Category Archives: Save Democracy – Abolish Voting

Want to take the big money out of British politics? Here’s how.

This was published in openDemocracy recently. The only thing I’d change to the idea is that I’d change this from “it could be 100% tax-deductible, or claimable from welfare payments” to “it could be 100% tax-deductible from VAT, because everyone pays at least £50 a year in VAT, right?”

(The average household generates around £4,700 in VAT income to the treasury).

https://twitter.com/Paul0Evans1/status/1435265149468876811

 

Partly Political Broadcast, Ep131.

I’m on the Partly Political Broadcast podcast talking to comedian Tiernan Douieb about Think Tank Funding and the Who Funds You website, along with a few observations on democracy in general.

This is the ‘pull quote’ – from about 39 mins in:

“It is a gross error to think that opaquely funded think-tanks increase the diversity of opinions that are available to us.”

Listen to the whole thing – but for reference, I’m on from about 20mins 45secs to 44mins 30secs, and again on 48mins to the end.

Interview on the ‘House of Comments’ podcast.

I was recently interviewed by Mark Thompson for ‘The House of Comments’ podcast about my book ‘Save Democracy – Abolish Voting’.

I hope you find time to listen to it, but if you’re looking for a very short verbal summary of what it’s about (85 secs!), it can be found starting at 16min:20secs in (finishing at 17min:45secs).

Imagine we could re-design democracy from scratch? What would it look like?

We may have reached a point in history where the trajectory that democracy has taken needs to change dramatically, if it is to survive as a respected concept.

Most readers will have an idea of what is meant by the word “democracy”. In many cases, it will be a concept that is so indistinguishable from “electoral politics” that it seems almost contrarian to de-link the two. They’re plainly not the same thing. North Korea and Iran hold elections. On the other hand, very democratic bodies often, correctly, treat the point at which things need to go to a vote as an indictment of their failure to reach a deep consensus.

So much commentary that purports to be about quality of our democracy is, in reality, political advocacy cloaked in a flimsy ethical costume. A call for “a more democratic decision” is often a code for “I want the decision to be made in a way that is more likely to result in my preferred outcome”.

Read more…

(This article was first published in The Ethical Record, Summer 2018 edition). It can be downloaded in pdf format here.