Which experts?

Citizens, chosen at random (like a jury) informed by experts, and deliberating together, should be empowered to come up with a plan for the path forward, post-corona.

Or, perhaps, whose experts?

For example, can anyone imagine a certain Tim Worstall being asked to be one of the experts advising such citizens? On, say, mineral reserves and resources, a subject upon which he actually is expert?

No? Then it’s possibly going to be subject to a certain amount of bias, isn’t it?

19 thoughts on “Which experts?”

  1. This is so transparent. Central planners – experts – will come up with a plan. Giving it a veneer of “democracy” should fool no one but journalists. Can journalists even see thru windows?

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    This sort of wheeze is the latest thing the Left uses to get around the fact that voters don’t like their plans. Much used in Ireland.

    Get a random selection of voters, bully them into agreeing what everyone else says everyone else thinks. Present it as the Voice of the Nation.

    We have votes for a reason and we don’t need to fix them. Unless I am doing the fixing I suppose. In that case, Mr Ecks for Justice and home Affairs.

  3. I can’t find the link to this, anyone recall?

    Anyway there was some dystopian Scottish “citizens’ jury” wotsit for kids, they just got a bunch of primary school kids in a room and lectured them about global warming or some public health thingy until they all agreed that the thing the adults told them needed to be done was something they agreed needed to be done, then they took a vote and made videos of themselves saying what had to be done and that was a bona fide “children’s commission” so you can’t argue with that, can you, case closed?


  4. Remember the accuracy of the economic “experts” at the time of the referendum? If the Leavers won, then your hair would fall out, sir; your breasts would sag, madam. You’d all lose your jobs, people, and be reduced to eating mussels and hazelnuts, the few thousand of you who survived.

    That was the gist of it. Accuracy zero.

    But this time we’ve got Professor Neil Ferguson so all will be well.

  5. Like the experts who decided that, in order to save the planet, we should put a layer of insulating material on the *outside* of tower blocks I suppose.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    I think my favorite expert story is the first editions of James Lovelock’s Gaia.

    He suggests one of the good things about CFCs is that they can help to keep the planet warm and avert Global Cooling.

    Or so I dimly remember. It was a long time ago and, you know, the Seventies.

  7. 14 million votes don’t count, let’s ‘ask’ ten people instead after they’ve been sneered at by half a dozen Sociologists and other assorted far-Left crazies for two days.

  8. Of course, the Potatomeister would be screaming bloody murder about Unfairness if in this system his “experts” were chosen by the Other Side….

    If a system is this easy to poke holes in, it’s safe to classify as a Bad Idea. Regardless of the source.

  9. Well it might not be a bad idea. Juries consider tangible evidence (not computer models), not hearsay (experts agree), not anecdotal (in my experience/opinion) and consider evidence from those who challenge or dissent. Then they weigh the balance of evidence and decide beyond reasonable doubt if the case for has been made.

    It would be very interesting to see actual trial rules of evidence conditions being applied to the experts and politicians over Covid policy and climate change policy, with a jury deciding whether they were telling porkies.

  10. It would be great to see Ritchie’s reaction when the citizen’s jury votes to reintroduce capital punishment, scrap all overseas aid and ban non-highly skilled immigration!

  11. “Citizens, chosen at random…” What? Instead of citizens chosen by election? Yeah, that’ll work….!

  12. Citizens for this purpose will come only from “civil society” you understand, which would exclude most if not all posters here

  13. Macron had the same idea.. Who knew that everyone on the panel would have the same mentality as Greta Thunberg?

  14. @TomJ

    Bingo!!! Thanks a lot.


    A team of nine Members of Children’s Parliament (MCPs) aged 9 – 11 investigated the impact that alcohol has on the lives of children in Scotland. Over 90 children took part in school-based workshops with the MCP investigators to explore their thoughts and feelings about alcohol, and to hear what they had to say about the idea of an alcohol-free childhood.

    This film documents some issues of importance to children and some of their ideas for how adults can make Scotland a place where children grow up happy, healthy and safe.

    The investigation took place between April and July 2019 and this film and accompanying consultation report were launched at the Scottish Parliament on September 19th, 2019.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *