A call for a randomly drawn 1,000 person jury? To examine everything?
Umm, no, not quite.
The Jury would be made up of 1,000 citizens drawn as a random sample of the electorate.
There\’s an awful lot of wriggle room in that you know. What\’s the weighting we\’re going to use to show that it\’s representative of the electorate?
More importantly though who is going to present evidence? Who controls what is looked at, how and by whom?
The Jury will be funded out of the public purse, with a paid secretariat with the resources to commission research and call witnesses.
Yes, quite, it\’s always the terms of reference which determine where an inquiry goes, isn\’t it?
Then we get the people who have signed it.
Professor Kate Pickett, University of York
That would be interesting: can we commission Chris Snowden to examine her book the Spirit Level?
Ann Pettifor, Prime Economics
Prime economic loon there.
Deborah Doane, World Development Movement
John Christenson, Tax Justice Network
Richard Murphy, Tax Research LLP
No, no, they wouldn\’t be angling for a place on the paid secretariat now, would they?
Andrew Simms, nef fellow
Professor Danny Dorling, University of Sheffield
This one\’s definitely a loon. Claims that all children are entirely equal, it\’s only upbringing and training that makes them different.
Professor Prem Sikka, University of Essex
Rare to see one of these letters he doesn\’t sign.
Professor Richard Wilkinson, Emeritus Professor of Social Epidemiology
Ditto with Mr. Snowden and the book.
Jeremy Leggett, founder and CEO, Solar Century
Who would like to bet one whether the jury will be asked to increase solar PV feed in tariffs?
Ruth Potts, The Great Transition, New Economics Foundation
Stewart Wallis, executive director, New Economics Foundation
Three neffers in total? We know it\’s going to be lunatic, don\’t we?
Rajesh Makwana, director, Share The World\’s Resources
Now, there is one way I would support this. To take a little lesson from business say. When you set up a joint venture you never, ever, set it up as 50/50. Someone, somewhere, has to have the ability to tell the other side to shut up. The most sensible way of doing this is to give one partner 51%…..but give management control to the 49%er.
The 51% can get rid of that management, that\’s what the 51% is for. But it\’s the nuclear option, only usable in dire crisis.
On this basis I say we give this list of Statist loons their jury. Yup, their secretariat, public funds and all.
But we get a very much non-statist loon (it\’s the \”non-statist\” which is important here) to actually run the secretariat and determine what evidence is collected, who is hired to do so and who presents it and how.
You know, me.
You get your investigation lefties: just not quite the parade of your own prejudices that you were hoping for.