Seemingly a 'facilitator' of democracy, yet seems entirely ignorant of the basics of the democratic tradition.
The reformulation of 'democracy' is ideological language-abuse. I wish they would instead just admit that they're opposed to democracy and state their argument.
The reformulation of 'democracy' is ideological language-abuse. I wish they would instead just admit that they're opposed to democracy and state their argument.
If you want to see how far the anti-democratic rot has set in, read his own profile. involve.org.uk/about/our-peop…
His organisation, "involve" is "the UK's leading public participation charity, on a mission to put people at the heart of decision-making".
NGOs, invariably now serve the opposite of their stated ambitions.
involve.org.uk/about
NGOs, invariably now serve the opposite of their stated ambitions.
involve.org.uk/about
Look! Same old, same old, same old!
Billionaires directly and indirectly fund "citizens assemblies".
They should be called Billionaire's puppet shows.
involve.org.uk/about/who-fund…
Billionaires directly and indirectly fund "citizens assemblies".
They should be called Billionaire's puppet shows.
involve.org.uk/about/who-fund…
I don't particularly care that billionaires fund this or that "civil society" organisation. It annoys me more that the blobs they create pretend that they are somehow immune to what they claim is either 'dark money', 'private interest' or 'ideological motivation'.
"Civil society" organisations, which are all funded by the usual suspects, are of an extremely homogeneous worldview.
And frequently, that worldview and their agenda is not shared by the wider public.
And frequently, that worldview and their agenda is not shared by the wider public.
Yet "civil society" organisations conceives of and present themselves as the rightful intermediaries of public life.
Very often, they're just ignorant, self-serving wankers, the same as any other special interest.
And they *HATE* debate. And they hate democratic expression.
Very often, they're just ignorant, self-serving wankers, the same as any other special interest.
And they *HATE* debate. And they hate democratic expression.
We have become almost inured to the bland, vapid, hollow, consensual politics of these billionaires' blobs. This is why the Brexit referendum was such a massive shock. It upset *their* consensus.
Look under any public institution or public project, and you will find armies of these little grubs, belonging to constellations of seemingly distinct organisations, all connected through worthy networks to the same old same old.
They exclude debate, diversity of perspective.
They exclude debate, diversity of perspective.
Argue with them, and they seem genuinely surprised that they, their organisations, their agenda's and their ideology could be challenged. They actually experience it as shock. It is a fuax pas, in C21 Britain, to express disagreement with the blob.
"We just trying to make the world a better place", is the claim, or "we're trying to be inclusive".
But "inclusiveness" turns out to be an exclusive interest. Many are excluded from the inclusiveness agenda.
But "inclusiveness" turns out to be an exclusive interest. Many are excluded from the inclusiveness agenda.
The basis of "inclusivity" is that it allows the selection of convenient categories of people -- "stakeholders", in the "civil society" vernacular -- to be "empowered" in a "decision making" process.
It is puppeteering. It temporarily gives power to ordinary people, with strings
It is puppeteering. It temporarily gives power to ordinary people, with strings
