Monday 1 November 2010

Undermining democracy

I am a great fan of democracy. It has its faults, but as Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time'. I am always irritated to see democracy being threatened or sidestepped in this country and unfortunately this is just what is happening at the moment with home education.

I live in a town called Loughton on the edge of London. We have a District Council and Town Council, both run by democratically elected councillors. If they screw up, we can vote them out at the next election. Parking enforcement is a big issue locally and there are usually campaigns being run about where yellow lines should be or which streets should require parking permits. This is all sorted out locally by vigorous debate among residents, councillors and local authority officers. Imagine how annoying it would be if a group of people from Sheffield and Wales invited themselves here and tried to bulldoze and bluster the council into changing their parking policies and arguing that their own ideas on the subject would be much better! I for one would object strongly. I would object even if these outsiders were pushing an agenda which I agreed with. Because they do not live here, are not voters and have not been democratically elected by anybody, they would have no business coming here and poking their nose in!

Perhaps some readers are now seeing where this argument is tending. Mike Fortune-Wood from Wales, Fiona Nicholson from Sheffield and Ian Dowty from London all went to Birmingham recently to try and persuade the local authority there to alter their policy on elective home education. Several points about this strike one immediately. Firstly, none of these people have the least particle of democratic legitimacy. They are, like the present writer, self-appointed pundits, chosen by nobody. This is in stark contrast to Birmingham City Council, who have been elected. As a thought experiment, let us try and imagine what the reaction would be if it came to light that I had invited myself to Birmingham and was trying to get the council to take a more gung ho approach towards monitoring. People would say, and quite rightly, that it was none of my business. Another point to consider is this. When I gave evidence to the Children, Schools and Families select committee last year, a great deal was made of the fact that since my daughter was sixteen, I could not be regarded as a home educator. There were angry comments to this effect on the Internet HE lists and people even contacted the select committee to complain how unfair it was. More recently, the same point has been made by people on the BRAG list; that I am no longer a home educator and therefore that my views on the subject should carry less weight than those who are currently educating their children at home. Precisely the same observation can be made about those meddling in Birmingham, such as Mike Fortune-Wood and Fiona Nicholson. They too, just like me, are not even home educators!

When local residents here in Loughton have meetings with the council to try and thrash something out, it is always done openly. Often, there is a bit in the local paper to the effect that residents are meeting next week with local authority officers or councillors to sort out some dispute. This is very right and proper and I would not like to see any such meetings being done on the quiet. It would make me suspicious. A lot of the stuff currently happening with home education though, is being done in this way. People only learn about meetings after the things have happened and even then the participants refuse to identify themselves openly, let alone say publicly what they have been saying to Birmingham Council or the Chair of the CSF select committee, as the case may be. This is very odd. If I heard that our local residents association had been having secret meetings with the town council and that none of them would talk about what had been going on or even admit to having been present, I would regard this as outrageous. So would most residents in this district.

A final point to consider is this. MPs and councillors have been voted in by the population generally, not just this special interest group or that. If policies, guidelines or laws are liable to be changed then other people have the right to know, not just those likely to be affected. Home education, truancy, children missing education, schools; all these things are matters of general public interest. Others may have points of view which they wish to express. The way that things are currently being done both with Graham Stuart's helpers and the people who went to Birmingham, means that nobody except a tiny handful of self-chosen individuals are involved in these processes. When the former Secretary of State for Education wished to change the law on home education he launched a public review and invited everybody, home educators and everybody else, to contribute their views and opinions. Later, the CSF select committee looked at the matter, again openly and publicly. This is how things are done in a democracy. The scrapping of Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill was a fine example of the democratic process at work. I have no idea what is likely to emerge from the meeting in Birmingham or the enterprise which Graham Stuart has launched. What I am absolutely sure of though is that anything which comes out of all this will have no legitimacy whatsoever. How could it? Most of those concerned on the home education side have not been elected by anybody and have got where they are simply by virtue of having sharper elbows and louder voices than others. This is not democracy.

30 comments:

  1. Have you spoken to any home educators in Birmingham? From what I've read they were invited to attend the meeting by local home educators. It's often easier for someone outside an area to argue the case because they feel less vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I understand that half a dozen home educating parents from Birmingham were present. This does not alter the situation. People like Mike Fortune-Wood have not been chosen by anybody other than themselves to represent the interests of home educators. These people are not themselves home educators, nor are they voters in Birmingham and neither have they been elected by anybody to any position of authority. Where is their mandate to treat on behalf of anybody in Birmingham regarding the policies of that local authority? This is a profoundly undemocratic action.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "When the former Secretary of State for Education wished to change the law on home education he launched a public review and invited everybody, home educators and everybody else, to contribute their views and opinions."

    And then ignore the majority view and opinions.


    "Later, the CSF select committee looked at the matter, again openly and publicly. This is how things are done in a democracy. The scrapping of Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill was a fine example of the democratic process at work."

    Rubbish. The only reason Schedule 1 was scrapped was because they ran out of time. If they had not run out of time it would have gone through. How is the scrapping or not of a policy being decided by the timing of an election a fine example of the democratic process at work?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I understand that half a dozen home educating parents from Birmingham were present. This does not alter the situation. People like Mike Fortune-Wood have not been chosen by anybody other than themselves to represent the interests of home educators."

    I didn't say just that local home educators had also attended, I said that local home educators had invited them to attend the meeting with them. It seems reasonable for members of the public to want knowledgeable advisers with them when dealing with professionals in a meeting such as this. I'm sure planning experts from outside an area become involved in local discussions as advisers is discussions about planning, for instance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'And then ignore the majority view and opinions.'

    You have a distorted view of democracy. Whose majority view and opinion are you talking of here? The electorate? These are the people who voted in people like Ed Balls and the other MPs. Or are you talking of the majority view and opinions of home educators? We know nothing of these. We did not hear from over 95% of home educators during the consultation process. Precisely whose 'majority view and opinions' are we talking of here?


    'How is the scrapping or not of a policy being decided by the timing of an election a fine example of the democratic process at work?'

    Because everything which led up to that point, including the presentation of the petition, the select committee hearing and the various speechs by opposition MPs was all part of the democratic process. So was the wash-up which preceded the election, as indeed was the fact that an election was called at the time it was. All these things were decided by democratically elected representatives. Those organising the campaign of opposition to the CSF Bill outside parliament, on the other hand, were not elected by anybody. They were the sharpest operators and those with the best media contacts. In general, they were a bunch of spivs and chancers who had been chosen by nobody but themselves to be spokespersons for others. Or am I missing something here? Did somebody actually vote in Ian Dowty, Mike Fortune-Wood and the others? More research needed on this claim!

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'I'm sure planning experts from outside an area become involved in local discussions as advisers is discussions about planning, for instance.'

    It has been known. However this sort of thing is not usually conducted in a hole-and-corner fashion, with the experts refusing to admit they they were present! If I heard that a planning application had been discussed at a secret meeting with local authority officers and that various people from ouside the district took part, but that their identities were to remain secret and that the meeting had not been announced until it was over; I should be very alarmed. This is not how local democracy works; it is how shady deals are struck on the quiet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You have a distorted view of democracy. Whose majority view and opinion are you talking of here? The electorate? These are the people who voted in people like Ed Balls and the other MPs. Or are you talking of the majority view and opinions of home educators? We know nothing of these. We did not hear from over 95% of home educators during the consultation process. Precisely whose 'majority view and opinions' are we talking of here?"

    Then why bother wasting our money on consultations they plan to ignore? How did they find out the majority view of the UK population in order to draw up this law?

    "They were the sharpest operators and those with the best media contacts. In general, they were a bunch of spivs and chancers who had been chosen by nobody but themselves to be spokespersons for others."

    I hope you are including yourself in this description because you had a disproportionately large input into the process as far as I recall.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "It has been known. However this sort of thing is not usually conducted in a hole-and-corner fashion, with the experts refusing to admit they they were present!"

    The people at Birmingham haven't refused to admit they were present and minutes are due to be released.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >>>Those organising the campaign of opposition to the CSF Bill outside parliament, on the other hand, were not elected by anybody. They were the sharpest operators and those with the best media contacts. In general, they were a bunch of spivs and chancers who had been chosen by nobody but themselves to be spokespersons for others. <<<

    Ahem. I was involved in organising a local campaign against the Bill, passing on information to members of the group I am in, organising discussion, raising awareness of the issues, encouraging friends to make appointments with their M.P's etc etc. I am not a sharp operator or a spiv or a chancer, neither did I have ANY media contacts.

    I was just a home educating parent who disagreed with the need for changes to the law on Home Education. My children had benefited from HE and I wanted to make sure that it was an unchanged option available for my future grandchildren.

    >>They were the sharpest operators and those with the best media contacts. <<

    More research needed on the claim that I am sharp. LOL!

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think we can tell by the lack of outcry against these home educators that they were representing the views of those who heard them. Home educators are not usually slow in making their views known about this type of thing, as you will know Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am covered in shame and confusion, Mrs Anon! I did not of course for a moment mean to suggest that you are yourself either a spiv or a chancer; indeed, all the available evidence tends to point in the opposite direction. Have you never heard of a man who becomes drunk on his own rhetoric and allows himself to be carried away on the tide of his own eloquence? It is to be hoped that you are not offended by this cavalier dismissal of your own campaigning efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Or am I missing something here? Did somebody actually vote in Ian Dowty, Mike Fortune-Wood and the others? More research needed on this claim! "

    Do these people actually have the power to decide things then? Or did they just offer their views as everyone else, including you, did.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'you had a disproportionately large input into the process as far as I recall.'

    I was wholly unaware of this! I was invited to the select committee, where I argued against monitoring, saying, 'I have never had any dealings with the National Curriculum and am against an over-prescriptive approach'. Apart from that, what input did I have in the process?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This, along with your private interview with Badman and various submissions during the whole process is a much larger input than than the vast majority of home educators and larger than some of the people you mention! I'm not saying that it's wrong for you or others to put your views across, but I really cannot see the difference between you and the people you criticize.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "So was the wash-up which preceded the election, as indeed was the fact that an election was called at the time it was. All these things were decided by democratically elected representatives."

    Still doesn't change the fact that the scrapping of schedule 1 was primarily an accident of timing.

    "Those organising the campaign of opposition to the CSF Bill outside parliament, on the other hand, were not elected by anybody."

    Never heard of pressure groups? Are they undemocratic? Isn't discussion, debate and attempting to persuade others to you point of view part of democracy?

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'This, along with your private interview with Badman and various submissions during the whole process is a much larger input than than the vast majority of home educators and larger than some of the people you mention!'

    How grant it sounds! A 'private interview with Badman'. many home educating parents met with Graham Badman. As far as my submissions go, I made two very brief ones. Both were about a tenth of the length of the average submission being mde at the same time. We will say nothing of the ten thousand word submissions sent by some, who cunningly divided them into sveral parts in rder to get over the three thousand word limit!

    You are right though, there is essentially no difference at all between me and the people whom I am criticising. We have none of us received a mandate from anybody but ourselves. This was the point which i was making!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous said, 'This, along with your private interview with Badman and various submissions during the whole process is a much larger input than than the vast majority of home educators and larger than some of the people you mention!'

    Well, then they should have got their act together and done the same thing, shouldn't they?

    Simon heard about the review and asked for an interview with Badman to offer his and Simone's views. How I regret not doing the same thing! Some friends of mine did meet with him as a group. We all had that option. We can hardly blame Simon for taking up that opportunity!

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  18. "You are right though, there is essentially no difference at all between me and the people whom I am criticising. We have none of us received a mandate from anybody but ourselves. This was the point which i was making!"

    Who said they had received a mandate? The point is, representing your views to government is an important part of democracy. Pressure groups are part of this. So why do you claim that the actions of yourself and others are undemocratic?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Well, then they should have got their act together and done the same thing, shouldn't they?"

    As I said, I don't disagree with you or Simon putting your views forward. The point is, when Simon disagrees with the views they put forward they become:

    "They were the sharpest operators and those with the best media contacts. In general, they were a bunch of spivs and chancers who had been chosen by nobody but themselves to be spokespersons for others."

    I've very grateful for you and others for putting my views forward. I also submitted my views but I'm glad that those with more eloquence and time did more. I'm not particularly glad that Simon put his views forward because I disagree with them, but I wouldn't claim that he had no right to put those views forward, as he seems to be doing here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. anon says-Simon heard about the review and asked for an interview with Badman to offer his and Simone's views. How I regret not doing the same thing! Some friends of mine did meet with him as a group. We all had that option. We can hardly blame Simon for taking up that opportunity!

    Badman refuse to meet a few home educators because he did not want to hear to many views that he knew would be against any change in the law on home education.Badman also refused to anser a number of letters from home educators as well.
    Badman was happy to meet old Simon because he knew Webb would agree with most of what he wanted to do such as the interview of the child on its own and haveing new powers to entry a private house.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ' but I wouldn't claim that he had no right to put those views forward, as he seems to be doing here.'

    Perhaps you misunderstand me. Responding to a public consultation is one thing, as is discussing ideas openly on a blog such as this. Let us suppose that I and a few like-minded souls then beetled off to the Chair of the CSF select committee or Birmingham City Council and tried to influence their policy. Suppose that I found a solicitor who agreed with me and enlisted his aid. Imagine that we were trying to persuade politicians that more intrusive monitoring were needed. Suppose I organised this without telling anybody and that it only came to light after key meetings. How enchanted would people be when they heard about it? What possible business would I have in trying to persuade Birmingham council to alter their policies in a way which suited me better? Would people really not object if I were to do this? I simply do not see what affair Birmingham's policies are of mine. i am not a voter there, nor have I been elected to their council. I am not even a home educator, either there or indeed anywhere else. What on earth business would it be of mine to try and put the bite on them in this way?

    ReplyDelete
  22. 'Badman was happy to meet old Simon because he knew Webb would agree with most of what he wanted to do such as the interview of the child on its own and haveing new powers to entry a private house.'

    Presumably the same reason that he met with Paula Rothermel and various autonomous educators in this country!

    'haveing new powers to entry a private house.'

    I met Badman in May. Nobody had mentioned entering private houses at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Presumably the same reason that he met with Paula Rothermel and various autonomous educators in this country!
    Badman soon stoped meeting home educators that he knew would not agree with him.Badman Just met the least he could to make out he was consulting them!

    We only have have your word that Badman never mentioned entering a private home.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Responding to a public consultation is one thing, as is discussing ideas openly on a blog such as this. Let us suppose that I and a few like-minded souls then beetled off to the Chair of the CSF select committee or Birmingham City Council and tried to influence their policy. "

    Ahh, silly me. I thought we had moved on from current events and were discussing democracy in general and democracy around the CSF Bill in particular.

    I replied to the second part of this comment of yours:

    "Those organising the campaign of opposition to the CSF Bill outside parliament, on the other hand, were not elected by anybody. They were the sharpest operators and those with the best media contacts. In general, they were a bunch of spivs and chancers who had been chosen by nobody but themselves to be spokespersons for others. Or am I missing something here?"

    Did I misunderstand this? Were you actually talking about current events and not the CSF Bill?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Imagine that we were trying to persuade politicians that more intrusive monitoring were needed. Suppose I organised this without telling anybody and that it only came to light after key meetings. How enchanted would people be when they heard about it?"

    Is this what happened in Birmingham? Did the local groups know nothing about this meeting? Where is your evidence of this?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Simon replied,
    "' but I wouldn't claim that he had no right to put those views forward, as he seems to be doing here.'

    Perhaps you misunderstand me. Responding to a public consultation is one thing, as is discussing ideas openly on a blog such as this."

    Just noticed another misunderstanding, probably a result of my poor writing. When I said, "as he seems to be doing here", I referred to your suggestion that, "those organising the campaign of opposition to the CSF Bill outside parliament", had no democratic right to do this. They had as much right to put their views forward as you and other groups such as LA employees or the NSPCC did. I was not referring to your blog as you seem to suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 'Badman Just met the least he could to make out he was consulting them!

    We only have have your word that Badman never mentioned entering a private home.'

    And did you know that there was a second gunman during Kennedy's assassination, hiding near the grassy knoll? I don't belive that those moon landings were real either! And a friend whose brother works for NASA told me that they actually have an alien spaceship hidden in Area 51! Now what was that about the Badman Conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm sure I saw a post from Simon about the meeting in Birmingham being less open than the authority had hoped (just after the gunman near the grassy knoll post). It seemed to implying that home educators had blocked others from attending and that evidence would be available soon. Did I dream it or is Blogger doing strange things with messages again?

    ReplyDelete
  29. we think it was you and your daughter who put the idea of entering a private home to interview a child alone into Badman mind? what else did you tell him to do?

    ReplyDelete
  30. 'we think it was you and your daughter who put the idea of entering a private home to interview a child alone into Badman mind? what else did you tell him to do?'

    Yes, you could be right. Wait, I have just remembered that the subject came up because I discovered that Graham Badman and I both belong to the Illuminati. Did I mention that our meeting took place in Rosslyn Chapel? We were talking about the quest for the Holy Grail and he happened to say that he could not figure out how to see more home educated children. 'Have you thought about demanding to speak to them alone, without their parents being present?', I suggested casually. 'Great Scott' he cried, 'That is the answer to the problem'. At that moment an albino monk leaped at us......

    ReplyDelete