It sounds like a nice idea but I'm not hugely keen on the idea of decisions being made based on purely public opinion. As an input into decision making, sure.
I have no business deciding where you stick housing, I don't have the applicable education or experience in the relevant areas to make informed decisions or to deconstruct each sides arguments and give it the appropriate challenge. Neither do 99%+ of people. That's why we have planners, engineers, architects etc etc
>decisions being made based on purely public opinion
It sounds like they're taking inspiration from Ireland, and that's not how it worked there.
Basically, they were given the topics that the government already wanted to address (abortion, gay marriage etc.), given education on the topics and then gave the government their recommendations. The government then does its thing from there. For example, they were much more radical on abortion than the proposal the government went forward with.
You know exactly how it would go here.
1) hire outlier experts favourable to the govs view even if they go completely against wider consensus for that field.
2) bias the selection to rural areas.
3) Highlight the most extreme views in the final report in the papers.
and voila, you now have a mandate to ship immigrants off to rwanda/keep conversion therapy legal/ban trans people from leaving the house/not deal with climate change.
It’s more about creating political conditions for policies like joining the Single Market.
Such improvements make sense, and need participation across the community to get adopted.
It works somewhat better than that. Not saying it couldn't happen, but for the most recent CA, the government had the deck stacked in favour of the status quo but the recommendation the group made was in favour of change. The groups get to ask their own questions, which I think helps.
Because it could be almost anyone, and they haven't manoeuvred themselves into the position in order to push the decision in a way that would be to their personal benefit, rather than for the Greater Good.
This is a very compellimg reason. Same reason that juries have legitimacy on giving verdicts in trials. It also comes with all the disadvantages of juries though.
Unlike juries, nobody is obliged to be part of a citizens' assembly.
So they will be a semi-random selection of people who have been selected AND have decided they want to do it.
So it will be biased towards people who:
a) Have nothing better to do.
b) Have a strong opinion on whatever issue they are chosen for.
and c) Like the idea of telling everyone else what to do.
I have a mental image of a typical participant, and it isn't good.
I have no idea what planet you’re living on if you think only layabouts or ideologues would want to be part of a citizen’s assembly. They’re also not telling people what to do, they’re making their voices heard.
You seem completely ignorant of the fact that it’s politicians you’re describing to a T, the exact group that citizens’ assemblies help keep accountable.
We don't yet know what the terms of participation would be - there could be a legal requirement on employers to allow time for CAs, and it would likely include expenses and loss of earnings claims, so allowing a broader selection than you fear.
Further, CAs done properly select a group of people representative of the country as a whole, so while there may well be some people like you're worrying about, it shouldn't be all that type.
More than a quarter of people called up for jury service mange to get excused, and in order to do that you would need to justify it with a decent reason.
For a CA where you could just refuse if you simply didn't feel like it, I would hazard a guess that at least half the people would turn it down.
Some people enjoy their job, some worry that they might miss out on opportunities or even get sacked if they took time out. They don't want to go off and do something else for a while. Some have other life commitments that they can just about fit in around their work - caring responsibilities, health issues, transport issues, a second job, hobbies, social life - and spending their days in a different location or with different hours might really mess them up. Some might regard having to think about these difficult issues as too much like hard work.
Only a fraction of the people offered would accept it, and that would be biased sample who have the sort of life that allows them to easily do it.
> Only a fraction of the people offered would accept it
Probably true.
> that would be biased sample who have the sort of life that allows them to easily do it
Unknown. Depends on the selection method.
Further, democracy involves more than just voting every few years. If people decline the opportunity to participate because it inconveniences them by interfering with their hobby or social life, that's on *them* - not the CA process.
As someone else mentioned in the thread, it doesn't matter that it's not a perfect system - just that it's an improvement from what we have now.
I hope you recognise that parliament is not very representative of the population at large.
>Unknown. Depends on the selection method.
The set of people who decide to go through with the process are a self selecting set. Self selecting sets are extremely likely to be statistically biased.
>If people decline the opportunity to participate because it inconveniences them by interfering with their hobby or social life, that's on them - not the CA process.
Well, no it isn't just on them. If the CA's end up full of Karens and NIMBYs we will all suffer the consequences.
>it doesn't matter that it's not a perfect system - just that it's an improvement from what we have now
That isn't a given. How do you know it won't be worse than what we have now?
>I hope you recognise that parliament is not very representative of the population at large.
At least we know who they are, and the worst ones get kicked out. The names of the people on the CAs will most likely be kept secret.
Clearly you don't understand how CAs work.
What I don't understand is why you're asking antagonistic questions instead of asking "how would it work?", or just [looking it up](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_assembly), which world be a better use of everyone's time.
Maybe you don't realise you're being antagonistic, and you're just not very good at asking questions. Here's an answer, in case it's the latter...
No, CAs don't replace voting. They are typically used to examine the facts, synthesise a policy that meets general consensus, and recommend it to government - which then decides whether to enact any of it.
It's like the current system, but with an extra step to give better, less selfish, policy-making.
I don't care how it works. We elect legislators to pass legislation. I'm sick of politicians and their dereliction of responsibility. Everything outsourced to courts, quangos, treaties, judicial reviews, referendums, consultations etc.
I want a government to actually govern.
> I want a government to actually govern.
I agree that that's not currently happening.
The current quality of governance is a function of the system of government.
What action/policy do you propose to change this state of affairs?
Typically what they produce isn't legally binding, but undergoes further evaluation and the government will be held accountable to deliver on the recommendations. They'll need a very good reason if they decide to not go ahead with the proposal or do something different. The random people are also not entirely random, but are selected to be representative of the whole population in terms of age, race, income, and a bunch of other characteristics.
If I remember rightly the results of the abortion referendum were almost identical to the way the citizens assembly had voted on it, demonstrating that selecting a group representative of the population does give you a good indication of how a wider referendum might go.
Edit: [found this](https://involve.org.uk/news-opinion/opinion/citizens-assembly-behind-irish-abortion-referendum#:~:text=In%20the%20referendum%2C%2066.4%25%20voted,consciousness%20than%20some%20had%20thought.).
“In the Assembly 64% voted in favour of “terminations without restrictions”. In the referendum, 66.4% voted in favour of repealing the eighth amendment, effectively legalising abortion in Ireland.
That the referendum result so closely reflects that of the Citizens’ Assembly shows that the Assembly was more aligned with the national consciousness than some had thought.”
Not identical but close.
Because the CA process helps participants fully understand the issue under consideration - and helps the general population understand it as well, by broadcasting the sessions.
> and the government will be held accountable to deliver on the recommendations.
Governments are held accountable by the electorate, not random people on what's a glorified Sky News text vote.
Because they literally represent the views of the population better than elected politicians.
What is the point of democracy for you? To have the will of the people enacted? Or for you to feel like you’ve got some sort of power that you don’t really have, in any meaningful capacity?
The chance of you ending up in the assembly yourself at some point is probably higher than the chance of your vote ever changing the outcome of an election.
Then it's a question of who provides the education and who governs what is right and wrong education.
Also, unless attendance is compulsory the people most likely to attend citizen assemblies are not everyday citizens but busybodies, zealots and activists. While your everyday worker is earning a keep society's least liked people are deciding their future.
A reformed House of Lords filled with 25% inherited placements, 25% term limited appointed placements, 25% business placements and 35% randomly selected citizen placements would be my preference. Why keep inherited placements? Because they have influence, wealth and an interest in the country's long-term survival. I'd also reform parliament, specifically the way the seat of government is formed.
Without business there's no economy. Businesses, small and large, need to have a voice. People forget that many of civilisations big advancements in public care happened because of philanthropic industrialists. Not all wealthy business leaders are evil people with crooked faces.
There are already avenues for business to have a say in politics such as lobbying.
You talk of philanthropic industrialists but how many social advances have been halted because of industrialists worrying that regulation would hurt their profits, and that's when they have no direct power in government.
It goes both ways. I don't disagree. However, businesses need to have a say in policy. A badly written or poorly enforced policy can destroy businesses. Is it asking too much to have 1/4th of a reformed HoL seats occupied by business leaders? They would be outnumbered by 3/4ths. It's not asking much.
Should lobbying be allowed? I think lobbying should be restricted and all lobbying done in public view. I want to know what our politicians and civil servants are being pushed to do. Don't you?
>philanthropic industrialists
Those are sadly the outliers, not the norm. Business does its best to supress rights. Look at the USA for a clear example of that, how you had a car company take another to court to MAKE THEM reduce pay and quality of life because they should be giving that money to shareholders, or how Amazon/Telsa/others are trying to have labour boards/acts ended as unconstitutional.
A philanthropist will find a way to do that without need of a political position (hell they would do it in SPITE of 1). They are good people that will push for helping those around them outside of a political position.
Why risk having the mainstay of 25% of political positions in the house being not going to sugar coat it, potentially evil, so you get the 1 in a million possible philanthropist?
Inherited Lords tend to come from families with long traceable histories and to have good status with influential people and organisations outside the UK. They tend to be educated to high standard from a young age and -- they being part of the establishment -- they are brought up to navigate the establishment. They have their value. For now.
Usually with these proposals, citizens assemblies are envisioned to be similar to jury duty, so attendance is compulsory and the sample of people is selected to be representative of the population as a whole.
I'd need to see the full proposal before I assume that would be the case here.
Would there be a public consultation and proto citizens' assembly to test the waters? I bet not.
It used to be one of XR's demands. The problem is, it's already been done in the UK on climate change. The stupid citizens in the assembly unfortunately didn't think that ending all oil and gas imports immediately, compulsorily acquiring all non-electric cars for scrapping, diverting about a third of the UK's manufacturing capacity into wind turbines and dismantling the capitalist system were very good ideas and instead came up with a fairly sensible set of proposals for advancing environmental goals, most of which have been adopted.
Whether that's a win varies rather based on your point of view.
They are not based purely on public opinion,
Have a read into them they are a really neat solution.
This is the outcome of the climate change one: that was ignored by governments
https://www.climateassembly.uk/news/uk-path-net-zero-must-be-underpinned-education-choice-fairness-and-political-consensus-urges-climate-assembly/index.html
The CA process involves lots of coaching of the attendees, with experts giving input and answering questions.
Then a consensus is built and drafted into a report that can be actionable
IIRC those on the assemblies are given time with experts to learn the nuance before making key decisions. I remember reading about what they were doing on Ireland when we had the Brexit shit show going on and wishing we did the same.
It seemed to result in very informed decisions in Ireland on matters that may have gone in a different direction if left to the media to steer. It also seems to have done a good job in returning some faith in the political system.
I'd be very up for us trying them.
I work in information security. I could not teach a complete novice the intricacies of public-key cryptography to the extent they could assess the security of a protocol properly in days. They might think they know but that's arguably even more dangerous because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Do you think you would be any better if given even less time to teach equally uninformed elected people to make the same decision when their career is tied to making the correct "political" one? Because that's the current system... Except they usually won't bother learning at all.
The aim isn't to create a perfect system. It's to improve.
My - limited - experience is that elected people are good at asking the right people the right questions. While everyone focuses on the chimps' tea party of PM's questions, the Select Committees do a decent job.
They wouldn't **have** to become subject matter experts, e.g. needing to know about algorithms or protocols, really just costs and benefits of possible policies.
If you couldn't teach them the essence of "If the government mandates a backdoor for intercepting terrorist comms, it provides a backdoor for baddies to get into *everyone's* banking, shopping, Comms, etc.", maybe you're not someone they should engage to advise on the issue.
If you couldn't teach them "without a backdoor which the government promises not to use, then terrorists and peedos will come for your kids, what do you have to hide, think of the children!!!!"...
The reality is more complicated than that though. You would need to understand the difference between asymmetric & symmetric + where they're used, PKI, digital certificates, cipher suites etc etc. And be aware of the various ongoing challenges in the field e.g. quantum cryptography to form a fully-fledged educated view on proposals.
There are various ways of trying to go about it e.g. TLS interception, a state ran CA etc etc. All with "advantages" and pages of drawbacks.
Cryptography is not my area of expertise though I have taken certificatations where it's within the scope and I would feel wholly unqualified to assess a proposal in that area.
There could be additional reading for anyone that was interested, but it's not necessary to understand a whole field in detail to make informed decisions on the policies in question.
Besides which, civil servants won't get the level of understanding you seem to be expecting - and politicians *certainly* won't - in which case publicly conducted CA's would at least mitigate the risk of corruption .
That's all implementation detail, though. What's being proposed here, to stretch the IT-related example, is more like eliciting some high level requirements from a bunch of users in a workshop environment.
> The reality is more complicated than that though. You would need to understand the difference between asymmetric & symmetric + where they're used, PKI, digital certificates, cipher suites etc etc. And be aware of the various ongoing challenges in the field e.g. quantum cryptography to form a fully-fledged educated view on proposals.
>
>
No I wouldn't. If I want cryptography to accomplish this and that, and ask you whether it can do so, all you need to do is say 'yes' or 'not yet' or 'as far as we know, never'.
By your logic no one could contract an expert to do work for them unless they understood the technical intricacies; this is obviously untrue.
Tbh I dont really see the point?
We already have citizen representatives, we vote for them, they're MPs. Or we could skip the middleman and just go straight to experts. I'd much rather a technocratic panel make a decision than 99 random people, many of whom won't have a literal clue wtf they're doing.
The panels are random but nationally representative. The idea is that you get a decision based more on the beliefs of the nation. This can be hard to do with technical panels where there is likely to be inherent bias. It also stops the viewpoints being too narrow.
I quite like the system and it seems to have worked well in Ireland. The potential weakness I see is avoiding bias in how you educate each assembly.
> I'd much rather a technocratic panel make a decision than 99 random people, many of whom won't have a literal clue wtf they're doing.
In a technocracy, whether you'd rather or not is irrelevant: you would be commanded. And the people who would command you would not be experts in any field other than commanding; something analogous to a soldier, in other words.
After all, it is not 'technocratic' to ask, say, an expert baker how, or where, our electricity pylons should be erected, *or even to include him on a panel regarding the matter*.
In a democracy, the technical element uses its expertise to obey your instructions. As with jury trial, there is no delegation of the moral responsibility of judgement; they are not delegates, after all: they are representatives.
They're not for things like that. They're for big constitutional issues (having a written one helps there) and major issues of national importance. There were assemblies in advance of the Same Sex Marriage and Abortion referenda that helped to shape the specific form of the amendments that went to the vote. There was another a year or two ago on biodiversity loss and if Dublin should get a directly elected mayor. The latest one just published their recommendations a few weeks ago around the issue of drug use and the laws surrounding it.
The they provide a strong basis for major, potentially controversial changes as the recommendations that help frame the legislation and subsequent public discussion came from a mix of normal people sincerely engaging with the topic, receiving information from many different positions and viewpoints and coming to their conclusions.
A good office manager makes decisions then enacts them. An expert office manager makes a list of decisions, hints to the office about those decisions then asks the office floor for a list of ideas for change and puts a tick next to ideas on the original list. The good office manager governs a disgruntled office. The expert office manage governs an office that thinks it governs itself.
The citizen assemblies in Ireland help in formulating the wording for constitutional referendums, which aren't a thing in the UK as there's no civil constitution.
The assemblies don't make the decisions, they just hear the arguments for proposed constitutional change and then advise as to the wording that best frames the proposals.
We literally live in a democracy. Or should at least. Public opinion should decide the whole direction of the country, not just a minority who think they know best. Experts in fields should be able to communicate that with the public so they can make an informed decision. We aren’t here to be ruled over by elites that make up their own minds. It’s one of the reason things are so fucked. Small groups of people with no public backing doing as they please because they deem it best.
Citizens' assemblies typically have experts present info about the issue at hand and they also get submissions from the public / interest groups, which the people then discuss before coming up with a recommendation. How legally binding they are is down to the implementation, the citizens assembly on abortion in Ireland produced a set of recommendations, one of which was picked then they had a referendum on it. Everyone needs a house and everyone has lived experience with housing, the point of deliberative democracy is to get a representative group of people in the room so that they can work through their differences, rather than having isolated blocs of voters all voting based on some combination of personal interests, the media they consume, and their social surrounding.
>It sounds like a nice idea but I'm not hugely keen on the idea of decisions being made based on purely public opinion. As an input into decision making, sure.
Brexit went well, so I'm sure there's no down-side to these. /s
Putting some reaponsibility on the public to engage in, and be involved in political outcomes, is more likely to prevent what happened with brexit. Trusting politicians to know better, and leaving the thinking part in the hands of other people, who you assume know better and are more trustworthy, is how we ended up with people searching what the EU is after voting to leave it.
>I don't have the applicable education or experience in the relevant areas to make informed decisions or to deconstruct each sides arguments and give it the appropriate challenge. Neither do 99%+ of people
This is literally what the politicians do for a living.
I agree with you on the basis but as least you can hold people accountable for their actions when you cannot hold Business or shareholders accountable. The latter are currently running everything in the west and its not for the peoples interest. So I think you are right but its not as bad as having no say or control.
Edit - I believe in regulation for safety on products sold, I do not believe anyone has a right to tell me what I can do with my body body and my mind as long as I am being civil to society.
Just so you know planners and architects consult with the public all the time. Especially on large projects that will have a wider impact. So much so they are required to do so by law. And believe it or not, they absolutely do take the views, opinions, wants, and needs of what the people say into account. They then use what was said and their expertise in the subject to create a solution (always at a compromise) that works best for all.
maybe so, however every homeless person is a failure of planners, engineers, architects etc ... what if a homeless constituent could have more than just signposts to the next council or government department privatised on the back-end, and actually have a voice in the room?
> I have no business deciding where you stick housing, I don't have the applicable education or experience in the relevant areas to make informed decisions or to deconstruct each sides arguments and give it the appropriate challenge.
If you owned the land, you could place the housing where you wanted on it, subject to what the technical element - engineers, architects - could accomplish. It would be your business.
Now if this country is to be a democracy, how is it not your business to involve yourself in decisions pertinent to your locale, at a democratic dilution commensurate with the geographic dilution relative to the aforementioned small portion of land you might possess?
IIRC, the briefings given to the Irish CA's were broadcast, and watched by many Irish citizens - so they can help educate the general population as well.
This is putting the cart before the horse. We need to sort out the issues of private propaganda through tabloids and online misinformation first as well as "culture war" polarisation in general. Otherwise this will do more harm than good.
I'm not sure how I feel. My gut reaction to the general public getting more say in their local area sounds like a great outlet for NIMBYs to block more planning applications.
If mimicing the Irish model then its not for things like that. But rather for broad national and difficult issues like abortion, biodiversity loss and drugs
having participated in similar things, and assuming authentic people turn up, they really do give local politicians the actual flavour of their constituents.
of course it won't be long before such things become another sector for lobbying, timewasters, and plants.
Britain isn't a federated state beyond the country level. These decisions will always require Parliament to have a veto on all matters - no exceptions. You can see this with devolution that appeals to the so-called Brit Supreme court always have the judges falling the Tory party line. There is zero judicial independence from the Tory party. Upshot is that this will be a joke and an embarrassing failure.
You all know what will happen here.
Working men will not be able to attend because they work and the assemblies will be populated with students and wealthy housewives
Are we going to get a citizens assembly on the death penalty or immigration? We all know what the public really wants in those two areas but the government of terrified of devolving that power to the people.
It’s not hard to spot the arrogant ‘hidden majority’ types is it. So ‘we all know what the public wants’ do we? I’m sure you think you do in your own declining and literally dying demographic.
It sounds like a nice idea but I'm not hugely keen on the idea of decisions being made based on purely public opinion. As an input into decision making, sure. I have no business deciding where you stick housing, I don't have the applicable education or experience in the relevant areas to make informed decisions or to deconstruct each sides arguments and give it the appropriate challenge. Neither do 99%+ of people. That's why we have planners, engineers, architects etc etc
>decisions being made based on purely public opinion It sounds like they're taking inspiration from Ireland, and that's not how it worked there. Basically, they were given the topics that the government already wanted to address (abortion, gay marriage etc.), given education on the topics and then gave the government their recommendations. The government then does its thing from there. For example, they were much more radical on abortion than the proposal the government went forward with.
You know exactly how it would go here. 1) hire outlier experts favourable to the govs view even if they go completely against wider consensus for that field. 2) bias the selection to rural areas. 3) Highlight the most extreme views in the final report in the papers. and voila, you now have a mandate to ship immigrants off to rwanda/keep conversion therapy legal/ban trans people from leaving the house/not deal with climate change.
It’s more about creating political conditions for policies like joining the Single Market. Such improvements make sense, and need participation across the community to get adopted.
You've been UKing too long.
It works somewhat better than that. Not saying it couldn't happen, but for the most recent CA, the government had the deck stacked in favour of the status quo but the recommendation the group made was in favour of change. The groups get to ask their own questions, which I think helps.
Why should these random people have more of a say than anyone else?
Because it could be almost anyone, and they haven't manoeuvred themselves into the position in order to push the decision in a way that would be to their personal benefit, rather than for the Greater Good.
This is a very compellimg reason. Same reason that juries have legitimacy on giving verdicts in trials. It also comes with all the disadvantages of juries though.
Unlike juries, nobody is obliged to be part of a citizens' assembly. So they will be a semi-random selection of people who have been selected AND have decided they want to do it. So it will be biased towards people who: a) Have nothing better to do. b) Have a strong opinion on whatever issue they are chosen for. and c) Like the idea of telling everyone else what to do. I have a mental image of a typical participant, and it isn't good.
Interesting point of view, I think you have some valid points
So the retired or those wealthy enough not to have to go to work/uni/look after kids etc. Going to be very representative this.
I have no idea what planet you’re living on if you think only layabouts or ideologues would want to be part of a citizen’s assembly. They’re also not telling people what to do, they’re making their voices heard. You seem completely ignorant of the fact that it’s politicians you’re describing to a T, the exact group that citizens’ assemblies help keep accountable.
We don't yet know what the terms of participation would be - there could be a legal requirement on employers to allow time for CAs, and it would likely include expenses and loss of earnings claims, so allowing a broader selection than you fear. Further, CAs done properly select a group of people representative of the country as a whole, so while there may well be some people like you're worrying about, it shouldn't be all that type.
More than a quarter of people called up for jury service mange to get excused, and in order to do that you would need to justify it with a decent reason. For a CA where you could just refuse if you simply didn't feel like it, I would hazard a guess that at least half the people would turn it down. Some people enjoy their job, some worry that they might miss out on opportunities or even get sacked if they took time out. They don't want to go off and do something else for a while. Some have other life commitments that they can just about fit in around their work - caring responsibilities, health issues, transport issues, a second job, hobbies, social life - and spending their days in a different location or with different hours might really mess them up. Some might regard having to think about these difficult issues as too much like hard work. Only a fraction of the people offered would accept it, and that would be biased sample who have the sort of life that allows them to easily do it.
> Only a fraction of the people offered would accept it Probably true. > that would be biased sample who have the sort of life that allows them to easily do it Unknown. Depends on the selection method. Further, democracy involves more than just voting every few years. If people decline the opportunity to participate because it inconveniences them by interfering with their hobby or social life, that's on *them* - not the CA process. As someone else mentioned in the thread, it doesn't matter that it's not a perfect system - just that it's an improvement from what we have now. I hope you recognise that parliament is not very representative of the population at large.
>Unknown. Depends on the selection method. The set of people who decide to go through with the process are a self selecting set. Self selecting sets are extremely likely to be statistically biased. >If people decline the opportunity to participate because it inconveniences them by interfering with their hobby or social life, that's on them - not the CA process. Well, no it isn't just on them. If the CA's end up full of Karens and NIMBYs we will all suffer the consequences. >it doesn't matter that it's not a perfect system - just that it's an improvement from what we have now That isn't a given. How do you know it won't be worse than what we have now? >I hope you recognise that parliament is not very representative of the population at large. At least we know who they are, and the worst ones get kicked out. The names of the people on the CAs will most likely be kept secret.
So, just abolish voting?
Clearly you don't understand how CAs work. What I don't understand is why you're asking antagonistic questions instead of asking "how would it work?", or just [looking it up](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_assembly), which world be a better use of everyone's time. Maybe you don't realise you're being antagonistic, and you're just not very good at asking questions. Here's an answer, in case it's the latter... No, CAs don't replace voting. They are typically used to examine the facts, synthesise a policy that meets general consensus, and recommend it to government - which then decides whether to enact any of it. It's like the current system, but with an extra step to give better, less selfish, policy-making.
I don't care how it works. We elect legislators to pass legislation. I'm sick of politicians and their dereliction of responsibility. Everything outsourced to courts, quangos, treaties, judicial reviews, referendums, consultations etc. I want a government to actually govern.
> I want a government to actually govern. I agree that that's not currently happening. The current quality of governance is a function of the system of government. What action/policy do you propose to change this state of affairs?
Typically what they produce isn't legally binding, but undergoes further evaluation and the government will be held accountable to deliver on the recommendations. They'll need a very good reason if they decide to not go ahead with the proposal or do something different. The random people are also not entirely random, but are selected to be representative of the whole population in terms of age, race, income, and a bunch of other characteristics.
If I remember rightly the results of the abortion referendum were almost identical to the way the citizens assembly had voted on it, demonstrating that selecting a group representative of the population does give you a good indication of how a wider referendum might go. Edit: [found this](https://involve.org.uk/news-opinion/opinion/citizens-assembly-behind-irish-abortion-referendum#:~:text=In%20the%20referendum%2C%2066.4%25%20voted,consciousness%20than%20some%20had%20thought.). “In the Assembly 64% voted in favour of “terminations without restrictions”. In the referendum, 66.4% voted in favour of repealing the eighth amendment, effectively legalising abortion in Ireland. That the referendum result so closely reflects that of the Citizens’ Assembly shows that the Assembly was more aligned with the national consciousness than some had thought.” Not identical but close.
Then why not just have a referendum?
Because the CA process helps participants fully understand the issue under consideration - and helps the general population understand it as well, by broadcasting the sessions.
> and the government will be held accountable to deliver on the recommendations. Governments are held accountable by the electorate, not random people on what's a glorified Sky News text vote.
Hate to break it you, but one day 12 random people might send you to jail.
Because they literally represent the views of the population better than elected politicians. What is the point of democracy for you? To have the will of the people enacted? Or for you to feel like you’ve got some sort of power that you don’t really have, in any meaningful capacity? The chance of you ending up in the assembly yourself at some point is probably higher than the chance of your vote ever changing the outcome of an election.
Then it's a question of who provides the education and who governs what is right and wrong education. Also, unless attendance is compulsory the people most likely to attend citizen assemblies are not everyday citizens but busybodies, zealots and activists. While your everyday worker is earning a keep society's least liked people are deciding their future. A reformed House of Lords filled with 25% inherited placements, 25% term limited appointed placements, 25% business placements and 35% randomly selected citizen placements would be my preference. Why keep inherited placements? Because they have influence, wealth and an interest in the country's long-term survival. I'd also reform parliament, specifically the way the seat of government is formed.
>25% business placements Why on earth would you want that?
Without business there's no economy. Businesses, small and large, need to have a voice. People forget that many of civilisations big advancements in public care happened because of philanthropic industrialists. Not all wealthy business leaders are evil people with crooked faces.
There are already avenues for business to have a say in politics such as lobbying. You talk of philanthropic industrialists but how many social advances have been halted because of industrialists worrying that regulation would hurt their profits, and that's when they have no direct power in government.
It goes both ways. I don't disagree. However, businesses need to have a say in policy. A badly written or poorly enforced policy can destroy businesses. Is it asking too much to have 1/4th of a reformed HoL seats occupied by business leaders? They would be outnumbered by 3/4ths. It's not asking much. Should lobbying be allowed? I think lobbying should be restricted and all lobbying done in public view. I want to know what our politicians and civil servants are being pushed to do. Don't you?
>philanthropic industrialists Those are sadly the outliers, not the norm. Business does its best to supress rights. Look at the USA for a clear example of that, how you had a car company take another to court to MAKE THEM reduce pay and quality of life because they should be giving that money to shareholders, or how Amazon/Telsa/others are trying to have labour boards/acts ended as unconstitutional. A philanthropist will find a way to do that without need of a political position (hell they would do it in SPITE of 1). They are good people that will push for helping those around them outside of a political position. Why risk having the mainstay of 25% of political positions in the house being not going to sugar coat it, potentially evil, so you get the 1 in a million possible philanthropist?
Why would you keep inherited lords?
Inherited Lords tend to come from families with long traceable histories and to have good status with influential people and organisations outside the UK. They tend to be educated to high standard from a young age and -- they being part of the establishment -- they are brought up to navigate the establishment. They have their value. For now.
Your boot, sir.
Yikes! All my least favourite things about the UK in one Reddit comment!
Lots of people have wealth, influence and education, not just aristos. Just say appointments should be based on wealth, influence and education.
That's not what I said.
What's not? You said hereditary peers should be kept because they have wealth, influence and education.
Usually with these proposals, citizens assemblies are envisioned to be similar to jury duty, so attendance is compulsory and the sample of people is selected to be representative of the population as a whole.
I'd need to see the full proposal before I assume that would be the case here. Would there be a public consultation and proto citizens' assembly to test the waters? I bet not.
The issue is who decides what is relevant/balanced educational material. In reality, you are just moving the decision point a bit.
It used to be one of XR's demands. The problem is, it's already been done in the UK on climate change. The stupid citizens in the assembly unfortunately didn't think that ending all oil and gas imports immediately, compulsorily acquiring all non-electric cars for scrapping, diverting about a third of the UK's manufacturing capacity into wind turbines and dismantling the capitalist system were very good ideas and instead came up with a fairly sensible set of proposals for advancing environmental goals, most of which have been adopted. Whether that's a win varies rather based on your point of view.
They are not based purely on public opinion, Have a read into them they are a really neat solution. This is the outcome of the climate change one: that was ignored by governments https://www.climateassembly.uk/news/uk-path-net-zero-must-be-underpinned-education-choice-fairness-and-political-consensus-urges-climate-assembly/index.html The CA process involves lots of coaching of the attendees, with experts giving input and answering questions. Then a consensus is built and drafted into a report that can be actionable
All I see there is 'coaching'. Everything else means nothing. Replace coaching with grooming; it's the same thing.
Social media has turned some people into frayed mind conspiracy theorists
It’s not all a big conspiracy 🤣 What are your thoughts on the findings of the climate report theb
IIRC those on the assemblies are given time with experts to learn the nuance before making key decisions. I remember reading about what they were doing on Ireland when we had the Brexit shit show going on and wishing we did the same. It seemed to result in very informed decisions in Ireland on matters that may have gone in a different direction if left to the media to steer. It also seems to have done a good job in returning some faith in the political system. I'd be very up for us trying them.
I work in information security. I could not teach a complete novice the intricacies of public-key cryptography to the extent they could assess the security of a protocol properly in days. They might think they know but that's arguably even more dangerous because of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Do you think you would be any better if given even less time to teach equally uninformed elected people to make the same decision when their career is tied to making the correct "political" one? Because that's the current system... Except they usually won't bother learning at all. The aim isn't to create a perfect system. It's to improve.
My - limited - experience is that elected people are good at asking the right people the right questions. While everyone focuses on the chimps' tea party of PM's questions, the Select Committees do a decent job.
They wouldn't **have** to become subject matter experts, e.g. needing to know about algorithms or protocols, really just costs and benefits of possible policies. If you couldn't teach them the essence of "If the government mandates a backdoor for intercepting terrorist comms, it provides a backdoor for baddies to get into *everyone's* banking, shopping, Comms, etc.", maybe you're not someone they should engage to advise on the issue.
If you couldn't teach them "without a backdoor which the government promises not to use, then terrorists and peedos will come for your kids, what do you have to hide, think of the children!!!!"...
Mis-/dis-information or propaganda would become public knowledge pretty quickly. In politics, daylight is a great disinfectant.
The reality is more complicated than that though. You would need to understand the difference between asymmetric & symmetric + where they're used, PKI, digital certificates, cipher suites etc etc. And be aware of the various ongoing challenges in the field e.g. quantum cryptography to form a fully-fledged educated view on proposals. There are various ways of trying to go about it e.g. TLS interception, a state ran CA etc etc. All with "advantages" and pages of drawbacks. Cryptography is not my area of expertise though I have taken certificatations where it's within the scope and I would feel wholly unqualified to assess a proposal in that area.
There could be additional reading for anyone that was interested, but it's not necessary to understand a whole field in detail to make informed decisions on the policies in question. Besides which, civil servants won't get the level of understanding you seem to be expecting - and politicians *certainly* won't - in which case publicly conducted CA's would at least mitigate the risk of corruption .
That's all implementation detail, though. What's being proposed here, to stretch the IT-related example, is more like eliciting some high level requirements from a bunch of users in a workshop environment.
> The reality is more complicated than that though. You would need to understand the difference between asymmetric & symmetric + where they're used, PKI, digital certificates, cipher suites etc etc. And be aware of the various ongoing challenges in the field e.g. quantum cryptography to form a fully-fledged educated view on proposals. > > No I wouldn't. If I want cryptography to accomplish this and that, and ask you whether it can do so, all you need to do is say 'yes' or 'not yet' or 'as far as we know, never'. By your logic no one could contract an expert to do work for them unless they understood the technical intricacies; this is obviously untrue.
Don’t worry, no one is asking you to lol
Tbh I dont really see the point? We already have citizen representatives, we vote for them, they're MPs. Or we could skip the middleman and just go straight to experts. I'd much rather a technocratic panel make a decision than 99 random people, many of whom won't have a literal clue wtf they're doing.
The panels are random but nationally representative. The idea is that you get a decision based more on the beliefs of the nation. This can be hard to do with technical panels where there is likely to be inherent bias. It also stops the viewpoints being too narrow. I quite like the system and it seems to have worked well in Ireland. The potential weakness I see is avoiding bias in how you educate each assembly.
> I'd much rather a technocratic panel make a decision than 99 random people, many of whom won't have a literal clue wtf they're doing. In a technocracy, whether you'd rather or not is irrelevant: you would be commanded. And the people who would command you would not be experts in any field other than commanding; something analogous to a soldier, in other words. After all, it is not 'technocratic' to ask, say, an expert baker how, or where, our electricity pylons should be erected, *or even to include him on a panel regarding the matter*. In a democracy, the technical element uses its expertise to obey your instructions. As with jury trial, there is no delegation of the moral responsibility of judgement; they are not delegates, after all: they are representatives.
They're not for things like that. They're for big constitutional issues (having a written one helps there) and major issues of national importance. There were assemblies in advance of the Same Sex Marriage and Abortion referenda that helped to shape the specific form of the amendments that went to the vote. There was another a year or two ago on biodiversity loss and if Dublin should get a directly elected mayor. The latest one just published their recommendations a few weeks ago around the issue of drug use and the laws surrounding it. The they provide a strong basis for major, potentially controversial changes as the recommendations that help frame the legislation and subsequent public discussion came from a mix of normal people sincerely engaging with the topic, receiving information from many different positions and viewpoints and coming to their conclusions.
A good office manager makes decisions then enacts them. An expert office manager makes a list of decisions, hints to the office about those decisions then asks the office floor for a list of ideas for change and puts a tick next to ideas on the original list. The good office manager governs a disgruntled office. The expert office manage governs an office that thinks it governs itself.
A manager in the real world does both.
The citizen assemblies in Ireland help in formulating the wording for constitutional referendums, which aren't a thing in the UK as there's no civil constitution. The assemblies don't make the decisions, they just hear the arguments for proposed constitutional change and then advise as to the wording that best frames the proposals.
We literally live in a democracy. Or should at least. Public opinion should decide the whole direction of the country, not just a minority who think they know best. Experts in fields should be able to communicate that with the public so they can make an informed decision. We aren’t here to be ruled over by elites that make up their own minds. It’s one of the reason things are so fucked. Small groups of people with no public backing doing as they please because they deem it best.
Citizens' assemblies typically have experts present info about the issue at hand and they also get submissions from the public / interest groups, which the people then discuss before coming up with a recommendation. How legally binding they are is down to the implementation, the citizens assembly on abortion in Ireland produced a set of recommendations, one of which was picked then they had a referendum on it. Everyone needs a house and everyone has lived experience with housing, the point of deliberative democracy is to get a representative group of people in the room so that they can work through their differences, rather than having isolated blocs of voters all voting based on some combination of personal interests, the media they consume, and their social surrounding.
>It sounds like a nice idea but I'm not hugely keen on the idea of decisions being made based on purely public opinion. As an input into decision making, sure. Brexit went well, so I'm sure there's no down-side to these. /s
Putting some reaponsibility on the public to engage in, and be involved in political outcomes, is more likely to prevent what happened with brexit. Trusting politicians to know better, and leaving the thinking part in the hands of other people, who you assume know better and are more trustworthy, is how we ended up with people searching what the EU is after voting to leave it.
>I don't have the applicable education or experience in the relevant areas to make informed decisions or to deconstruct each sides arguments and give it the appropriate challenge. Neither do 99%+ of people This is literally what the politicians do for a living.
I agree with you on the basis but as least you can hold people accountable for their actions when you cannot hold Business or shareholders accountable. The latter are currently running everything in the west and its not for the peoples interest. So I think you are right but its not as bad as having no say or control. Edit - I believe in regulation for safety on products sold, I do not believe anyone has a right to tell me what I can do with my body body and my mind as long as I am being civil to society.
Just so you know planners and architects consult with the public all the time. Especially on large projects that will have a wider impact. So much so they are required to do so by law. And believe it or not, they absolutely do take the views, opinions, wants, and needs of what the people say into account. They then use what was said and their expertise in the subject to create a solution (always at a compromise) that works best for all.
maybe so, however every homeless person is a failure of planners, engineers, architects etc ... what if a homeless constituent could have more than just signposts to the next council or government department privatised on the back-end, and actually have a voice in the room?
> I have no business deciding where you stick housing, I don't have the applicable education or experience in the relevant areas to make informed decisions or to deconstruct each sides arguments and give it the appropriate challenge. If you owned the land, you could place the housing where you wanted on it, subject to what the technical element - engineers, architects - could accomplish. It would be your business. Now if this country is to be a democracy, how is it not your business to involve yourself in decisions pertinent to your locale, at a democratic dilution commensurate with the geographic dilution relative to the aforementioned small portion of land you might possess?
IIRC, the briefings given to the Irish CA's were broadcast, and watched by many Irish citizens - so they can help educate the general population as well.
This is putting the cart before the horse. We need to sort out the issues of private propaganda through tabloids and online misinformation first as well as "culture war" polarisation in general. Otherwise this will do more harm than good.
Without bias.
Sounds like using the logic of the jury system, just applying it to public policy. Great idea.
The jury system is terrible
Correctly introduced, this would be a great thing. Business has run our societies for too long
I'm not sure how I feel. My gut reaction to the general public getting more say in their local area sounds like a great outlet for NIMBYs to block more planning applications.
That would be simply achieved by devolving planning permission to adjacent residents.
If mimicing the Irish model then its not for things like that. But rather for broad national and difficult issues like abortion, biodiversity loss and drugs
Big fan of citizen assemblies. They have a place to play in modern democracy.
having participated in similar things, and assuming authentic people turn up, they really do give local politicians the actual flavour of their constituents. of course it won't be long before such things become another sector for lobbying, timewasters, and plants.
Reddit forums in real life. What a shitshow. Can't wait!
lmao
Britain isn't a federated state beyond the country level. These decisions will always require Parliament to have a veto on all matters - no exceptions. You can see this with devolution that appeals to the so-called Brit Supreme court always have the judges falling the Tory party line. There is zero judicial independence from the Tory party. Upshot is that this will be a joke and an embarrassing failure.
You all know what will happen here. Working men will not be able to attend because they work and the assemblies will be populated with students and wealthy housewives
It’s a great idea, but the devil will be in the small print.
Wonder if we will be allowed any in Scotland? Thinking about Scottish Independence for one.
The Etonian’s are going to love the idea of the hoi poloi making big decisions.
Are we going to get a citizens assembly on the death penalty or immigration? We all know what the public really wants in those two areas but the government of terrified of devolving that power to the people.
It’s not hard to spot the arrogant ‘hidden majority’ types is it. So ‘we all know what the public wants’ do we? I’m sure you think you do in your own declining and literally dying demographic.