Citizens Assemblies

Laughing

Laughing

Well-known member
Did anyone see Sue Gray announce yesterday that Labour want to use citizen's assemblies for decision making when they come to power?

This is very interesting and cements Labours committment to electoral reform. Not surprisingly, the tories hate this idea. Having laymen assemblies to consider legislative change takes much of the power away from party donors and puts it in the hands of the electorate. It is also the route to real electoral reform, given that labour have in their policy document, that they will not force electoral reform on the country.

This is massive news.
 
Laughing said:
Did anyone see Sue Gray announce yesterday that Labour want to use citizen's assemblies for decision making when they come to power?
Click to expand...

It was even the subject of the Spectator (know thy enemy) daily podcast yesterday. 'Coffee House Shots' on your podcast provider.

Interestingly not dismissed as wokery, and presented reasonably positively. These have been used in Ireland, and it looks like Sue Gray may have been influenced by that model.
 
Will need to see the detail. Who appoints them? Do they have any powers to amend or even initiate legislation? What's the implications for Parliamentary sovereignty? Etc.
 
speckyget said:
Will need to see the detail. Who appoints them? Do they have any powers to amend or even initiate legislation? What's the implications for Parliamentary sovereignty? Etc.
Click to expand...
All good questions, and I don't know the answers. One would assume that their role is advisory and parliament will ultimately be responsible for legislation. This is how assemblies work in other countries.

I think you need to consider them as parliamentary committees who examin, discuss and suggest legislative changes.

As you say detail is everything, but it's huge because it is a big step in electoral reform.
 
Laughing said:
All good questions, and I don't know the answers. One would assume that their role is advisory and parliament will ultimately be responsible for legislation. This is how assemblies work in other countries.

I think you need to consider them as parliamentary committees who examin, discuss and suggest legislative changes.

As you say detail is everything, but it's huge because it is a big step in electoral reform.
Click to expand...
I guess that's the puzzling element - select committees already exist to deliberate on new legislation. So I would be interested to see what these assemblies bring that wouldn't duplicate an existing Parliamentary process. But if the idea is to bring wider public perspectives into our laws then - providing necessary safeguards around transparency and accountability - bring it on.
 
speckyget said:
I guess that's the puzzling element - select committees already exist to deliberate on new legislation. So I would be interested to see what these assemblies bring that wouldn't duplicate an existing Parliamentary process. But if the idea is to bring wider public perspectives into our laws then - providing necessary safeguards around transparency and accountability - bring it on.
Click to expand...
The issue with select committees is that parliament doesn't reflect the electorate very well. To many rich, privately educated individuals.

Ministers are continually lobbied and there is no real incentive to make decisive in the best interest of the people who voted them in.
 
Laughing said:
The issue with select committees is that parliament doesn't reflect the electorate very well. To many rich, privately educated individuals.

Ministers are continually lobbied and there is no real incentive to make decisive in the best interest of the people who voted them in.
Click to expand...
Do you think Citizens Assemblies will be any different?
 
I must admit I like it too. The devil will be in the detail but it has legs.

I seem to recall this happened in ancient Greece.
People stood for election and simply walked around giving people money to vote for them. They recognised the system was broken.

They developed a system whereby citizens were asked to represent the people based on a series of conditions:
For military representation (for instance) you needed some military expertise .
They then developed an algorithm to ensure representation by gender and age (possibly other stuff too)
Citizens were then asked to represent the people - no vote
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
Do you think Citizens Assemblies will be any different?
Click to expand...
Well the devil is in the detail. How will the assemblies be picked, will they be reflective of society on a whole, will transgender, disabled, muslim, working class folks be represented in these assemblies? I have no idea.

I think we may be focussing on the wrong element here though. Labour have electoral reform as one of their pre-manifesto promises. civic assemblies are a positive step in managing that reform.

It is the sole reason why the tories are so against it, they understand it for what it is. Any reform will, likely, impact the tories ability to be elected into a majority government. Disbanding civic assemblies after electoral reform becomes much harder.
 
If they're reflective of society as a while then there's going to be a lot of retired people from former council house estates on them. A large number of unskilled and semi skimmed men and women. A selection of unemployed or permanently unable to work.

There'll be one or two employers.
 
It's a dangerous idea. Why, if the citizenry had been provided with full information and evidence and then considered it in a structured manner we would never have achieved Brexit :p
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
If they're reflective of society as a while then there's going to be a lot of retired people from former council house estates on them. A large number of unskilled and semi skimmed men and women. A selection of unemployed or permanently unable to work.

There'll be one or two employers.
Click to expand...
I was interested in newusers idea that it is done in much the same way as our jury service. Not sure it would work in practical terms, but it has some merit.
 
On the surface it's a reasonable idea having a group of "ordinary" people looking at legislation but who gets to choose what evidence they see, who will pressent it & who will guide them through the process. It could be very easy to manipulate the outcome.
 
This all sounds like Cromwellian.
I am against all extra governing bodies.
We have Lords, MPs, Mayors ,
Commissioners (eg police) and Councillors.
We do not need more Democracy, certainly not more part timers.
 
Lottowyn said:
This all sounds like Cromwellian.
I am against all extra governing bodies.
We have Lords, MPs, Mayors ,
Commissioners (eg police) and Councillors.
We do not need more Democracy, certainly not more part timers.
Click to expand...
We need rid of the Lords, mayors, police commissioners. The latter two gimmicks, the former anti democratic.

We need to create more local power but not an unelected body. The centralisation of power and the right wing attack on local authority finances have taken so much away from us. The younger generations of voters aren't aware of what was available prior to this.
 
A representative citizen's assembly is basically an admission that the elected MPs and the un-elected HoLs doesn't represent the electorate. If it is a step in the right direction to more representative democracy then it can only be a good thing. I hope it gets brought in and I hope the first thing they decide is that electoral reform is needed.

It's interesting to note though that some people's first thought is that it might not be a good idea because some people can't be trusted. People want educated and informed people to make decisions but that in theory is what we are supposed to have now. Whatever way democracy happens there will be a sizeable group of people that think it is the wrong way of doing it and it makes sense because being fully representative and always having your own way shouldn't ever be possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top