Author Archives: Paul Evans

About Paul Evans

By day, a trade union official. Everything written on this site is written in a personal capacity and in no way represents the views of my employer.

By not knowing who we are, we designed Putin.

Often, when I see points that are made supposedly from a ‘pro-liberal democracy’ viewpoint, I’m reinforced in the view that liberal democracy is not really understood by many of its supposed defenders.

(Yes — this post is prompted by developments in Ukraine).

Liberal democracy has an essential motor that runs it: Representation.

Read more….

How to defeat Cancel Culture.

The key is to defend the independence of editors from all of their enemies. And those enemies are not all in The Woke Mob.

Maureen Lipman is the latest in a long line of artists and writers to complain about the chilling effect Cancel Culture can have on the arts. I have some sympathy with her view. Don’t risk sophisticated witticisms. Appease that lowest common denominator that has a bad-faith agenda, or an inability to process irony.

Read more:

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).

 

The three phases of acceptance of a new theory

Super CooperatorsReading Martin Nowak & Roger Highfield’s verygood ‘Super Cooperators’, there’s this observation:

“There’s a telling joke among scientists that every new theory has to pass though three phases of “acceptance”: first, it is completely ignored; second, it is obviously wrong; and third, it is obviously right, but everyone knew that anyway.” (p63 of the 2011 Canongate edition).

The resolutions of Sir Matthew Hale

Sir Matthew Hale

Sir Matthew Hale

I was reading Tom Bingham’s ‘The Rule of Law’ and found Sir Matthew Hale’s resolutions. I was quite taken aback that I’d not heard of this before and even more surprised that – when I searched online – I struggled to locate it.

So, finally, having found it here, I thought I’d copy it here (below) so that I won’t forget it.

I’m struggling to think of an equivalent set of resolutions that elected representatives could adopt – and struggling even harder to understand why I can’t recall any examples of one of them attempting to do this.

Things Necessary to be Continually had in Remembrance.

  1. That in the Alministration of Justice, I am intrusted for God, the King and Country; and therefore,
  2. That it be done, 1. Uprightly, 2. Deliberately, 3. Resolutely.
  3. That I rest not upon my own Understanding or Strength, but implore and rest upon the Direction and Strength of God.
  4. That in the Execution of Justice, I carefully lay aside my own Passions, and not give way to them, however provoked.
  5. That I be wholly intent upon the Business I am about, remitting all other Cares and Thoughts, as unseasonable and Interruptions.
  6. That I suffer not myself to be prepossessed with any Judgment at all, till the whole Business and both Parties be beard.
  7. That I never engage my self in the beginning of any Cause, but reserve my self unprejudiced till the whole be heard.
  8. That in Business Capital, though my Nature prompt me to Pity; yet to consider, that there is also a Pity due to the Country.
  9. That I be not too Rigid in Matters purely Conscientious, where all the barm is Diversity of Judgment.
  10. That I be not byassed with Compassion to the Poor, or favour to the Rich, in point of Justice.
  11. That Popular, or Court-Applause, or Distaste, have no Influence into any thing I do in point of Distribution of Justice.
  12. Not to be sollicitous what Men will say or think, so long as I keep my self exactly according to the Rule of Justice.
  13. If in criminals it be a measuring cast, to incline to Mercy and Acquittal.
  14. In Criminals that consist merely in Words, when no more ensues, Moderation is no Injustice.
  15. In Criminals of Blood, if the Fact be Evident, Severity is Justice.
  16. To abhor all private Sollicitations, of what kind soever, and by whom soever, in matters Depending.
  17. To charge my Servants, 1. Not to interpose in any Business whatsoever, 2. Not to take more than their known Fees, 3. Not to give any undue precedence to Causes, 4. Not to recommend Council.
  18. To be short and sparing at Meals, that I may be the fitter for Business.

Dark Money for all – a Universal Basic Income (UBI) for democracy

Electoral politics is hugely distorted by the fact that it designed to serve the interests of the political donors, hobbyists and cranks that have the time and energy to dominate the civic space. It doesn’t need to be this way.

As a Fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts (FRSA) I was invited to give a lunchtime talk about this at the Royal Society of the Arts on 17th January 2020. A quick outline is here. I will publish the full text of the talk in due course.

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.

On demonstrations near parliament

I’m in favour of public protests in general, mainly because they backfire and undermine the case that they purport so support. 

MPs should be treated bit like jurors. They should be constantly invited to use their skill and judgement to spot the interests of the nation as a whole. And as jurors, they should conduct their deliberations free from the harassment of people with megaphones and personal shanty towns.

Read the whole post here.

(An old post from 2007 revived).

A two-part post on how the UK could get out of the mess caused by the Brexit referendum

This is a two-parter on Slugger O’Toole.

Part one – the poor design of Article 50 damages both the EU and the UK. Fixing it could be a common cause that we could focus on immediately.

Part two – – now would be a good time to apply the brakes and deliberate.

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).