Tuesday, 17 November 2009

The Public Are Too Inconvenient For Public Consultations

Al Jahom has been investigating stakeholders to the NICE consultation on plans to give powers of access to private homes.

Amongst the government agencies, he found a few quangoes and fake charities (clicken to embiggen).

The term 'stakeholder' is a specifically post-1997 Labour construct which has had a dramatic effect in excluding the public from all but a negligible input to the consultation process on any of the thousands of restrictive laws forced upon us.

The only real way of getting a contrary point across is to become a stakeholder. So, I thought I'd try. After all, I tick all the boxes, which suggests I have a stake in this study.

1) I own a house, which is referenced in this consultation. Tick.
2) I have a large 'stake' in the NHS, NICE's funding stream, as I pay a king's ransom every year towards it. Tick.
3) I have chiiildren (the excuse for this consultation). Tick

Unfortunately, the NICE web-site says that the public are not permitted to become 'stakeholders', so I asked why, exactly, I wasn't allowed to fill in the Word document and send it back along with all the other bodies which are funded by ... err ... the public.

The response was polite, but to the point.

Individuals are not accepted as stakeholders as it would be impossible for us to collate & respond to queries from the population at large.

Too much effort, you see.

So that's all right then.

The e-mail was also keen to point out that the press has been 'misleading' with regard to this process. Apparently, it's only a consultation to establish guidelines for the government. The implication, one would assume, is that this Labour administration - THE most restrictive, domineering, control-obsessed, invasive, and dictatorial in modern history - don't have to act on them.

So that's all right then, too.

Sometimes, one almost wishes that the replies to such enquiries would be more honest. You know, something like, "Just pay us money, sit down, and shut the fuck up".


Anonymous said...

That list of 'stakeholders' is staggering and includes ASH (natch).

This is the gateway into the home they've been dreaming of.

Betcha this consultation morphs into statutory powers of access to 'stakeholders' before you can say 'loss of privacy'.


Dick Puddlecote said...

And there's the worry, Jay.

Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs said...

Just an interesting aside, what powers exactly do the public have to try and make a government official be subjected to the full force of the UK justice system because he broke the law?

In the last few years of becoming politically aware there have been very few examples.

Most "shadowlike" representatives of the civil servant workforce and quangos have simply stated some ridiculous bollocks to the papers and then the entire incident has been ignored.

It seems to me that although we are outraged, we have no avenue to vent and action our anger and ensure justice is done.

Is this true, or simply the product of hectic modern life and it's tools making us more apathetic?

Witterings from Witney said...


Don't start me of on 'consultations'

In Oxfordshire, in the 'consultations' that were held on the question of changing the funding and implementation of that for Supporting People the one group they had not consulted were the receipients of that grant - the users!

But users are not involved in the process, they are the recipients! I kid you not!!

Dick Puddlecote said...

Geeks and GIFS: Buggered if I know, but you've got a valid point. Not just on prosecutions either - the scope for avoiding any kind of accountability now is huge.

If you so much as use a term like "you're nuts!" to explain a local authority policy, you will find yourself cut off (I know this as it happened to me). You used to be able to ask for a supervisor, but in many cases, this is now disabled. The only further option is putting your complaint in writing (not e-mail either).

They are divorcing us from every complaint or consultation process entirely IME.

WfW: As above. Not at all surprising.

The more they talk about accountability and inclusiveness, the more we are excluded and marginalised.

Frank Davis said...

It always seems to me that the best way to understand what 'stakeholders' are is see them as lots of people holding stakes, which they proceed to hammer into everyone else's hearts.

Tarquin said...

Jesus wept

Hell, I'm nearly weeping myself

this is actually real, not just some daily-mail sensationalism....

Anonymous said...

Un be fucking leaveable.

Why does "cycling England" need the power to enter one's home I wonder?

To check the tyre pressure on your bike - so you don't hurt yourself - or to ensure that you have "carbon neutral" brake blocks?

I am sick of this (excuse my language) fucking insane fucking interference in our very existence on the flimsiest of excuses - so that "they" can fucking well ensure that, if we don't actually manage to live longer, then we sure as hell do not enjoy a single minute of whatever time we do have.
Call me daft, call me old fashioned, call me insane or call me Gertrude but, so far as I remember, I was born and I will die and whatever happens in between (so long as I do not damage or cause loss to another) is MY affair and no-one else's. I seem to recall, in the dim distant past that when one elected a government, by law, they were placed in a position of trust to carry out the wishes of the majority. Not a prefect system but, for all that, a fair one. To imply that the general public cannot be a "stakeholder" (whatever the fuck that is) in their own future is the action of a KING or QUEEN and one that is acting unlawfully - it is not in the remit of a paid bunch of civil servants - paid to do OUR bidding.

Nanyknowsbest (only because I can't be arsed to log into some other fucking account).
They are complete, utter, unlawful and criminal wankers.

Spartan said...

Well, all these cuntsultation groups had better learn that it's very dangerous to their health and safety to come knocking on my door!

banned said...

On the specific point of Nanny inspecting 'family homes' I would point out that I fell down the stairs once as a child, I remember it even now and never did so again; neither did I ever fall off any of the mountains that I subsequently climbed.
Soon we will be hearing of parents sueing when their child falls off a cliff because there wasn't a fence or a sign telling them that it was dangerous.

As for Stakeholders. Local members of Age Concern were involved in a stakeholder exercise with the NHS; it took them a year or two to get up and running with comments and suggestions for reform at which point their forum was denied funding and closed down.

No doubt these interfering fools will extend their snoopage to each and every household in case some of us are growing children in secret.

Unknown said...

I wonder if an organisation like Freedom2Choose could be stakeholders in the many NHS anti smoking consultations?

Would they be allowed into the clique along with ASH (spit) and their cohort groups?

Anonymous said...

Anon 17 Nov 23:59.

If you would like a guest spot on my blog please do get in touch - email on the blog.

Neal Asher said...

Thoroughly in agreement with Spartan. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and that's where mine is: the only people who will get inside my house without my permission are the police, with a search warrant, or firemen with a hose.

TheBigYin, sure, just like the shopkeepers were taken note of with their 20,000 (or so) votes against banning cigarette displays. I'm sure Dick can fill you in on the details of that.