It’s fitting, in a way, that on the day when Gavin Gamble writes here, movingly, about why he set up his e-petition, the rival e-petition which emanates from nineteenth century thinking makes a big leap forward. It’s now only 16,419 signatures behind Gavin’s and there’s a long time to go – longer for the rival petition of course.
It’s a good wake-up call and a sure sign that the grouse shooters see winning the signature race as important. I think they are right – it is important. And presumably that’s why the grouse shooters have followed the same line as last time, setting up a slightly peculiar e-petition under a name that nobody recognises and then promoting it. But they are right that it matters – does it matter to you?
The geographic distribution of signatures for the rival e-petition looks remarkably similar to that of the signatures that were gained by the previous pro-grouse shooting e-petition: The Cotswolds, the posh bits of central London (see examples at foot of this blog), Richmond (Yorks), North Herefordshire and NW Hampshire. All of these were notable last time around. I’d be pretty sure that whatever mechanism was used to promote the previous e-petition is being used this time around too. If anyone has any information on what that is then I’d be interested to hear – just for interest! The one difference so far is that there aren’t many signatures for the rival e-petition in Scotland – I imagine a different newsletter or network operates in Scotland and we may see that button pushed sooner or later. What we do know, is that there are at least a potential 25,322 signatures out there for such a petition.
If the rival e-petition gets to 10,000 signatures then there will be another government response – always worth having! And if it gets to 100,000 signatures then there will be a Westminster Hall debate of MPs (not an evidence session I would guess).
Anyway, that’s all speculation really, and we can’t do anything about what the other side are doing, we can only think of what we are going to do. We also know that there is a potential 123,077 signatures for an e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting. For certain, we will need to raise some funds for promotion to get anywhere near that total, or to keep pushing ahead of the rival petition. Some of us have already assembled a smallish war chest but after Christmas we’ll be asking for your support to push things forward – we know how to do it but we’ll need resources (dosh!) to be able to do it. So don’t spend all your money on Christmas presents please!
But also, mark my words, there is another e-petition heading our way – in support of licensing of shooting estates. Let’s see how that petition, which takes the same line as the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts (I think?), and indeed, importantly, the Scottish government, performs. At some stage the conservation NGOs will have to tell their supporters to express their views – won’t they?
So, we live in interesting times. But then, we always do. Give it a week or so and we’ll see how well the grouse shooters have organised themselves this time around. But in the meanwhile, why not get a friend to sign Gavin Gamble’s e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting?
And for interest…
…and…
I’m still going to move to Wales Mark even if Harrogate and Knaresborough is no longer the ecological illiteracy capital of the UK. Phew there are just some things you cannot live down you know.
Hypothetically if the ‘rival’ reached 100k and achieved a debate in Parliament then ‘we’/conservation counter case would be given equal if not more time to present our case …. just recalling the gate crashing they achieved last time when ‘our’ petition achieved 123,077 and theirs somewhere around 25k?
That could be an interesting discussion particularly if we all lobbied Michael Gove to respond on behalf of the Government instead of the Therese Coffey?
It stands to reason that if a topic is to be the subject of a ‘debate’ in Parliament or anywhere else, that both sides of the argument will be able to present their arguments. We may not have been thrilled that pro grouse shooting MPs turned up in force at the debate triggered by Mark’s petition or that pro grouse shooting got to present evidence to the select committee but they were perfectly entitled to do so. Equally, in the unlikely event that a pro grouse shooting petition exceeds the threshold for triggering a debate we will be entitled to have our arguments presented in that debate.
A very measured and wise post. Petitions have their place, but they generally work to raise awareness of a subject, and help guide the Petitions Committee. What then matters is the evidence presented and the debate that follows. The previous parliamentary activity has been criticised for being dominated by members in favour of grouse shooting, but members are free to take a position (whip, manifesto etc aside). Members who oppose the activity are equally free to participate in parliamentary activity.
Just out of interest whom is promoting this pro shooting petition? Not seen any shooting org promoting it?!….
ed – ha ha!
How did you hear about it and when did you sign it?
Seriously, not seen 1!??….???
When you mentioned it!…. And no, I haven’t signed it.
Couldn’t be one of your mates Ed, who changed his #Twitter handle a while back, could it?
Not a clue, never heard of Jane Griggs…. Just haven’t seen any shooting org promoting it. Just saying
ed – do let us all know if you do – that would obviously be interesting.
13,905 ahead now.
I suspect the pro-shooting-anything-that-flies petition is organised by Conservative Constituency Associations…
Mark, it’s interesting that in this blog you talk about raising funds in order to promote your position – which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do – but then two days later publish a blog attacking GWCT for doing the same thing? Why the difference in opinion?
Mike – I think I was taking the mickey out of them wasn’t I? They’re welcome to try to do the same out of me – as are you, but you have failed.
That was rather my point, Mark. You take the micky out of GWCT but do yourself exactly what you ridicule them for doing. I wondered if you wanted to comment about why one group fundraising for their cause is worthy of contempt and another not. But clearly you’d rather attempt a rather odd attack on me. For what it’s worth, I was attempting to have a serious discussion, but it looks like you won’t do so, which is a shame.
Mike – that was your attempt at a serious conversation? Well, well.
Yet again, Mark, you refuse to engage in serious discussion. I’ll try once again: why is one organisation fundraising worthy of contempt, and another worthy of praise? I expect you’ll nt really answer, because you seem to prefer an echo chamber where only those you agree with her serious answers.
Weavers -is that trying? I’m not an organisation for one thing. And you are not the least bit serious – as has been shown by a string of previous comments – as another.
And your comment is unintelligible. Come back when you can both think and type.
How sad, how pathetic. To win the argument you’ll need to reach out to more than those who already agree with you, but you seem incapable of dealing with anyone other than those like you. It’s how children behave, and it’s really sad.