Q2 Who should be represented in this process?
Background:
We have been examining this question through a series of public events and a survey. We are doing this to help build a shared vision among democracy campaigners so that we can:
a) engage with the Trickett/King's initiative and campaign to make it have a better public interest outcome and
b) design and initiate our own process if the King's/Trickett proposal turns out to be insufficient.
We are moving this discussion to Loomio for a limited time in order to bring this discussion to a conclusion and see if there are any unifying statements we can agree on. These will then be put forward to the next convention planning group meeting on 11 September for possible adoption.
You are invited to propose unifying statements (using the green button at the top right-hand of the page) drawing on our work to date (see below) to see what support they receive from other participants. You can also comment on, discuss and vote on proposals that others have made. Those statements receiving the most support will be considered for adoption at the meeting of the next convention planning group on 11 September.
Work so far on this question:
i) Popular responses from the survey we conducted after the public meeting at the House of Commons on 10 May:
“The people” are represented in this process either through
• A random selection of citizens or
• Independently organised assemblies
Those not well served by the current system should perhaps be disproportionately represented so as to re-balance the current system and counter the inertia of the status quo.
ii) Results of the temperature check of statements suggested at the end of our day of deliberation on 16 July 2106 (in response to Q2 & Q3):
- Decisions to be made openly and transparently (96%)
- Countryside and cities as part of its physical, geographical diversity (90%)
- A series of meetings that physically goes to all regions of the UK (e.g over a year) Local MPs of regions could take part (80%)
- It should consist of 2 parts: Online and Physical Meetings (78%)
- Open invitation (starts with this) + representative sample (73%)
- Multi phase process creates transparency with existing local groups (69%)
- Elected representatives who represent all various communities and are accountable to communities. Forming local assemblies (68%)
- A preparatory process that will grow alongside existing system (68%)
- Getting in touch with groups – faith, disabled, civil society groups – make a list and contact them so they are invited in and so they come from a wide distribution of population. Network to do as many as possible (64%)
- 24 people from each region (12 women/12 men) randomly selected by weighted sampling – 288 deliberating on national issues. 1000 people from each region then convene to do a “sanity check” on its proposals (58%)
- Additional point we need to get clear on voting rights and eligibility: Citizenship, Nationality and residence are not interchangeable terms – look at definitions (56%)
Andy Paice Fri 9 Sep 2016 4:48PM
Hi Mary. I don't think we would have to question people on these issues. Stratified sampling already exists and is done by companies conducting polls and market research. Companies are buying databases with this kind of info all the time. Facebook and Google are the kings as far as this kind of info is concerned. How we would access that information in a fair and legitimate way is I agree another question, but the data does already exist.
Steve Freeman Fri 2 Sep 2016 9:44AM
Had a look Phil at those options but don't see the example proposed - the jury idea is amongst them - but commenting proposed improvements not writing one. It is made more complex by putting in conditions to the sample, not a random jury from the electoral register but so many of this or that class, religion, gender, sexual orientation as Mary has just pointed out etc.
Phil England Fri 2 Sep 2016 8:19PM
Steve, random selection of citizens to a "citizens assembly" is most likely the model being considered by the Trickett / King's initiative. This has been used in British Columbia, Netherlands and Ontario. Alan Renwick describes how they did it there on pages 66-73 of his report http://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/J1847_Constitution_Society_Report_Cover_WEB.pdf.
We have two options:
a) propose something we feel would be better or
b) recommend ways in which we think this approach could have the best public interest outcome.
Steve Freeman Wed 7 Sep 2016 9:06AM
Process and outcome are connected. Reading other recent examples it seems clear that some good processes led to no change. Why was that? We can have the most perfected process we can think of and nothing happens even years later. One model is what I will call the Royal Commission model. Everybody agrees something is wrong and something must be done about it. So a RComm is set up. People on it are selected by random, or elected or appointed or a combination. After years of deliberation, Great work is done. Her Majesty's Government thinks about it and then puts it on the shelf or cherry picks bits it likes and bins the rest. But really life continues as before.
Steve Freeman Wed 7 Sep 2016 9:13AM
I would like to add it there is a distinction between a reformist and revolutionary approach. The reformist attempts to improve the existing constitution, say PR or reform of House of Lords and the revolutionary is to scrap the whole thing and construct something new from different principles. So we could deliberate on both options and offer parallel processes or adopt one and concentrate on that. The Trickett plan is the former.
Steve Freeman Wed 7 Sep 2016 9:21AM
I think there has to be participation by all citizens and a role for representative bodies. The question is how can these participations interact and how to we select representatives and relations between All and Representives. For example approval could be by referendum but there has to be other ways for mass participation and not just acting as rubber stamp.
Paul Feldman Thu 8 Sep 2016 7:32AM
The convention should be drawn from each parliamentary constituency or groups of constituencies, be independent and refer its proposals back to local assemblies. It should sit as a standing body, rotating its membership, and go on to develop plans to implement its final recommendations. Membership should reflect the diversity of communities, including age, ethnicity, gender, class.
Andy Paice Fri 9 Sep 2016 4:44PM
Hi Paul. When you say "should be drawn" do you mean by random selection or some other process?
Andy Paice Fri 9 Sep 2016 4:42PM
If the process is a deliberative one I don't see how there can be participation by all the citizens. Even inviting or encouraging all citizens to participate falls short.
Why? Because the great majority of the population are not inclined to get involved. Even the best mass-invitation to participate cannot compete with say a Manchester United football match or watching the X Factor. So those who would respond to an invitation would tend to be people who are already interested in (grass roots) politics. The resulting participants would therefore be unrepresentative of "The People." It would lack legitimacy and could not be termed a truly democratic process.
Participation by all the citizens is great in principle but in practice it is open to manipulation by well organised single interest groups at the expense of those who are less socially or politically engaged.
Perhaps there could be a randomly selected stage of deliberation for the creation of proposals that would then be voted upon by the larger population (as happened in Ireland with the Gay Marriage referendum.)
~ Sorry for not being able to participate in this earlier - Just getting back into the swing of things after return from holidays
Mary Fee · Thu 1 Sep 2016 11:16AM
I feel queasy about the whole thing of assessing people Are you going to find out how much property someone owns, or if they are an owner-occupier, are they paying rent, and how rooms they have in their property, what their income is? Does their income derive from work or benefits? How disabled they are? How much attention they are getting or have got from medical/social services? How educated they are? What is their level of intelligence? What are their educational attainments? What is their work experience? How long they have been in the country? How many passports they hold? What is their gender and sexual orientation. And most importantly, who is going to do the assessment, and on what basis are they going to be appointed to do it?