In recent times Mike Robinson has been talking a lot about constitutional change on UK Column News:
"Here`s another example: The Global Parliament of Mayors held their inaugural meeting... and they had a two day conference which concluded as I say on Sunday. The new platform they say will enable cities to further their cooperation in addressing global challenges. So in this inaugural meeting mayors discussed action oriented plans concerning climate change, migration and governance and here`s an example."
"One of their plenary sessions: The City & the Interdependent World, and of course this is the key point that we`re trying to make with regard to the constitutional change and also governance changes that are going on globally at the moment. Because the relationship is being changed not just in the United Kingdom between... the individual and the nation. And interdependence is a very key part of this."
"So I want to draw people`s attention to the article on the UK Column website once again: The Global Parliament of Mayors & the Abolition of the Electorate. And if you haven`t read that, please do read it. What they are arguing for is a planet ruled by cities which represents a new paradigm of global governance: Of democratic - glocalism as they`re calling it - rather than top down imposition, of horizontalism rather than hierarchy, of pragmatic interdependence rather than outworn ideologies of national independence. So national independence is an outworn ideology Brian."
"Foundations for this new world are being erected in our own age as cities collaborate, and citizens communicate across borders with increasing ease and frequency. What remains is... liberating possibilities of these developments and in a question and answer session the Global Parliament of Mayors were asked: `In a world of nation states and supranational entities like the EU will cities have the resources and jurisdictional authority to undertake the difficult work of global governance?` And the answer was: `One of the most important aims of the Global Parliament of Mayors is to develop a right of the city platform to secure the resources and jurisdictional autonomy necessary to discharge local and global responsibilities.` And they were then asked: `Can the Global Parliament of Mayors really be a world government with a command and control architecture?` And the answer was: `No it cannot. It should not aspire to be that. It should be a bottom up, soft governance institution that works through influencing other levels of governance and the civic and private sector with sound policies and effective solutions. Global public opinion must also be its target`."
"So the key point here is that this is Big Society on a global basis. This is about what appears to be local control. We were talking about this yesterday that it is in fact centralised control at the local level. It`s also participatory democracy in the sense that individuals do not get the opportunity to participate. Bodies like Global Parliament of Mayors, like third sector organisations [charities] - they get the opportunity to set policy, to advise on policy and to make their opinions known. But the individual doesn`t."
"And just to end this section: I`ll just highlight this quote from the Mayor of the Hague who of course is one of the people who is instrumental in setting up the Global Parliament of Mayors, and he said:"
"The Global Parliament of Mayors will deploy collective urban political power manifesting the right of cities to govern themselves, as well as the responsibility to enact viable, cross-border solutions to global challenges. In this era of interdependence, where nation states are increasingly dysfunctional and cities are everywhere rising, the moment has come for cities to take the leap from effective local governance to true global governance."
"And this is what we`re looking at."
Brian Gerrish summarises the situation: "It is Big Society by stealth and of course there was information straight out of the Conservative party and Labour saying that they were following the Saul Alinski policy in creating communitarianism. So this is what we have started to see coming through."
====================================
I think we can see how participatory democracy is working in joined up Scotland with the recent announcement of an intensive consultation about the Named Person policy. The big charities and other selected stakeholders will have their say, but the ordinary people who oppose the policy will not. The result is a foregone conclusion.
I`ll just add this:
Education for the 21st century
"Curriculum for Excellence is now a reality in all Scottish schools and the message of `think global, act local’ encapsulates a great deal of what the new curriculum means in practice..."
"It is vital to remember that global citizenship is not an add-on to Curriculum for Excellence - it is central to it..."
The Sutton Trust exemplifies the well tried formula of a third sector organisation acting as a think-tank, lobbying the Government to push forward the Government`s agenda, whilst the Government then refers to the charity to justify its actions. It is a formula that is beginning to wear a bit thin.
As Nicola Horsley says (see below) it is increasingly the third sector which provides the evidence base to support government policy and not rigorous neuroscientific studies. However, this is not how the Sutton Trust sees it:
The Sutton Trust has funded and evaluated programmes that have helped hundreds of thousands of young people of all ages from low and middle income homes. We have published over 140 research studies that have had a profound impact on national education policy. Our work is highly influential among leading politicians and opinion formers, and attracts prominent coverage in the national news media.
Perhaps the Sutton Trust is part of the problem. Children and Young People Now reported the extraordinary claim by the Sutton Trust that 40 percent of children do not form strong attachments with their parents in the first few years of life. The Sutton Trust recommended that Children`s Centres should do more to help parents bond with their babies in order to narrow the school readiness gap and prevent problems arising in the future. Help should be given to troubled families even before the child`s birth.
"Its research also found that a quarter of children reported avoiding their parents when upset because they have ignored them in the past, and 15 per cent resisted their parents because they cause them distress.The report welcomes government-backed parenting support programmes, such as the Family Nurse Partnership and Troubled Families initiative, but concludes intervention needs to happen at an earlier stage in order to prevent children experiencing long-term effects of poor parenting."
The Sutton Trust report has been criticised by Nicola Horsley, Research Fellow on the Brain Science and Early Intervention Project.
"You might expect a claim like ‘there is a burst of brain development when attachment bonds are made’ to cite a neuroscientist but the reference supporting this quote is the work of Sue Gerhardt, a psychotherapist who is one of the founders of the OXPIP parenting programme; and her book Why Love Matters: how affection builds a baby’s brain, is core reading for practitioners delivering the programme.
The Baby Bonds report features only one neuroscientist in its bibliography and that is Jack Shonkoff, director of the Harvard Center on the Developing Child, which is a partner of the UK’s Early Intervention Foundation. Increasingly, third sector organisations like the Early Intervention Foundation and ‘strategic philanthropists’ like the Sutton Trust, and not rigorous up-to-date studies or neuroscientific thinking, are providing the ‘evidence’ on which policy is based...
When nurses tell us that they are under pressure for their delivery of a parenting programme to be seen to have a direct effect on future prison populations, it is clear that family life has become atomised beyond all recognition. We are left with a science of parenting where family support used to be and this can only serve to further isolate those who are consigned to the 40%." Nicola Horsley
Two articles have appeared recently in the newspapers. One is about NICE suggesting that teachers should offer parenting classes to parents in schools. The other is in relation to the Tavistock Clinic which advises that adolescence should be extended to age 25. Guidance and advice seem to come from all directions and this fact was raised briefly in the previous post. But who or what is the Tavistock Clinic?
According to Wikipedia:
The Institute engages in educational, research, and consultancy work in the social sciences and applied psychology. Its clients are chiefly public sector organizations, including the European Union, several British government departments, and some private clients. The Institute owns Human Relations, the international social sciences journal. It also edits the journal Evaluation.
The Tavistock Institute shares common roots with other organisations that emerged from the Tavistock Clinic. This is a source of much confusion, though the facts can be ascertained from the historical account of the Tavistock by Eric Trist, one time chairman of the Institute.
The Clinic is now part of a National Health Service trust, while the "Tavistock Institute", which once did research in many areas and was funded by many sources, is now a charity.
Tavistock began as a propaganda creating and disseminating organization centered at Wellington House, which was where the original organization was put together with intent of shaping a propaganda outlet that would break down the stiff public resistance being encountered tor the looming war between Britain and Germany.
The project was given to Lords Rothmere and Northcliffe and their mandate was to produce an organization capable of manipulating public opinion and directing that manufactured opinion down the desired pathway to support for a declaration of war by Great Britain against Germany.
Funding was provided by the British royal family, and later by the Rothschilds to whom Lord Northcliffe was related through marriage. Arnold Toynbee was selected as Director of Future Studies. Two Americans, Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were appointed to handle the manipulation of American public opinion in preparation for the entry of the United States into WWI, and to brief and direct President Woodrow Wilson.
From a somewhat crude beginning at Wellington House, grew an organization that was to shape the destiny of Germany, Britain and more especially the United States in manner that became a highly sophisticated organization to manipulate and create public opinion, what is commonly termed, "mass brainwashing."
In case anybody believes that `mass brainwashing` is a far-fetched idea we have these next paragraphs openly displayed on the website of the Institute for Government:
The Institute for Government is an independent charity with cross-party and Whitehall governance working to increase government effectiveness. We work with all the main political parties at Westminster and with senior civil servants in Whitehall. We provide evidence based advice that draws on best practice from around the world. We undertake research, provide the highest quality development opportunities for senior decision makers and organise events to invigorate and provide fresh thinking on the issues that really matter to government. The Institute for Government is a registered charity in England and Wales (Registered Charity No.1123926). Our funding comes from the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, one of the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts. In November 2010, we were awarded Think Tank of the Year in Prospect magazine's annual awards.
MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy was published by the Institute for Government and the Cabinet Office on 2 March 2010. The report explores how behaviour change theory can help meet current policy challenges, such as how to: reduce crime, tackle obesity, ensure environmental sustainability. Today's policy makers are in the business of influencing behaviour - they need to understand the effects their policies may be having. The aim of MINDSPACE is to help them do this, and in doing so get better outcomes for the public and society.
Do we really want these Government Think Tanks, charities and trusts with their corporate backers and secret agendas to get closer to our children? I think not.
How is it that the same ideas become widespread over the whole of Western society? There are differences in application, but the same language exists. For instance: Where did this idea come from that Governments should work with stakeholders in order to arrive at policy? The first time I remember the term, it was Tony Blair who used it and it seemed to suggest we all had a stake in our society. Actually, it did not mean that at all.
We read in Scotland that:
`The Children and Young People Bill will be introduced to Parliament in 2013 and will set out fundamental reforms to the way services for children and young people are designed, delivered and reviewed. The Scottish Government conducted a large-scale series of national engagement events to discuss the proposals for reforms with a wide range of stakeholders.`
Democratic Audit asks the question:
`Who and what are 'stakeholders'? Public bodies and consultants fall over each other to assert that they take into account the views of stakeholders and consult thoroughly with them over policy and its implementation. At first glance this approach might seem a hallmark of open, consultative government. Surely those most involved in a particular area have the knowledge that is needed and should have a say in decisions likely to impact directly upon them? Up to a point, yes. But there are problems with the growing emergence of 'stakeholder-ocracy' that seems to be developing.`
`First, in a democracy, everyone should have an equal opportunity to participate and to have their views taken seriously, regardless of whether or not they are deemed a stakeholder. Second, there are difficulties of definition. There is no clearly set out view of what a stakeholder is, how someone or something gets deemed to be one, and what entitlements this status entails. Because of this fuzziness those who do the consulting are able to exercise much discretion over who (and who not) to consult, over what and in what fashion, and even to disguise who gets that exalted status.
And as we have recently discovered we are not even allowed to know who all the stakeholders are. Democratic Audit is currently appealing against a decision not to release under the Freedom of Information Act details of the stakeholders for departments who were consulted as part of the Cabinet Office Capability Reviews of departments. Given this reticence, 'stakeholders' increasingly come to resemble the closed policy circlesof the great and good of old - at least we usually knew who they were.` Stuart Weir & Andrew Blick (Cambridge & London, Democratic Audit):
In the case of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill the vast majority of stakeholders who were consulted were from the third sector whose funding has been increased by the Children`s Minister. So it is no surprise that most were in support of the new bill.
Table 1: Number of responses by category of respondent
5
Third Sector 104 35%
Local Authority Departments 26 9%
Education Bodies 25 8%
Health Bodies 21 7%
Multi-Agency Partnerships 17 6%
Justice Bodies 10 3%
Unions 8 3%
Academic Institutions 6 2%
Others 24 8%
Total organisations 241 81%
Individuals 57 19%
Total 298 100%
NB Percentages may not total 100% exactly due to rounding.
Then it should be noted that `Seventy two per cent of those who provided a view agreed with the proposal that there should be a point of contact for children, young people and families through a universal approach to the Named Person role.` But very few of the 72% who agreed with that were individuals.
According to the government website this means: `Every child in Scotland will have a Named Person whose job already involves working with children. After birth - where a midwife will have a role - the Named Person will normally be a health visitor until school age. Thereafter to 18 (or when the child leaves school) the Named Person will normally be a head, deputy head or guidance teacher. They will be the first point of contact for children and families, and can be called upon when there is a concern about a child`s or young person`s wellbeing that is not easy to address. Also the Named Person will be in a position to spot concerns at an early stage.
There is no doubt that mass surveillance of the population is what this bill is really about, and had parents been consulted the figure of 72% in favour of the Named Person proposition would surely have been different. Surveillance of the population is being pushed through in other ways by the UK government.
Chancellor George Osborne is proposing to target 400,000 high-risk families with early morning calls from government agents to get parents to job interviews. (No mention that they will have to find those job interviews themselves) There is no recognition that his austerity measures and cuts in services are failing to provide jobs with a living wage and are stressing vulnerable families. Instead families are to be blamed and harassed for their predicament. The thinking is similar to the Early Years Collaborative.
Sky news reports that: Spending cuts will tip another 600,000 children into poverty by 2015. Perhaps George Osborne consulted the wrong stakeholders when he assured the public that this was the beginning of a recovery. Or maybe he was talking about a recovery for a different set of stakeholders. There`s no doubt about it, some stakeholders get an easier time than others and they`re the ones close to Government who formulate the policies.
Jean Robinson, writing in AIMS Journal explains why child protection interventions often prove damaging to families. It is revealing that the risk to the wellbeing of families and children of unnecessary interventions is seldom considered, but it is real. Insisting that there should be a Named Person for all children whose role will be to collect data and look for `concerns` is going to stress a whole society.
It`s a tragedy so few were consulted when so many are going to be affected.
The Early Years Collaborative in Scotland involves social services, health, education, police and third sector professionals getting together to discuss policy for children. The third sector is a growing part of the collaborative. Aileen Campbell, the Children`s Minister, announced an extra £10 million on top of the £20 million for the third sector Early Intervention Fund as part of wider investment in prevention of abuse and early intervention in the lives of children. We have to ask how is abuse to be detected before it has happened?
Barnardo`s is one of the most important stakeholders in the third sector and because large children`s homes are no longer popular Barnardo`s have diversified: "We are one of the largest charity providers of fostering and adoption services in the UK and we work in partnership with local authorities and health trusts," they claim on their website.
Yes I bet they do, just as local authorities work in partnership with them. After all, they are part of the Early Years Collaborative. It can be noted below that Martin Narey, ministerial adviser on adoption and previously chief executive of Barnardo`s said that the number of adoptions should be increased by about 50% a year. Well, that is Barnardo`s business so why wouldn`t he? He has also stated that more babies need to be taken into care and adopted. It is easy to see where this is going. Children are going to be removed from their parents in order to hit a percentage and just in case they may suffer harm to their wellbeing some time in the future. That could be any child.
In contrast, John Hemming MP is a lone voice who works with families who have experienced grave injustice at the hands of the secret family courts. He claims that 1,000 children are wrongly adopted each year. The House of Commons is usually empty when he speaks because MPs are more interested in the staged performances at Prime Minister`s question time than they are in children.
Yet it was not so long ago that a prime minister had to stand up in the House of Commons and apologise for the children sent away overseas. Have Barnardo`s forgotten the part they played in removing children from low income families sending them to Australia and Canada, some of them never to see their families again? I can see another disaster on its way, only by the time there is an apology, many more thousands of lives will have been destroyed.
The trouble is stakeholders have their own vested interests and when they consult with public bodies will skew decisions in their preferred direction. They are unelected and therefore undemocratic and we should be worried that they are being given increased funding and invited to take part in collaborative partnerships with local government. Meanwhile the most important stakeholders, the parents and children, are given only a tokenistic presence.
