Gordon Brown likes to style the government’s various taxpayer-funded ‘listening events’ and ‘citizen’s juries’ as genuine consultation exercises, designed to give the public a real input into major policy decisions. Yeah, right.
What's more, this sort of thing does not come cheap. Some £2.9m has been spent on various events of this type so far this autumn. Getting on for half of that money - £1.3m, to be precise - went on a one-day public consultation on nuclear power, according to analysis by the Financial Times:
The price tag for the nuclear consultation - nine "citizen deliberative events" held on September 8 - will fuel controversy over the exercise and raise questions about Gordon Brown's "new type of politics".
Officials told the FT the £1.3m bill included venue hire, transport and accommodation for the 1,000 people consulted, plus a £772,626 contract to Opinion Leader Research, a polling company with links to Labour that was commissioned to carry out the work …
The spat is part of a wider debate over the prime minister's decision to use citizens’ juries - panels of up to 20 people chosen to represent their communities and weigh up evidence on a given topic - as well as summits and other "deliberative" consultative techniques.
The bill for recent events includes £868,930 for nine citizens juries on the NHS involving 1,100 patients, staff and members of the public …
Consultations in the pipeline include three citizens’ juries on cohesion, migration and housing conducted by the Department for the Communities and Local Government, which refused to disclose indicative budgets for the events.
The Ministry of Justice also declined to reveal costing for consultative events culminating in a "citizens’ summit" on British values and a bill of rights, expected to be launched later this month. "The public can be assured that the government will look for value for money in carrying out this programme," an official told the FT.
So, is all of this worth nearly three million quid? I’m not so sure. For a start, exactly how are these ‘panels of 20 people chosen to represent their communities’ selected? The operative word here is ‘chosen’. Chosen by whom? On what basis? What possible democratic value do their opinions have if they are not elected?
But what ultimately devalues this extended series of catchpenny PR stunts is the realisation that whatever these ‘panels of 20 people chosen to represent their communities’ have to say, it makes no difference one way or the other.
Or does anyone seriously doubt that the government has decided to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations, whether the public likes it or not?
Comments (7)
The short answer is 'astroturf'.
Does the same criticism of these juries apply to juries in criminal cases - they're just a dozen random punters?
Having abolished (virtually) the Annual Conference and fettered the Labour Party, and driven trade union influence out of the loop, the New Labour Bigwigs have to find some way of pretending they care what ordinary people think. It's also a nice little earner for their friends. Don't think anyone on the face of the planet takes it seriously though.
Have all you people seen this?
If you have, well...here it is again.
http://drraysfocalspot.blogspot.com/2007/09/nulabours-hospital-closure-consultation_21.html
Does the same criticism of these juries apply to juries in criminal cases - they're just a dozen random punters?
The point about juries in criminal cases is that they are a dozen random punters (subject to challenges) and... er, the two points about juries in criminal cases would be that and the fact that real juries have a clearly-defined and decisive role in criminal cases. Handpicked 'juries' discussing government-supplied evidence and making decisions which endorse government policy debase the word 'jury' - they're focus groups writ slightly larger.
Scratch - thanks for that. I read that post after writing the above - it seems the reality's even worse than I thought. I do like the cash in brown envelopes - classy or what.
Rumour has it that the selection process for citizen juries isn't quite as rigorous and objective as one might hope...
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/09/75-for-consultation-thatll-do-nicely.html
Citizens juries have worked in other parts of the world - in British Colombia a citizens jury had its recommendations for electoral reform put to a referendum -n that sort of effort would be worthwhile, but I agree that brown's version sounds like a focus group by another name and not as sweet...
This is a phoney form of representation because no decision can be made by these bodies. This government has shifted in various areas of life to use unelected lay people as spokespersons for the public at large. I say no representation without election.