Common Purpose
Over the last few days I’ve had a few emails about Common Purpose but didn’t pay them much attention because I get bloody hundreds of emails. But today I got an email from someone who wouldn’t bring it up unless there was something in it so I hopped onto Google to see what I could find. Why do I do these things to myself?
Common Purpose is an organisation that trains “leaders”. These “leaders” have to be nominated to take part in their training courses and applications are vetted. The training course trains the “leaders” on how to “lead beyond their authority, beyond their direct circle of control“.
Their “vision” contains the following:
For a democracy to be strong, it needs an active civil society, in which citizens are both informed and connected. Common Purpose’s vision is that we can improve the way society works by increasing the number of informed and engaged individuals who are actively involved in the future of the areas in which they live and work.
The leaders of this civil society are likely to be leaders already within their own areas: companies, hospitals, communities. But they need to see themselves as leaders of society too - and use their talents accordingly.
So, what does “lead beyond their authority” mean? Reading their website and translating it into plain English, the objective seems to be to train business leaders to take over local government - a process that’s already started. Regional Development Agencies, City Regions, Regional Assemblies, Regional Observatories, they are all dominated by business. Closer to home for me, the recently-evicted Liebour administration in Telford & Wrekin set up a limited company to take care of regeneration and investment in the borough. There are 11 board members, only 2 of which are from the council and only one of them was elected. The other 9 are “leaders” - company chief executives and directors, the regional development agency, the Learning & Skills Council, Wolverhampton University, Chamber of Commerce. The pattern is repeated throughout the unelected quangocracy.
UK Indymedia has a list with some of Common Purpose’s clients. They include police forces, the Scottish Executive, schools and universities, councils, churches, newspapers, prisons, government departments and some big household names. The founder of Common Purpose, Julia Middleton, was John Prescott’s head of personnel selection when he was Deputy Prime Minister and creating the regional assemblies - the same regional assemblies that are obsessed with the business agenda.
Phil Davies, MP for Shipley, asked questions in Parliament on spending on Common Purpose:
- The DWP spent £240k on Common Purpose between 2002 and 2007
- The Department for Communities and Local Government has given £40k to Common Purpose for “preventing extremism” since June 2007
- The Department for Children, Schools and Families (under its old name of DfES) spent £51,700 on Common Purpose in 2004 and 2005 and Common Purpose has the use of an office inside the Department for Children, Schools and Families at Sheffield
- DEFRA apparently spent £658 on Common Purpose since June 2001 but the courses cost thousands and there’s a cop-out in the answer saying that it’s from centrally-held records only (DEFRA operates regionally)
- DCLG has spent £307k on Common Purpose since 2002
- The Department for Health spent £35,242 between 2003 and 2008 on Common Purpose
- The Home Office spent £33,688 on Common Purpose training and gave £36,500 in grants to Common Purpose between 2002 and 2007
- The Duchy of Lancaster spent £5,688 on Common Purpose in 2002-04
- The Department for Transport spend £19,676 from 2005 to present and is still spending
- The Treasury has spent £20,625 on Common Purpose since 2002
- The Department for Culture, Media and Sport spent £8,460 in 2002 on Common Purpose for 2 employees
- The Foreign Office paid £3,750 in 2003-04 for one senior official to attend a Common Purpose course
- The Department for International Development spent £181,333 helping Common Purpose establish itself in South Africa.
- The Department for Constitutional Affairs doesn’t hold information on how much they have spent on Common Pupose as they made the decision to spend on Common Purpose at a regional level
- The Northern Ireland Office spent £4,395 on Common Purpose in 2006/07
- The Ministry of Defence spent £308,525 on Common Purpose between 2002 and 2007
The phrase “common purpose” appears a disturbing amount of times in government speeches. As does the word “connecting” in apparently meaningless context - this is part of Common Purpose’s newspeak. The EU, of course, operates on a policy of “common purpose”.
PJC Journal has discovered that Common Purpose even has its own reserved network on the internet, something that is normally the reserve of national registrars and large registrars.
The NHS in the East Midlands is actively recruiting for Common Purpose, as is Oxford Said Business School.
Renew Northwest, the Regional Development Agency has already booked up a Common Purpose programme (at taxpayers expense of course) for 2008.
Common Purpose operates Chatham House rules at its meetings meaning there are no minutes, no records of attendees and nobody talks about what happens at them. They are, effectively, a secret society along the lines of the Masons. They certainly have a lot in common with the Masons apart from the charitable donations which, to the best of my knowledge, Common Purpose have no truck with. And, of course, membership of the masons requires a disclosure on a register of interest if you are a Councillor or MP.
There is something very sinister about this organisation and something very wrong about a “common purpose” being instilled into the nation’s “leaders”. I don’t want a civil society run by the business community.
Technorati Tags: Common Purpose
This entry was posted
by wonkotsane on Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 at 8:31 am and is filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Common purpose is an extremely nasty organisation. I’ve seen their stuff and been aware of their activities for a while now. It all smacks of a Brave New World order. Those educated to lead and those destined to be lead…. by a secretive cabal of power mad arseholes….
November 28th, 2007 at 3:04 pmSomething does need done about the cancerous inefficiencis of our governments and civil services
November 28th, 2007 at 6:42 pmGreat post, Wonko. Common purpose is a creepy set-up, and more needs to be done to make people aware of its existence. In a democracy, things are supposed to be out in the open. This organisation is not geared towards filling a space in civil society, it is geared towards ensuring the continuation of neoliberal economic policy and integration into the EU capitalist superstate.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:32 amThanks. It’s been a reall eye opener, I didn’t know anything about them until the other day. I’ve got a few FOI’s out at the moment on it so watch this space.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:09 amI have had a look into this. I doubt they will be asking either myself or Wonko to enrole anytime soon. It does raise a number of interesting questions. Who identifies those suitable for”leadership” and according to what criteria? Who appoints the “board” of the organisation? Is it by any means democratically accountable and to whom? In particular, how widespread is it’s involvement in local government processes and does any such involvement effectively subvert the democratic process? In other words, is common purpose proposing an attitude of “we know best” whilst not submitting its graduates to the will of the ballot box? How many elected holders of public office have undertaken this training and at whose expense? And most importantly what is their definition of “COMMON PURPOSE”?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:18 amNO-EU Common Purpose government infiltraitors 9-15-07 Brian Gerrish. google.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:10 pmVery interesting although it all seems a bit far-fetched to me. Talk of the “post democratic era” and all that. The organisation appears to be backed by numerous and credible public companies though I do still have concerns over questions of democratic accountability. I will await Wonko’s findings with interest.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:11 amWe’re already in the “post democratic era”.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:57 amIf we are truly in the “post democratic society” I must have imagined casting my vote in a by-election a few weeks ago, or winning an election myself back in May. I surely dreamed that I attended a meeting of Telford & Wrekin council last night where full and frank debate was held on the European Treaty and a motion passed by majority calling on Gordon Brown to hold a referendum. Perhaps I am even making up this example of democracy in action.
When you look around the world and see how others live and rule by the bomb and the bullet you start to realise just how lucky we are to live in what is in essence and despite all the shortcomings, a democratic society. Of course, we must protect it against myriad threats from without and within but excitable claims of “post democratic society” does that cause no good at all.
I would like to know precisely where Common Purpose has claimed to be preparing for a “post-democratic” society, for that was the inference within the article. However I will attest that my reading on the subject of Common Purpose has merely confirmed my long held view that an unaccountable and almost neo-marxist Class Politique has seemingly arisen within civil society at both local and national level.
It has arisen largely because of the failure of the political right in this country to mount an effective challenge to it’s development and machinations, whilst it has at the same time been ably assisted by the thinking and philosophy of the liberal and socialist left. I reject the notion that it is by any means a conspiracy but rather a modern continuation of what Mrs Thatcher once termed “the battle of ideas”.
It is a mentality, an almost neo-marxist thinking that has gripped the consciousness of many of the otherwise well-meaning and hard working individuals engaged with the betterment and furtherance of both individuals and wider society.
The real need is for the political right to mount a succesfull challenge to this neo-marxist thinking. To do that, it must adopt a credilble strategy that avoids compromise with that very thinking, whilst at the same time avoiding the taint of the conspiracy theorists or extremism a la BNP/UKIP that has unfortunately served to hamper such efforts in the past. The right must become attractive in political, civic and intellectual spheres and move away from the “reactionary” or even “extremist” moniker.
With regard to the political sphere I have heard all of the arguments against the Conservative Party. However, here is a political party that meets these aforementioned criteria and is in a position both of history and activity, but more importantly in a position of popular recognition, to adopt such a strategy. It did so in the past albeit under different circumstances with the Thatcher Governments and it can do so again. I recognise and accept that the Conservative Party is a broad coalition of viewpoints and interests. My voice represents merely one such interest but one I perceive to be both a widespread and growing one.
This viewpoint requires increased expression, both within the Conservative Party and outside so that it can itself become a major part of the consciousness of the party and wider society. If it does so then the Britain that our children inherit will remains a democratic and free society as it is today. Indeed, that Britain will be even more free and more democratic than today and will act as beacon to the rest of the world, much of which is today in darkness but tomorrow can itself be free.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pmRichard Sambrook - Director, BBC Global News
“There’s a whole new generation who see both party and office politics as irrelevent to their lives. They’re looking for their own ways to change the world. And they’re looking to Common Purpose to help”
gramscianmarxist@aol.com
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:22 pmfor more CP info from foi requests
“I reject the notion that it is by any means a conspiracy but rather a modern continuation of what Mrs Thatcher once termed “the battle of ideas” - George Ashcroft.
The ‘right’ never lost any ‘battle of ideas’. What they lost was dominance in academia and the mass media. “Reactionary” and “extremist” are cheap slogans used by neo-Marxists to discredit their opponents. The ideas of the ‘right’ are fine with most of us but their stategies have not been proactive like the reds have. An anti-EU pro-British (in the traditional sense of British) equivalent of CP would have to find its money from grassroots support. The State-funded bodies that feed CP would not be so kind to such an organisation. For the moment at least, Brian Gerrish’s strategy of exposing CP at every opportunity is seems a sensible way of dealing with this group. For the moment.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pmI know many people from small charities, small and large businesses and public sector organisations who have done a Common Purpose programme. All of them say that it has been the best leadership development training they have ever had - worth every penny. The cost of the programmes is a little cheaper than many providers! It seems the correspondents are totally out of touch of the objectives of the organisation and their negative comments have no basis in fact.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:47 pmAnd have you been on a Common Purpose course John Porter?
December 18th, 2007 at 9:12 pmJohn Porter wrote -
I know many people from small charities, small and large businesses and public sector organisations who have done a Common Purpose programme. All of them say that it has been the best leadership development training they have ever had - worth every penny. The cost of the programmes is a little cheaper than many providers! It seems the correspondents are totally out of touch of the objectives of the organisation and their negative comments have no basis in fact.
Are you the same John Porter who is London Programme Director for Common Purpose ?
http://www.lyndakingtaylor.com/quotes.htm
Regards
December 29th, 2007 at 4:07 pmDarren
It would make a great story if it was but I don’t think that being an online collectors card trader qualifies you for Common Purpose. Could be wrong of course …
December 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pmThis is very interesting and may explain the corruption, lies, abuse of power, illegality and torture some have been experiencing via the DWP, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Appeal Tribunal Service, the Social Security Commissioners, the Information Commissioner, the Information Tribunal, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and a disinterested Justice Minister.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pmDWPCorruption.co.uk
Common Purpose, as far as I understand it, is an organisation much on the lines of the Free Masons, only they get outside help, and government contributions which comes from OUR taxes, so should in effect be a public group, so why is it secret? It’s more like a branch of the Illuminati, creaping across the country like a cancer.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:22 amCommon Purpose is tax payer funded freemasonry. It is a pro EU organization designed to brainwash people using neuro lingistic programming.
This kind of thing is increasingly common in large corporations. I have first hand experience of it. In Caterpillar Inc, (the big diggers and earth moving machinery), they have a management training system called Six Sigma, designed to brainwash people into corporate alligence. It is a masterly system for weeding out anyone who displays ‘individualism’ from management positions or career advancement. They also publish a code of conduct manual called ‘Values and Behaviours.’ This manual ‘teaches’ people an expected set of values and behavior in your everyday interaction with employees, everything from opening doors for people (as if you need to be told basic manners) to conflict resolution. It is ghastly and Marxist. All permenant staff and contract staff are obliged to undertake Values and Behaviours training. I refused and left before I was disciplined for my intransigence.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:02 amThe CEO of Common Purpose is philosophicaly driven by Euro-Communism. Don\’t fall into the error of supposing that all\’Communisms\’ are the same.
Check out the philosophy of the now defunct \’MARXISM TODAY\’ Its Editorial staff;- adherents of strains of Machiavelli/Marx/Gramsci through Foucault,Stuart Hall,Eric Hobsbawm etc etc.DYOR,-formed precursor thinktank DEMOS. DEMOS founders Geoff Mulgan/Martin Jacques spawned the CEO of Common Purpose Julia Middleton. Forget all the conspiracy theory stuff. We are dealing with facts here. Injoke—Why Common Purpose? Why not call it EUPRAXIS? Even better Dyspraxis (not the medical term by the way)Suppose it would have been a dead give away with either.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pmI to have just started looking into Common Purpose & they are everywhere, but no one in authority wants to talk about them & they seem concerned that I’m asking
February 26th, 2008 at 5:23 pmI am a Common Purpose “undergrad”. Common Purpose is simply another leadership development opportunity, which gives access to some interesting speakers and ideas. The sessions are informative and include open conversation - I do not feel in any way indoctrinated, or that I have altered my own political views (other than be horrified by the inefficiencies and clumsy structured that exist in the public sector generally).
My fees are paid for by my employer - I can not meaningfully comment on how government offices chose to invest in developing their own people. Like all things, it’s easy for people to be fearful of something they don’t understand. But I am looking forward to being given my code word that will switch my then pre-programmed brain to “seize control of the state” mode. Yes. That is crazy, isn’t it? But at least CP gives people something else to build a conspiracy theory about. Why do I sense that there is a thread of “envy” running through these posts? I’m sure you’d all like to be invited to learn the secret handshake, wouldn’t you?
March 9th, 2008 at 9:38 pmNo envy from me, if you read my blog you’ll know that I don’t agree with the “business community” interfering in the democratic process. Common Purpose trains “business leaders” to “lead beyond their authority” - what is that if it’s not exceeding and undermining legitimate authority? What right do you as a “business leader” have to lead anyone other than those who you are responsible for? If theres nothing to hide then why use Chatham House rules?
March 9th, 2008 at 10:12 pmIt seems “Common On Purpose” that you miss the point. The complaint is that CP is seeking to fill a gap in society with an elitist club rather than with democratic control and accountability. CP is secretive and not open to the general public - hardly something that will contribute to an active civil society.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:47 am…but until a democratically accountable organisation comes along…..
I think the problem is, if it is ‘publicably accountable’ it is prone to the winds of fashion and crap like that and will have to be too a;; inclusive to be effective.
As a ‘private club’ it can say , our theory is ‘this’ and that is all we will preach. I have seen too much wasted on non courses and education styles. Ethnic diversirty training springs particularly to mind, people are people, it does’nt matter where you or your father came from, what church you go to on what day of the week or what team you support, we are all human beings. And if you need taught that, all this pussy footing around is going to be over your head.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pmForgive me, axel - I don’t understand - are you saying that you think it is okay for Common Purpose to operate in the secretive way it does?
March 12th, 2008 at 1:24 amI think he might be playing Devils Advocate and using my unelected House of Lords argument for Common Purpose but in the case of hereditary peers, they don’t have to worry about their jobs if they do the right thing whereas a Common Purpose agent would.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:58 am