creating a new petition, please use this box to check whether a petition already exists which makes your point. If so, please add your name to that petition. We will not create duplicate petitions making identical points"

I suspect that at least two people have been idiots here. The creator of the second petition, and the Civil Service bod who passed it ...

It's not that I object to the idea, which does, after all, seem to work for the Australians. I just object to the duplication.

Balfour Declaration

Ordinarily I skip over anything "Israel/Palestine" related as contentious, complicated, controversial and simply too scary for me. But as I scrolled through the list of the day's petitions I saw two new ones side by side:

• Apologise to the Palestinians for the Balfour Declaration of 1917
• Honour the Balfour Declaration of 1917

An interesting contrast to the usual problem of duplication, no?

It's worth noting, perhaps, that I feel an urge to mock the first of the petitions, not for its content, but for its petitioner's inability to do maths. The explanatory notes for the petition start:

"At a time when the Prime Minister is apologising for the slave trade, we think it appropriate that on this 100th anniversary of Lord Balfour's historic letter to the Zionist Federation, he apologise to the Palestinian people for the suffering caused to them by Balfour ..."

Um. I hate to break it to you, but 2007 is not the 100th anniversary of 1917 ...

Equine Passports

The petition is entitled Cancel the Charge of Equine Passports and the explanatory notes say

"I understand that the charge of a passport for your Horse is £30 i wish for you to abolish this charge as this ruling for every horse in the UK to have a passport was a valid Law but to charge for this is unreasonable."

A quick prod at the BBC shows that since the 28th of February 2005 it has been compulsory to have a passport for a horse if you wish to move it from place to place, or to sell it.

So far as I can tell, it's not strictly necessary to have one otherwise. And according to another BBC story, the cost is £75, not £30 ...

So. Broadly speaking, charging for compulsory things makes me twitch. But actually, these aren't compulsory, any more than a driving licence, a TV licence or a passport are compulsory. You can choose not to have a horse ...

England for the English

The petition is entitled Allow the English to govern England and the explanatory notes say

"create quotas for Irish, Welsh and Scotts to live in England. Ban nationalities other than English sitting in Houses of Parliament."

This petition is so simplistic as to be impractical - so much so that I suspect, yet again, that the petitioner is not entirely serious.

On contemplation, I find that Tony Blair was born in Scotland; so, one assumes, was Gordon Brown; John Prescott was born in Wales; John Reid is Scottish; Ruth Kelly was born in Northern Ireland; Tessa Jowell was educated in Scotland ... the more I investigate the Cabinet the more of them seem to be not-born-in-England - I begin to think that this is a good idea after all! Let's decimate the Cabinet and make them start again!

But more sensibly ... completely breaking up the UK into its constituent parts would probably be enormously complicated, and assuming all the parts became members of the EU, they'd mostly have to allow people in and out and things ... then you'd have to sort out who actually belonged to which nation (birthplace? then what about people who've become naturalised as UK citizens?)

What chaos it would cause! And to what avail? What benefit? Oh ... right ... none. (Except possibly ridding ourselves of NuLab!)

Absolute Monarchy

The petition is entitled transfer all of the government's executive power to the Monarch and cease holding elections and the explanatory notes say

"It is clear that the present system of elected 'representative' government is not meeting the needs of the public. Politicians are not trusted and, once elected, not accountable, except to each other. Elections simply guarantee that power is placed in the hands of the very people who should be denied power at all costs. Therefore, we must stop holding elections of all kinds and immediately return to a system of absolute monarchy. This system would be permanent, hereditary and presided over by the House of Windsor."

There's an almighty leap of logic from complaining about the unaccountability of our "elected representatives" to declaring that this means we must return to an absolute monarchy ... I mean, how exactly would that be an improvement in terms of accountability?

Now, the Queen seems like a decent enough woman, and Prince Charles isn't a bad chap for all his lunacy on green-ness, and for that matter Prince William comes across as quite a reasonable kid. But none of these things imply they're marvellously fit to rule a country in actual practical terms (rather than being figureheads, which I suspect they're all quite capable of). And even if, actually, their decency means they might muddle through - what happens if you get someone who's not?

This spins off into an interesting little bit of philosophy that is never really dealt with in a couple of series of books that I'm quite keen on in general. Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan Saga and David Weber's Honorverse both have hereditary heads of state in their main societies. (In the Vorkosigan novels, Emperor Gregor has some approximation of absolute power, though each of the sixty Counts has a substantial autonomy in his district. In the Harrington novels, Queen Elizabeth is constrained by a constitution and houses of parliament.)

Both of these sets of books portray strong, honourable monarchs who deal admirably with their power and responsibility. It makes things all look very nice and shiny. What they show less is how this breaks down where a monarch is not strong, honourable and able to cope. Bujold skirts the issue by talking about what a nightmare things would have been had Emperor Gregor's father, Prince Serg, survived to take control after Emperor Ezar's death. The clear result would have been a mess of monumental proportions, she indicates, with the inevitable result of even more people than normal trying to assassinate the Emperor, and Pretenderships and Coups and all sorts of exciting things like that. Basically a mess. Weber's books are more idealistic and fail (as far as I can remember - admittedly I prefer the Vorkosigan saga and have read them more often and more recently) to cover potential problems with the situation at all. All the members of the House of Winton (and many of the aristocracy) are Fine Noble People who one can't imagine being anything other than great monarchs. This is not, unfortunately, realistic.

The petitioner should really go away and read Shards of Honor, the first ten chapters of which are available free, and cover the stuff I'm talking about. Then he should think about what would happen if we got a Prince Serg. Then he should think again.

Everyone else should just read either or both of the Vorkosigan Saga and/or the Honoverse novels because they're good.

Test Voters

The petition is entitled introduce a competence test that individuals must pass before they are permitted to vote in elections and the explanatory notes say

"The current process of democracy, allowing every citizen to vote regardless of understanding or intelligence, is far from ideal. The process allows charismatic individuals (and politicians) to generate a large following amongst the populace with shallow, poorly thought-through policies that do not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The process also breeds apathy among highly-educated voters who feel their views will be outweighed by a mass of voters with a poor grasp of the issues, having been seduced into voting for the high-profile individuals. We propose a mandatory test to be completed by every subject of the land, to show competence in the understanding of basic politics and governance before being permitted to vote in elections."

Mmm, yummy, Jim Crow laws ...

Cards on the table: I am one of the "highly educated" voters who feels (as I posted in Cut the Knee-jerk Law-making just a few hours ago) that their views are outweighed by a mass of voters with a poor grasp of the issues.

I still don't think this is any approximation of a good idea. I made fleeting reference to things of this nature in the post about Reggie von Zurbach, regarding a petition that wanted people to pass an English/Welsh language test before being allowed to vote.

Even if one accepts the concept that people have to be "worthy" to be allowed to vote, actually testing this "worthiness" is bound to open an enormous can of controversial worms. Even if you've decided that people have to be "competent in the understanding of basic politics and governance", you're never going to get agreement on a test that successfully measures this. So it's hopelessly impractical on that level.

But in any case, why do I have any right to say who should or should not have any right to vote? I might say that Person X has no right to vote because they are ignorant and credulous and knee-jerking voting because the Sun's told them to - but they might say that I have no right to vote because I'm a do-gooding liberal idiot. And who is to say that I am more right than them? Obviously in my opinion I am right and they are wrong - but why should my opinion count for more than theirs? Especially when there are (we seem to be assuming) so many more of them than of me?

And most of all, of course - tests like this can become the thin end of the wedge for bigotry - racism and other forms of unacceptable discrimination can be cunningly hidden and practised by this sort of test. That has to be the biggest danger with this sort of thing. Potentially, very nasty indeed.

No. Being democratic means giving everyone a say, irrespective of their ignorance or other idiocy.

Good King Nick

The petition is entitled make Nicholas G Dixon-Clegg the monarch of a newly reuninted British Empire and the explanatory notes say

"I know it makes sense. You know it makes sense. Make it so."

The only thing that puzzles me about this petition is that the EPetitions: Facts, figures and progress page says quite clearly

"Initially we accepted humorous petitions, on the grounds that they did no harm and were often funny. However, particularly after the site received publicity in the media, we found that more and more time was being taken up considering borderline cases where supposedly humorous petitions risked being seen as offensive or in bad taste. Some users also contacted us to complain about silly petitions undermining the serious purpose of the site.

We decided it was impossible to justify this use of Civil Service time, or to come up with clear guidelines as to what amounts to good or bad taste. Reluctantly therefore we have decided no longer to accept petitions which are obviously intended as jokes."

Does that mean that the Civil Service moderator(s) think this was serious? If so - EEEK!

Cut the Knee-jerk Law-making

The petition is entitled take a measured and whollistic approach to the justice system and stop introducing knee-jerk, opportunistic measures in criminal law simply to capture the current "buzz" of topical news items and there are no explanatory notes.

How I wish, wish, wish I thought anyone was going to pay attention to this idea! (I wish the petitioner had checked how to spell holistic, too - just to be even-handed and criticise the petitions I agree with as well as the ones I don't!)

I have an awful, pessimistic, cynical feeling that the biggest problem with this petition is that the majority don't agree. Obviously "people submitting petitions to the PM's petitions site" are a self-selecting group with goodness-knows-what strange biases, just as "people I know and talk to about news and politics" are also self-selecting and with a strong liberal/libertarian/fluffy/common-sense bias. But while the latter group would whole-heartedly support this idea, the impression given by the petitions submitted is overwhelmingly, well, knee-jerk. All the many petitions wailing about immigration, benefits, crime - from people who know nothing about the subject with so few nice liberal sensible petitions on the subject. So I can't help thinking that perhaps by knee-jerking away and "capturing the current buzz" the government is maybe doing exactly what the majority want. A singularly depressing thought.

National Anthem

The petition is entitled replace the National Anthem with the theme from BBC Radio 4's The Archers and the explanatory notes say

"Isn't it time that we selected a new National Anthem that we can all be proud of.

Isn't it time that we selected a new National Anthem that we all know the words to.

Isn't it time that we got back to the good old days where the National Anthem is played everyday on the BBC.

What better Anthem than Barwick Green, the classic theme from Radio 4's The Archers.

[Credit for this brilliant and original idea goes to Billy Connolly]

There can be very few people who cannot get their tongue round the following lyrics...

Rum Tee Tum Tee Tum Tee Tum; Rum Tee Tum Tee Daa Daa; Rum Tee Tum Tee Tum Tee Tum; Rum Tee Diddlee Tum;

Daa Daa Diddlee; Daa Daa Diddlee; Daa Daa Diddlee Dum;

Rum Tee Tum Tee Tum Tee Tum; Rum Tee Diddlee Tum [Repeat]"

What nonsense! It goes "Tum te tum te tum te tum, tum te tum te tum tum"! Why on earth should we listen to the views of some madman who can't even get the words right?

Binding Manifestos

The petition is entitled make the manifesto of political party a legally binding contract if they come to power and the explanatory notes say

"we all know how dodgy each party is, it's more a case of which one is least dodgy. Isn't it?"

This is a lovely idea. I've often thought so for students' union elections too, though in the case of the students' union manifestos, half the time the presidential candidates' manifestos promise mostly to do things the president doesn't have the power to do (the treasurer does), which would be a bit of a problem to bind people to.

It's never going to happen. But, oh, I wish it could!!

Government Interference in Break-ups

The petition is entitled that government should not interfere ( except as regards any children ) with the financial split when an unmarried couples relationship ends, except to support the fair position that you get out financially what you put into a relationship and the explanatory notes say

"What right does the government have to interfere in the relationship between two people if they choose not to join in a legal sense via marriage? I believe that if you choose not to be in a married relationship you are only entitled to leave with the material possessions you brought and added to that relationship including financial possessions. The only difference between two friends living together and an unmarried couple is sex and love (friends can also love each other) Why should either partner have to pay financially for sex? The needs of any children from the relationship is a reasonable area of concern for the Government"

How, exactly, can the Government interfere in a relationship breakup? Does it ever? The only possible explanation I can think of is if a relationship breaks up and the two can't agree on who brought what to the financial doings of the pair and take each other to court, or something. In which case, what practical alternative to "government interference" is there?

Scrapping and Creating Laws

The petition is entitled Make Parliament scrap two old laws before introducing any new one and the explanatory notes say

"In the last ten years, Parlament has introduced about 4,000 new ways for us to fall foul of the law. There are far too many outdated laws, rules and regulations for a free country. Let's scrap two for each new one introduced, we won't miss them!"

This is a fascinating idea.

It's manifestly impractical - you'd never get them to agree to it in the first place, let alone on what they should scrap - but astonishingly appealing.

Permanent Votes

The petition is entitled Bring in a system of Permanent Votes and the explanatory notes say

"Change the voting system so that at any time we can change whom we have voted for if we do not like the behavior of our MP or any other reason. Thus MP'S majorities will change on a daily basis. Their majorities published daily like the stock exchange prices, with movements up and down If the total of votes is below a majority then a change of MP, indeed party is made. Thus putting power in the hands of the voter."

Unbelievably, unfeasibly complicated. Just ... totally insane. Impossible to set up in the first place (you'd presumably want to do it electronically which would involve having some kind of secure system which, well, the government's shite at at the best of times). And then hopelessly impractical even if you could set it up - probably not a problem in safe seats where the same MP would stay put, but in marginals you'd have someone being replaced every five minutes. Which is not the way to get an MP who knows what they're doing.

For that matter, no one would stand in marginals: they'd be running the risk that they could lose the seat and yet a month or two later be called up for a month or two .. no employer would stand for it, I think, and how could anyone cope?

Madness.

OBE for My Wife!

The petition is entitled nominate Mrs Margaret Angela Owen for the OBE and the explanatory notes say

"My wife, Margaret Angela Owen, retired last year after having served Manchester Education Committee for more than 40 years as a classroom teacher. Her most recent headteacher (at King David Junior School, Manchester) would confirm that Margaret was a very able teacher and her students would agree also, I'm sure. Personally, although I might be slightly biased, I believe her to be patently outstanding and highly intelligent and always gave of her not inconsiderable best to the children. This great career, undisturbed by any desire to become a school head, deserves more than just a "Thank You" and I would urge you to grant this petition - honour her, please!"

I'm choking with laughter over this but can find very little to actually say about it. I have no reason, of course, to think that Mrs Owen was not a very able teacher and much appreciated by her pupils, but the same is true of many teachers who aren't awarded the OBE. And particularly without their spouses feeling the need to petition the PM to honour them!

Sneaky Metrification

The petition is entitled Stop Ministers and others from attempting to Metricate the United Kingdom by stealth and the explanatory notes say

"More and more often Ministers and others within the Government and on Television news, reports and many other interests are referring to measurements in the Metric System. We are still an Imperial measuring country, together with our traditional means of measurements. These moves are a Government ploy for the acceptance of The EU and are designed to make the intergration into The EU more acceptable."

I'm not completely impartial here; I am a Scientist and I do like SI units (except for measuring the height and/or weight of a person, which I can somehow only grok in Imperial).

Let's take this argument in stages:

We are still an Imperial measuring country. Are we?
• together with our traditional means of measurements. I incline to the view that we're still an English-speaking country with traditionally correct grammar being expected of maniacal traditionalists. But these petitioners seem to disagree.
• are designed to make the intergration into The EU more acceptable. Quite aside from anything else, I find the idea of "intergration" into The EU (loving your capitalisation here, folks - pity your spelling and grammar aren't up to the same Dickensian standards) quite acceptable already, and likewise "integration".

I suspect that more Ministers, Government officials and TV news reporters are using metric units because, increasingly, they're young enough to have been taught them extensively at school and they actually think in them. Never ascribe to malice what you can adequately explain as perfectly natural.

Equality with America

The petition is entitled Demand equality with America and the explanatory notes say

"We always stand shoulder to shoulder with the US and get NOTHING for it. Meanwhile all manner of products are released in the states 6 or more months before a UK release date... We should be given equal consideration by companies, enforced by LAW"

Now, there are all sorts of ways in which I agree with the petitioner's initial premise - I usually talk about arselicking on the part of our politicians, or being the fifty-whichever-it-is-th state, or something like that. But basically I agree.

I'm just not quite sure that the way to make this all OK is to ... bring products out at the same time on both sides of the pond. Quite aside from anything else, we're standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the US Government, whereas products are being released (or not) by companies, and nominally we have this "free market" kind of thing, as I understand it, which means that in most ways companies can't be constrained like that. It seems ... a bit mad, really. Fantastic start; hopeless leap of logic; truly loopy request.

Commonwealth Duplicate Petitions

Two petitions objecting to Britain's place in the Commonwealth, one saying Britain should be "ousted", and one calling for a referendum on the subject.

It's not difficult to do a quick search on a topic like "Commonwealth". I should know; I did. So - why the duplication?

Psychological Government Campaigns

The petition is entitled stop all departments of the government using psychological tactics in public information adverts and the explanatory notes say

"If there is a message to be conveyed to the public, please stick to the facts. Examples include: all 'Frank' advertising which scaremonger; the adverts concerning road tax and benefit fraud which present the system as a big brother style inescapable net; the anti-speeding campaign which uses a child actress to describe you killing her with a car. If the cause is truly righteous, then there is no need to try and influence people using psychology. We have all been brought up to resist this kind of propagandists' tactics, and to use these tactics is a violation. No wonder the mental health of the nation is going down the tubes."

As I said probably yesterday about charity adverts: I haven't seen these adverts, so I may be talking rubbish. But to my way of thinking, people need to be shocked about some things; none of these sound like completely unreasonable things to be "shocking" about.

All adverts "influence people using psychology", and even a non-"shocking" advert about speeding or benefit fraud or whatever will none the less use "psychology". And I don't think we have been "brought up to resist propagandits' tactics" - have we? I don't think I have, anyway.

And the line "No wonder the mental health of the nation is going down the tubes" renders me all-but-speechless in its Green Inkery.

Petition Approval

The petition is entitled exert a degree of control over the distortion of serious policy questions which pass for petitions on the Downing Street website and the explanatory notes say

"In particular, he should establish an Advisory Committee on Democratic Credibility (AC/DC) which should concern itself with just one specific question before authorising petitions to be uploaded to the site:

1. Does the petition include overstated or inaccurate claims about government plans that may cause members of the general public to unwittingly rule out changes to their lives that would be obviously beneficial. If so, this petition should be rejected or revised and resubmitted before being uploaded.

In order to ensure that the spirit of the petition mechanism is not lost, AC/DC should have a locked in lay majority. We suggest three lay members and two official Government members with no less than five years experience in policy formulation. All five should be appointed by a troika of the PM, the permanent secretary for Government Communications and the editor of the Daily Mail, and should serve no more than one four year term."

The petitioner just wants to spoil my fun!! It would, doubtless, cost a bomb; who on earth would such a troika appoint as lay members, and, of course, it would put people off submitting even sensible petitions.