If you would like to comment on a particular block, click on the pale blue bar to the left of the text. If you would like to view the comments on a particular block, click on the speech balloon.

Dr.

“A supreme Court which represents the citizen before the legal profession and politician, accessible without legal fees, and which is responsive to citizen needs.”

2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?

It inverts accountability, so that elite institutions are accountable to people, not the other way about. It gives the citizen hope in the face of monolithic institutions.

3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?

It gives the citizen a stake in our governing institutions, and makes those institutions work for the citizen.

4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?

It is cost-neutral - it merely reconfigures existing roles.

5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?

No evidence, other than having seen it work well in another country.

6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.

I take the example from Costa Rica which has such a body that (a) is accessible to children, for example, without a lawyer; which travels the country holding community workshops asking people what they want from it; and which approaches other public and private institutions to feed back to them the range of compklaints they receive, an to warn them to be on their guard for similar complaints.

7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?

In favour:
* it democratises the law and will appeal to the electorate
* it enhances the public accountability of a key institution of our democracy

Against:
* it democratises the law and so is unlikely to appeal to the elite.