oD support open standards:

About John Jackson

John Jackson is a lawyer who has never practised the law professionally.  He is chairman of Mishcon de Reya and ‘History Today’ and a director of openDemocracy.

Articles by John Jackson

Saturday 8th January
Thursday 4th November

Democracy is not a human right: but one possible expression of equality, which is a human right and need

We launch the first in an occasional series of openDemocracy meditations on the question: Is democracy a human right? This reply begins with Mandy Rice-Davies, lingers on the unfinished business of the Cold War, and returns via Confucius, Mohammed and Darwin to the digital revolution which has us in its grip
Sunday 15th August

Why the Referendum is a “Good Thing”

Continuing the OK Referendum Plus debate, the case for the AV referendum as a step towards replacing the 'sovereignty of parliament'
Thursday 24th June
Thursday 3rd June

The Inescapable Black Hole

The UK Parliament has committed itself to upholding the "rule of law". But what can this possibly mean in the absence of a written constitution and a clear division of powers between judges and politicians?
Thursday 20th May
Wednesday 19th May
Thursday 13th May
Friday 30th April
Thursday 1st April

Deliberative democracy: Setting the people free?

The Ministry of Justice has done something extremely useful! It has demonstrated that, given a fair wind, deliberative democracy could become a valuable addition to our representative democracy with liberating consequences for individuals and unifying consequences for our community as a whole.
Wednesday 24th March
Friday 19th March
Friday 5th March

Epitaph for a politician

A farewell to Minister of Justice Michael Wills
Wednesday 3rd March

Tom Bingham in Lord Bingham’s Footsteps

In the first of two reviews of the former lord chief justice’s book on the rule of law, John Jackson discusses the issue of its compatibility with the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty
Tuesday 9th February
Tuesday 5th January

The Kindle era

The author looks forward to the 'Kindle Era', predicting that the Kindle will facilitate self publishing online, and so break publishing houses' 'commerical' oriented grip on what can be published
Thursday 5th November

Paul Myners has a point

On Tuesday morning one of our Treasury Ministers, Paul (Lord) Myners, remarked in a radio interview on the dangers inherent in ‘push button' computerised trading...
Friday 30th October

The hidden origins of the modern party stitch up

This article originally appeared on the blog of Open Up Now, the campaign for open primaries.This article originally appeared on the blog of Open Up Now, the campaign for open primaries.
Monday 19th October

Do we prefer dishonest politicians?

I have just returned from a short visit to some of the (increasingly expensive) countries of the European Union. For much of the time I was in the enjoyable company of couples from the U.S. and had ample opportunity to overhear their conversations.

One such conversation between a wife who was a Democrat and her husband who was a Republican was brief and instantly amusing but as I pondered on it I was reminded that we need to be careful in wishing for what we want: we might get it.

The conversation ran thus:-

Wife. ‘The reason I like Obama is that he believes in what he says.'

Husband. ‘That is just what worries me.'

My first reaction was that the husband was simply reflecting a Republican view that Obama was both dangerous and seriously wrong in believing that the U.S. would be a more successful society if it embraced policies which were redistributive of wealth and ‘socialist'. I put ‘socialist' within quotation marks because, as another of my travelling companions explained to me, it is seen by many in the U.S. as a word connoting a political system based on the taking of money from those who work and giving it, in cash or kind  ( e.g. ‘excessive' access to education or health care), to those who don't  - ‘like in the U.K. and France'.

But on reflection I wondered if the husband also meant that, in an inherently selfish world, the interests of the U.S. would be served better by a leader who was more practised in the arts of deception and less inclined to honesty and openness.

Syndicate content