This morning the postman delivered an envelope addressed anonymously to my house. It informed me that I “could be one of 30 people selected to take part in the Jury for Joy”. Lucky me. I could do with a bit of joy. So what’s it about?
Apparently I could help to decide how money is spent on culture and creativity where I live, by “exploring” the question “How can everyone enjoy creativity together in West Cumbria?”.
What relevance is this to Cliscep? Well, the paperwork assures me that:
This event will follow an established democratic process that is used all over the world called a citizen’s jury. It brings together a group of people selected by lottery, who broadly represent the entire community. The people who attend learn about issues, discuss them with one another, and then make decisions about what should happen and how things should change.
At first blush that sounds great, but a moment’s thought reveals that this process is the antithesis of democracy. Thirty people apparently selected at random cannot be assumed to “broadly represent the entire community.” Nor can the independent bona fides of those chosen to teach them what they will “ learn about issues” be taken as a given. Finally, why should thirty people who nobody voted for, having been hectored by people with an agenda and nudged into embracing the ideas expressed by those agenda-driven “experts” get to decide what the rest of us have to do and how our money is spent? Isn’t that the point of us all having the right to elect representatives to make those decisions for us?
OK, Mr Hodgson, so you’ve had your rant, but you still haven’t said what this has to do with Cliscep. Well, dear reader, I refer you to three articles at this website from four years ago. The first was written by Jaime Jessop (then of this parish, and still a welcome visitor and contributor). It was titled Climate Policy UK: Government Adopts Key Demand Of Group Officially Listed As Extremist By Anti-Terror Police. It was followed by two articles by Geoff Chambers, namely Climate Assembly and Climate Assembly: Weekend 2. I recommend the reading of all three, have you not previously seen them.
My point in talking about this subject again four years later is because it has never gone away, and some groups continue to rely on its supposedly democratic facade in order to manipulate a small group of people into agreeing with their views, then demanding that their views be implemented because a citizens’ assembly (or jury), after due indoctrination, has concluded that their views are correct and should be implemented.
Am I being a bit paranoid? Perhaps, but everything is connected, and a tangled web slowly reveals itself when you dig a little deeper. If I wanted to register for the chance to be one of thirty local residents who will be “well looked after throughout each session”; who “do not need to have any prior knowledge – all the information you need will be provided during the day”; who will be provided with lunch and transport expenses (if required); and who will receive £200 in shopping vouchers as a thank you – then I can do so by visiting this section of the website of the Sortition Foundation.
And this is where the web starts to get tangled. The paperwork that landed on my doormat this morning tells me that the Sortition Foundation is:
a not-for-profit organisation that specialises in recruiting and selecting people by lottery to take part in these kinds of events, in a way that is broadly representative of the wider population.
As I have already mentioned, selecting people by lottery (i.e. presumably at random) cannot be assumed to produce a group that “is broadly representative of the wider population.” More relevant for my purposes, however, is the fact that the Sortition Foundation is also a net zero-worshipping, climate alarmist organisation. For instance, later this year it will be helping to run a similar session on “Our Energy Futures: a Citizens’ Panel on Energy Demand Reduction” (here if you’re interested):
The panel will address the following question:
As a nation we need to use less energy, to meet our climate targets, increase energy security, and save households money. How can we do this in ways that work for everyone?
The first “proven solution” “from around the world” on its website is Climate Assembly UK:
Climate Assembly UK brought together people from all walks of life and of all shades of opinion to discuss how the UK should reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.
The citizens’ assembly had over 100 members, who together were representative of the UK population, and they were due to meet over four weekends in Spring 2020 (the fourth weekend switched to an extended online event due to the coronavirus pandemic). They heard balanced evidence on the choices the UK faces, discussed them, and made recommendations about what the UK should do to become net zero by 2050.
Note that the discussion was about “how the UK should reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050”, not whether it should do so. So much for allowing “ all shades of opinion”.
Another organiser of the Jury For Joy to which I have been potentially invited is Action With Communities in Cumbria (ACT). This, I am told, is:
the rural and development charity for Cumbria. They are the lead organisation hosting this CPP [Creative People & Places] project.
Do they have any sort of agenda? Yes they do:
Reducing carbon and living sustainably is a 21st Century challenge.
Much of the work ACT assists communities with aims to help communities to be sustainable in the longer term.
Our Community Planning, Community Buildings, Community Led Housing, and Transport support are key tools in developing and maintaining community sustainability.
We work with Cumbria Action for Sustainability to promote projects for community sustainability.
We promote discussion and help facilitate solutions for zero carbon communities, while being alive to the challenges and opportunities for rural communities.
OK, so they in turn work with Cumbria Action for Sustainability:
We are Cumbria’s climate change and sustainability organisation.
Our vision is a zero carbon Cumbria which is socially, environmentally, and economically beneficial for all.
We aim to achieve this by promoting and facilitating low carbon living and its benefits – inspiring and supporting individuals, communities, and organisations across Cumbria and beyond to decarbonise lives and businesses by 2037 or sooner.
Who else is involved? Basically, the funding and main organisation seems to come from the Arts Council. Of course, the Arts Council is also fully signed up to climate alarmism and net zero. An example can be found here:
As COP26 takes place our CEO Darren Henley provides an update on what we’ve been doing to help the creative arts and cultural sector meet the climate challenge…
…At the Arts Council we know that creativity and culture has the power to make you stop and think, help improve lives and shape conversations. We believe that includes the vital issues of climate change and the environment. That’s why a decade ago we became the first cultural organisation in the world to make environmental action part of our funding conditions…
…This isn’t the only way we’re showing our commitment. We’re also investing £350,000 in Julie’s Bicycle’s Creative Green Tools. They’ll help cultural organisations better understand how their actions impact on climate change – what’s called carbon literacy. It’ll also help them better report and forecast their own environmental data. And give them support to look at how they can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide their activities release into the atmosphere, while balancing any remaining emissions – creating what are called Net Zero Carbon Pathways…
…Through our National Lottery Project Grants programme we’ve funded some amazing work that shows the growing appetite among artists and cultural organisations to use their work to respond to the climate crisis. [They don’t seem to have any choice if they want Arts Council funding]. Led by Arts Admin and our environmental partner, Season for Change saw 15 new cross-artform works and projects commissioned. It also invited all artists and cultural organisations to host events or create artworks. Roots and Branches led by Manchester Museum with Museum Development North West and the Carbon Literacy Trust brings together museum staff, educators, artists, and others to help build an environmentally active and aware museums sector. Meanwhile, Tongue Fu, the spoken word and music collective, created Hot Poets. It brought together artists, scientists, campaigners and charities to tell hopeful stories of what was being done in the fight against climate change.
In view of all of the above, I don’t think I’ll be registering my interest. Just call me a killjoy.
Climate Scepticism 
I should, perhaps, have also pointed out that so far as I am aware all of the organisations referred to in the article are recipients of public funding, and/or beneficiaries of favourable tax treatment by virtue of being registered charities.
LikeLike
Does your wife know that you’re turning down 200 quids worth of shopping vouchers?
LikeLike
I can’t stop her applying in her own name if she wants to! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
A great read Mark, thank you
LikeLike
Alot of energy wasted on non-sustainable ideas …
The COPxx circus is nothing but a club for mutual admiration …
… and a boost for the local sex industry …
LikeLike
I dabble in this climate change scepticism myself.
https://oldgrumpy.co.uk/2024/4922/gone-with-the-wind/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, there is so, so much wrong with this that it’s difficult to know where to start. But I’ll start with the ‘random’ selection process which is designed to produce a tiny sample which is “broadly representative” of the much larger population. here’s how Sortition propose to do that:
“Step 1: Send invitations to a randomly selected bunch of people from all across the relevant community
In the UK, Australia and the USA this is typically done by sending letters to households or people randomly selected from a relevant address database. This could be the national postal service address database, an electoral register, or some other database – the important point is that ideally everyone should have a chance to receive an invitation. In some countries (in mainland Europe, for example) this selection can be done from the government register of residents, or sometimes random phone dialling is used.
Step 2: From those that respond, randomly select a representative sample
To perform this second step we have developed, with the help of academics from Harvard and Carnegie Melon Universities, some open-source software the uses the “fairest possible algorithm” to select a bunch of people that is a microcosm of the community in terms of age, gender, location, a socio-economic proxy (such as highest education level or occupation) and, if relevant, some other attitudinal data (e.g. to make sure a climate assembly is not only people who care deeply about climate change).”
The key point here is “From those that respond“. Those that respond are far more likely to have faith in this farcical process as a legitimate “update to democracy”. You don’t have such faith; that’s why you’re not registering. Those that respond are far more likely to have time on their hands and not be in full time employment. Those that respond may in fact just fancy the idea of getting £200 worth of shopping vouchers. That doesn’t sound very representative to me, even before they apply their “fairest possible” Al Gore Rhythm to select a truly representative sub group of people.
The whole thing is an anti-democratic nonsense; the sample is innately biased even before ‘sortition’ happens and the sample itself is so tiny that it cannot possibly be truly representative of the wider population. That’s why we have national referendums. Imagine Brexit happening via a ‘citizens’ jury’!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Same old , same old.
Curious you posting this article today as I came accross an envelope this morning entitled ‘The Joy of Giving’ and then a web address. An oxymoron if ever I heard.
Thankfully it helped to light stove a while later.
LikeLike
Mark, your post could not be more timely or relevant. The Irish have just voted in two national referendums to reject changes to the Constitution which would reflect more ‘progressive’ attitudes to women, marriage and gender equality. These changes were recommended via a Citizens’ Assembly in 2021:
https://citizensassembly.ie/recommendations-of-the-citizens-assembly-on-gender-equality/
Which rather proves the point that Citizens’ Assemblies tend to reflect the minority interests of a few, rather than being representative of the many.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
Many thanks for that. I was aware of the rejection by the Irish people of the proposed amendments to the Irish constitution, of course. However, I didn’t know that the recommendations had stemmed from a Citizens’ Assembly. Thank you for making my point by reference to a real example of the way in which Citizens’ Assemblies can be out of touch with, rather than representative of, the people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
Same here. I only learned just a couple of hours ago that these were recommendations from a citizens’ assembly.
LikeLike
Given Jaime’s point about Irish citizens rejecting in a referendum the recommendations made by a Citizens’ Assembly, it’s curious that George Monbiot calls at Assembly in aid in support of his ideas for “reforming” democracy:
“General elections are a travesty of democracy – let’s give the people a real voice
Our system is designed for the powerful to retain control. Participatory democracy and a lottery vote are just two ways to gain real representation”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/06/general-elections-democracy-lottery-representation
I think there are reasonable arguments in favour of claims that our democratic system is letting us down and that it could benefit from reform. What form such changes should take is a much more difficult question. Whatever the answer, I find, regrettably that I disagree yet again with Mr Monbiot. He says:
Much of the critique of participatory democracy is classist. The working classes cannot be trusted to think for themselves; they must be steered by enlightened guardians. This snobbery extends all the way from Edmund Burke, in Reflections on the Revolution in France, to Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto.
Then he goes on to talk (inter alia) about Citizens’ Assemblies, apparently oblivious to the way they have operated to date, with self- interested and self-appointed “experts” devising the questions and steering the appointed citizens to the “right” answers. In short, they fall foul of the analysis he propounds above.
We certainly need to make our representative democracy work better, but in a society of almost 70 million people “an entirely participatory system, largely based on sortition, in which everyone has an equal chance to make the decisions on which our lives depend” is definitely not the answer.
LikeLike
“Citizens’ assemblies could work wonders for Labour and Britain – but only if they’re more than a talking shop”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/16/citizens-assemblies-labour-britain
Oh what a tangled web. The article is written by Richard Wilson, who is the CEO of Iswe Foundation (“In an age of crisis,we are the solution.”). Note also:
…I was the director of a national public participation charity called Involve, and we led a lot of this work for the government….
As for Iswe:
https://iswe.org/partners
They do very nicely out of the usual suspects (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; World Health Organisation; European Climate Foundation; Climate Emergency Collaboration Group; Climate 2025; Sortition Foundation; Wellcome Foundation etc etc)., but also out of the taxpayer. UK national and government partners include the National Lottery community fund; the Scottish government; UK Department for Culture Media & Sport; UK Cabinet Office; Rochdale MBC; Bristol City Council; North East Lincolnshire Council. Why?
I profoundly disagree with Mr Wilson. I see this sort of thing as an illegitimate attempt to by-pass democracy, not to reinforce it. Look at the funders, and it’s obvious (to me at least) that this whole campaign is agenda-driven.
LikeLike
“According to the UN, the People Have Spoken and They Want Governments to do Even More About Climate Change. Never Heard of the People’s Climate Vote? Hard Cheese”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/17/according-to-the-un-the-people-have-spoken-and-they-want-governments-to-do-even-more-about-climate-change-never-heard-of-the-peoples-climate-vote-hard-cheese/
…One has to admire the UN’s chutzpah in calling a somewhat lame opinion poll not just a “vote” but a “people’s vote”. And it reflects the green blob’s growing desperation to connect the global climate agenda with the world’s eight billion people – a connection which is lacking in nearly every country that has put climate change agreements before its population’s interests. The problem of the democratic deficit has long beset the green blob. The UN and its agencies, national governments, global NGOs, national civil society organisations, news media organisations and academics have all decided that society and the global economy must be radically transformed. But this transformation has rarely been put to the test – the ballot box – to gauge the public’s appetite for either the transformation itself, or for the principles underpinning it….
LikeLiked by 3 people