Rule by Question Time Audience

I've covered this topic before: the citizens' assembly. 😡

Today we had an article in the FT about Rory Stewart, and his plans on how to fix politics. They basically read like a blueprint on how to destroy Britain. He wants parliament reduced to a 100 MPs, more powerful local mayors ..and citizens' assemblies.

I can't stress enough how much I hate the idea of citizens' assemblies. My dislike for them comes from the fact that they're simply undemocratic. My hate for them stems from the fact that the people pushing them clearly understand what they're doing.

And what they're doing is trying to create the illusion of public support, for whatever policies they themselves want to implement.

I call it "Rule by Question Time Audience"

(The British public, having their say)

For those outside the UK, Question Time is a political debate show, where the public get to question a panel of politicians and public figures. The audience is meant to be representative of the British public (with a local bias, as it moves to a different town or city each week). However, representative doesn't just mean random joe public turning up. The reality is the audience is somewhat curated, in order to be representative. That means making sure all the chosen minority groups are represented. Climate activists, LGBTQ+, religious minorities and so forth.

It likewise means certain groups will be excluded. For instance, today is the anniversary of 9/11, and it doesn't matter how many people have questions about the official line on that political event, that will not be raised as a topic.

There's also, of course, another natural bias that the BBC can't entirely help. That is, that most normal people aren't massively engaged in politics enough to want to go to such an event. So it's always likely that the audience will be made up of people that are heavily invested in politics, or a particular political cause. Hence why so many outright political activists often end up in the audience, usually under the guise that they're just a "concerned mum," or a fed up 'NHS worker,' or whatever.

It can be annoying watching Question Time when you understand all this. At the same time though, it is just a TV show, and the producers are at least trying to engage the public. Even if there were no biases at all on the part of the BBC, it would still be difficult to ensure the audience wasn't biased or hijacked by other groups with an axe to grind.

So I am actually sympathetic to the BBC, they are the state broadcaster after all.

However..

When it comes to the actual political process itself I have no tolerance for this type of public curation.

In democratic countries we have fair, 'one person, one vote' elections, where we elect our representatives. Who then go and make decisions on our behalf. If we think they're doing a bad job we vote them out. Again, most normal people don't want to be politicians. They have jobs and families and other things to be getting on with. They don't have the time to be sat in assemblies discussing every latest issue. If they want to be politicians they are free to stand in elections and become one.

With "Rule by Question Time Audience" though what we'll have is "random" people (that aren't actually random, as they'll be filtered to be "representative") making judgements on topics, and then the actual politicians will say, "Well, we must do this, as it's what the public want."

And any politician that doesn't go along with the Citizens' Assembly decision or advice will be decried by the media as "un-democratic," or as going against the wishes of "the public" for doing so.

It won't matter what the actual public think. It won't matter that the politician has been specifically invested with decision making power by that actual voting public. The narrative or fig leaf provided by the curated proxy for the public will be all consuming.

This is what the people want!

We got a bunch of random political activists and simpletons into a room. We bamboozled them with all the "fair and accurate information" they needed, and they have decided, "Yes, we do want these ULEZ schemes."

The people have spoken.