Tuesday, 4 November 2014

Politics, arguments, debates and an Institutionalised Emotional Blindness

Politics, arguments, debates and an abdication of responsibility.

The Power Inquiry Report 2006.

You need to know about it.

Examine it.

D. Cameron, E.Milliband and Menzies Campbell paid lip service to it at the time. Cameron said, in public, and it's on video, that The Power Inquiry was the 'most important initiative in Democracy in the UK' in a long, long time.

They all claimed, after attending the conference in 2006, and saying how important it was to the attendees, that it was 'impractical.'

I was there. I heard them support it. Lying through their teeth.

Here's an outline of the recommendations:

http://www.lgcplus.com/give-citizens-power-to-make-laws-urges-inquiry/513437.article

Here's the full document, PDF download, VERY MUCH WORTH reading.

http://www.jrrt.org.uk/publications/power-people-independent-inquiry-britains-democracy-full-report

Power without accountability or shared responsibility is always going to be a serious problem, and open to abuse.

Quite a lot of the comments flying around about Russel Brand, UKIP, and politics in general etc etc are antagonistic 'debating' style, rather than mature, critical analysis. Trying to win or batter the other side down.

What's that phrase they use about the Court system?

Adversarial.

I find that appalling. An abdication of responsibility. Politically immature. Psychologically immature.

Because the issue is not about Brand or Cameron, or UKIP it's about us, the community and how we work together (or not) to create a society that nurtures, that cares for the vulnerable. Which is about relationships based on kindness, rather than Power.

Healthy discourse is about sharing, exploring and growing together.

Debate is about Power, it's about who wins.

The Power Inquiry emerged out of the Community Voluntary Sector, which has decades of providing services at the local community level, dealing with amongst other things : finances, governance, research, best practices, transparency, service provis
ion, understanding their 'clients' needs, overcoming Institutional obstacles, overcoming Institutionalised Emotional Blindness, campaigning, fund raising, discourse on policy formulation and much else besides. These are real life skills.

It was these people that David Cameron's BIG SOCIETY was aimed at, as a direct institutional assault. And it was their clients, the vulnerable who suffer doubly as a result.

And it's working.

People who claim to 'aware' and the electorate in general and most of those who have a public voice a) don't attempt to ensure that they have a CLEAR evidence based understanding of what is happening b) don't do depth research c) go to media and celeb sources rather than the people at the grass roots.

My dear readers....

Have you EVER spoken to or contacted or read any work done by the Joseph Rowntree Trust?

Or Helena Kennedy?

Or Geoffery Robertson?

Or to any disabled people currently being denied benefits on the false basis of 'austerity'?

Use your voice to nurture the active grass roots, as well as to chastise the powerful.

In another comment, elsewhere, I pointed out how appalled I was at the sniping that is so common.

Instituionalised Emotional Blindness. There's something here for everyone to consider.

The immaturity of the debating style of the discourse, as opposed to an effort to share, learn and grow in order to create a more nurturant society. An abdication of responsibility. It's really quite ugly.




Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

No comments: