a theory or system of social organization based on small self-governing communities.
an ideology which emphasizes the responsibility of the individual to the community and the social importance of the family unit.
As these evil muvvers always do, they take something noble sounding and promote it but in fact, like all communists, it’s code for something quite nasty.
My intro here is in general, Ken Cragg’s post is in finer detail.
Small, self governing communities is utter bollox. There was a referendum here on regional government and it was resoundingly rejected, during the Labour horror they tried shifting boundaries and the EU fed money to regions or earmarked it to Westminster.
The central idea was always world politburo, then blocs, then regions within the blocs and in our particular case, the idea was to break England up and never refer to it as England. Yorkshire was one of the most evil examples, particularly around Sheffield and the Humber.
Then the muvvers tried the RDAs and one of the more egregious was South-West [posts passim here]. Federalism was the whole idea. Then came community policing and citizens juries and in every case, it was run by a Common Purpose graduate using NLP to direct the decisions towards well-formed outcomes.
OK, I just found what was written back then:
James Barlow, in 2007, was Constituency Chairman for the Conservative Party in the three-way marginal Bristol-West seat and was writing about what you might take to be the ultra-boring subject of local recycling and landfill but it turned out to be anything but boring.
The moment he touched on Citizens Juries, danger signals abounded:
Now my party colleagues in the Conservative Group of the council have taken an active part in this process – John Goulandris as Chair of the OSM committee, and Richard Eddy as Chair of the Quality of Life Scrutiny committee.
But I’m concerned that the Jury process is misleading us all. I suspect that it removes the impetus for oversight of Council policy by the opposition party, and it creates an illusion of impartiality and “judicial” deliberation when it’s really just a rubber stamp on existing policy – i.e. it ain’t a Jury.
As another UK user of Citizens’ Juries comments on their website :
“[It c]an be difficult to ‘reject’ the Jury’s recommendations.”
In our city, a Citizens’ Jury is constructed as an off-shoot of the Citizens’ Panel (“Bristol’s Biggest Think Tank“) which consists of two thousand local residents, some randomly selected, some self-selected.
For the randomly selected, a London firm supplies the questionnaire:
The on-street recruitment questionnaire (Appendix 5 of the latest Jury’s report) is less intrusive than that of the Citizens’ Panel, but also fails to check whether the respondent is a Bristol Council Tax payer. It also mispells “Cotham” as “Cotam”, and indicates that Cabot is a ward in both Central West and Central East Bristol, but I suppose that’s to be expected from a London-based market research firm .
If you like, you can apply to join the Citizens’ Panel, for which you will be asked your ethnicity, sexual orientation and whether you consider yourself to be transgendered, but not whether you are a council tax payer in Bristol.
…half the jurors are recruited from the existing membership of the Citizens’ Panel, and the other half by on-street recruitment…
James comments on its purpose in giving feedback, which it certainly does, but then:
I’m slightly more sceptical of some of the other aspirations for the Panel –
“[to contribute] to democratic renewal and [to encourage] participation in democratic processes”
I thought that was achieved by voting, and doesn’t seem to be compatible with the stated utility of the panel “as a vehicle for developing public relations”. You can petition the electorate, or persuade the electorate. Doing both at exactly the same time seems a tricky proposition.
So, is this Citizens Jury a legitimate representative body?
The jurors are recruited to be a cross-section of the community: the Jury is said to ‘reflect’ the local population, rather than to ‘represent’ it.
In other words, recommending policy without being elected but with the virtual guarantee of recommendations being adopted – and leading this process are “facilitators”:
The role of the facilitators is to enable the jury to complete its task, not to lead the discussion in any particular direction.
Officially. But the facilitators are also charged with this task [taken from N10’s guidelines for the Nine Regional Focus Groups, i.e. the EU concept of regions]:
“Participants will be given facts and figures that are independently verified, they can look at real issues and solutions, just as a jury examines a case. And where these citizens juries are held the intention is to bring people together to explore where common ground exists.”
Independently verified by whom? By “experts” approved by the ODPM from whence came Julia Middleton [there are various links halfway down this post on her organization].
I don’t know which I detest more – the evil intentions or the gobbledegook they use to pull the wool over people’s eyes. That part of the definition above about the social importance of the family unit – that is an utter lie. The importance to these communists is to break families down and have individuals dependent on the state teat.
Here is an excerpt from Ken Craggs’s piece on this topic:
Communitarianism is Communism + Capitalism and is a mandatory partnership between the public sector (government), private sector (business), and social sector (community) — managed through Global Standards and laws established by national and international governments. The rights of the community as a whole take precedence over the rights of the individual.
In a presentation by Steve Waldman at a Silicon Valley meetup (pp.41-49), Waldman tells us that all we require for a Universal Basic Income is, “A community of people who agree to pool resource in order to finance a UBI across its membership.” And that:
• UBI is first and foremost an insurance arrangement.
• Insurance arrangements function best when there is complete ignorance about who is likely to experience relatively good or relatively bad outcomes.
• From under a “veil of ignorance”, nearly all risk-averse humans voluntarily enter insurance arrangements to pool risk.