UK coalition’s real agenda : Behaviour change to suit policy, so say the House of Lords

UK coalition’s real agenda : Behaviour change to suit policy, so say the House of Lords







August 21, 2012

Silver tongued program for the slave mentality

In all cases brought before a court of law, evidence of the facts is the law.
Blinded as we are to the insidious moves made by successive governments in finance, as they shift the countries revenue collection from income tax to service tax, and Value Added tax (VAT), they must also do something about the way in which we the masses, understand what is happening without understanding what is happening.

I know, frustrating is it not, but of course that is the nature of the game called politics.
In 2011 a meeting was had in which a dark doctrine from an equally dark cult was discussed and rubber stamped for the full term of this three party coalition, I mean, when you have Tony Blair back as the Olympic legacy don, and Nick Clegg, the occult arm to this coven of deceivers, claims, he was ready to enter talks for a possible coalition with the Old New Labour under Ed Miliband at the next general election. Blighty we have a problem?

The Science and Technology Select Committee met to give life to a policy of Behaviour Change, for the population and the civil service, and through education direct to the children. If we take Lord Adonis as an example, former director of the Institute for Government that have big plans for allowing Academies to become boarding schools, we can’t go wrong. Such an agenda has even more sinister harmonics when we consider the Olympic push to pick your children off the street, taken to what they call ‘a place of safety’, to be returned once the parents have satisfied corporate psychiatrist’s and corporate social workers they are indeed as insane as they are. Academies are to be used as such places of safety which will open the doors to child removal in order the Academy can demand a huge tariff charge off the taxpayer to board the child until the psychiatrist’s release the child.

The expanding use of psychiatry in the corporate system takes on a whole new meaning when we consider the elite of this craft are lobbying to legalise paedophilia, begging the question what kind of mind does one have to be, to be classified as normal to a psychiatrist?[1]

Using the Olympics to make that behavioural change with the aim of forming a fitter nation, specifically with the children, it appears this coalition government backed by the House of Lords, are implementing the same programme as that under Hitler and the Third Reich and his gymnasium programme. They called it Eugenics in order they could form their idea of the Aryan master race by changing the behaviour of the entire population to mimic the traits of the master race. With a population on its knees after the war reparations, a position we are heading to suffer with the current batch of blithering financial experts Inc, holding the fort, begs another question; to what end is this readiness for war moving?…Erm…war with China 2023.

Externalising the hierarchy and its methods appears to be the time-frame we experience today, with the elites presenting what was a secret control mechanism, into the open in order they can gain statutory consent for that control mechanism, without giving the population the real facts until the consent is gained. This is how the dictatorship is to be formed through consent. In the conclusion document at the bottom of this report, it would appear they have all the consent they require through various licensing and school statute demands, already in the bag, as they decide to hell with the need for consenting taxpayers to the whims and willies of the Institute for Government, they will intervene and change policy without the taxpayers even being aware of the fact.

To position the populations in the trance like state, required in order they do not fully grasp the contract on offer, a contract pushed with menace, is to first educate them below the level of comprehension apportioned to the world of the solicitor, the lawyer, both dealing almost entirely in statutory rules of commerce while claiming them to be law, and we fall for it.

In that context the game is rigged from the start and the reason for the use of behavioural strategies to allow the deception to operate uninterrupted. They have achieved this in these times by programming adults back to the school mentality, whereby they obey instruction without question, speak to any head teacher, and teachers today, and witness the childlike attitude coming back at you, the same in the civil service, specifically the Jobcentres, more so in their sub contractor operations carrying out the work programme mind job, which have the feel of a pre-school mentality.

Openly today proved in the document from the House of Lords, we can see how the corridors of real power play the masses like sheep… because the people act like sheep, see self quarantine and house arrest under pandemic.

As with a court of law let us get to the evidence, the introduction to the document states :
“The Government welcomes this timely exploration by the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee into the use of behaviour change interventions to achieve policy goals.”

The Coalition’s Programme for Government rejects “the assumption that central government can only change people’s behaviour through rules and regulations” and promises that “our government will be a much smarter one, shunning the bureaucratic levers of the past and finding intelligent ways to encourage support and enable people to make better choices for themselves.”

Shunning the bureaucratic levers of the past, means further shunning our constitutional civil system, the use of the term ‘smarter one’ and intelligent, has to coincide with the rise and huge expansion of intelligence agencies. Better choices for themselves has to coincide with the deceptive nature of statute rules, deceptive in the first instance in that they present themselves as law. A statute is never law, it is a contract containing the rule that enforcement of its agreed terms can be enforced ‘as if the power of law’, and contracts have to be consensual.

Under the heading of Government Activities they state :
“Behaviour change theories can help us to understand why individuals behave the way they do. They can also help policy makers frame choices for individuals in order to ‘nudge’ them into behaving differently and regulating their own activities.”

They then cite particular organisations and publications the coalition through various government departments have taken into consideration in forming their strategy for behavioural change :
“Drawing on a range of academic literature including seminal publications such as Robert Cialdhini’s Influence :
The Psychology of Persuasion, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s Nudge, and David Halpern’s Social Capital and Cabinet Office, Department of Education and the Government Economic and Social Research Team
 MINDSPACE : a joint collaboration between the Cabinet Office and the Institute for Government.” 

Clearly presented in the introduction is the evidence that not only is the coalition government operating behavioural modification programmes against the cash stricken population, so to is the House of Lords, and indeed the corporate Crown Temple. That they intend to expand such modification until ‘their’ policy aims are met. The question at this juncture would be to determine whether the policy of the Cabinet is in any way the same policy as that the people want?

In a simple answer the word NO stands tall as it is clear the cabinet’s aims are the aims of the corporate realm, a realm in which ‘the people’ have no input or recourse, as such evidence comes to the fore that the political class and the judiciary are not upholding the constitutional realm.

In Promoting and co ordinating government activities, they state :
“The new Government wants to increase the amount of joint working between Departments when designing, implementing and evaluating behaviour change interventions. A closely related theme in the Coalition Programme for Government Agreement – that of changing the culture within Whitehall to move away from a reliance on conventional regulatory and legislative approaches – means that we can expect a richer mix of interventions being used to achieve our policy goals.”

In effect they want to ensure every department in Whitehall operates as the think tanks determine, how this stands with Cameron’s pledge to remove quangos and such is beyond this investigation.
Under the title Engaging beyond Government, leveraging other sectors sector more effectively, they state :
“The involvement of private and Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector organisations will be crucial for us as we apply behavioural insights to achieving our policy goals. A core idea of the Big Society is that we encourage ‘people to help people’ rather than assuming that the state and conventional public services are the answer.”

The crucial point here is the fact all such charitable trusts and volunteer services are forcing signatures to statutory contracts, so their help as they call it is no such thing, it is nothing other than capitalising on peoples desperation and trapping them within yet another statute contract.[2]

“We will be building on efforts to strengthen charitable giving; we hope charitable organisations become an increasingly important partner of Government – helping us develop a mix of conventional approaches and “nudges” that encourage citizens to give more of their resource (time and money) to good causes. We will also be building on work undertaken by departments such as DECC, which successfully engaged with utility companies in the design of its Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP). Utility companies will be central to the roll out of the Green Deal, helping install energy efficient devices in homes.”

The push for charity merging with government has to be taken in context with the fact charities pay zero tax, are unaccountable, and today are becoming limited entities and thus with limited liability, raising another question… where is democracy?

On page 9 of the document they cite a case study involving the HMRC and debt collection, they state :
“HMRC is carrying out a rapid transformation of its entire debt collection approach. As part of this work they have re-written their tax collection letters, to experiment with different messages to see which prove most successful in terms of people. The key changes they have made to the letters are to include a range of triggers designed to influence the behaviour of the recipient and to spell out the choices the taxpayer could make upon receipt of the letter. Early results indicate that these letters have been very successful typically generating a response rate of around 50% and in some instances the response rate has been as high as 85%.”

“An example used was to state in the first line of a letter is ‘9 out 10 UK citizens pay their self assessment tax on time funding the public services from which we all benefit” This letter was intended to indicate to those who had not paid that they were in the minority and therefore not displaying normative behaviour. It was used in the first campaign which has been evaluated and which successfully cleared 86% of the debt portfolio compared to 57% cleared in the previous year. However, although HMRC believes the letters have made a material difference to the success of our collection strategies, they are not able to isolate their impact because we have made a number of other changes simultaneously.”
In the transcript of the meeting they move to question and answers :

UK coalition’s real agenda : Behaviour change to suit policy, so say the House of Lords

Q12 Lord Mayor of Oxford
What is the role and the intended remit of the Cabinet Office’s behavioural Insight Team? What’s it designed to do? In what ways will it make government make best use of behavioural change theory?
Dr David Halpern :  (left) In some sense, it comes from the coalition agreement. It’s a way of expressing its objection to assumptions that the Government can only change people’s behaviour through rules and regulations and trying to move to : “Our Government will be a smarter one, shunning the bureaucratic levers of the past and finding intelligent ways to encourage, support, and enable people to make better choices for themselves”. In some ways, it’s a tool to make that a reality.

Such a polite way of stating that the cabinet behavioural insight team will act as the enforcer to ensure their own policies become the policies of the elected government, while presenting it as guidance in order the elected politician’s  make better choices for themselves. This could be taken to mean ‘yes’ to all and everything the say means bigger salary? (page 20-21)

Also worth noting is the fact it was Lord Sainsbury that requested of Dr David Halpern[3] he draw up the plan for the Institute of Government, so he would say that wouldn’t he?
Q18 Lord Warner : I just wanted to get a feel from all four of you. Do you see your role as reactive—you wait for the departments to come to you—or do you busy yourself, poking your noses into the departments, if I may put it that way, when you know there is a topic that is floating around there that you think it ought to be involved with?

Dr David Halpern[3] : Maybe I should have said that the team has a steering group. Obviously, it expresses some views about topics we should go into. That steering group includes Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, Steve Hilton from Number 10, Polly Mackenzie from the Lib Dem side, and Robert Devereux, who is head of profession for policy-making. So it is a very strong group. (page 24)

Q22 Baroness Perry of Southwark : Don’t you think that regulation should at the very least be based on evidence? You mentioned, for example, the tobacco regulation of putting the cigarettes down under the counter or whatever. The evidence where this has been tried is that it makes absolutely no difference at all. Why regulate something that all the evidence shows isn’t going to make any difference whatsoever in people’s behaviour? The amount of educational initiatives on sex education for teenagers has not reduced the number of teenage pregnancies and so on. Shouldn’t regulation, regulatory intervention, at least be based on the evidence of its effectiveness?

Dr David Halpern[3] : Well, absolutely. I’m afraid I’m going to agree with you all the way on this in as far as all policy, frankly, should be based on evidence—if possible—and especially these kinds of issues. On the very specific examples you’ve mentioned, my own reading of that literature would be the former on cigarettes; you can make a reasonable case that reducing the prominence of cigarettes is likely to have some, albeit very modest, effects, on the basis of at least some meta-analytic studies. (page 27)
Q35 The Chairman : So are you saying between you that this will be easy to take forward or continue to be taken forward when the Behavioural Insight Team has gone? In a sense they will have embedded it into government?

Dr Rachel McCloy: I think the Behavioural Insight Team gives this a great impetus. I think once you get a network going it’s dependent upon the people who are involved and the enthusiasm there. There will be challenges to it, but I don’t think it’s either wholly dependent on myself being here or the Behavioural Insight Team being here. I think it’s becoming more of the language of government or part of that. (page 35)

The  aim of the sinister network is to make the language of the political world to be the script they are pushing at any given time, how they are to achieve this system is glimpsed in the following exchange :
Q40 Lord Crickhowell : I’m sorry I wasn’t at the start; I was at a funeral. I’m just slightly amused by the most recent exchange. Pardon me for coming in. I’m reading Jonathan Powell’s book on Machiavellian government, which I suggest you all go away and read quickly. He has a passionate piece about how you’re all absolutely marvellous at stopping things happening or saying why they shouldn’t happen, but extremely poor about using creative ideas and getting things to happen. He has a very interesting section on it. Do you think that’s unfair?

Richard Bartholomew: It’s certainly not my experience that civil servants are primarily motivated to stop things happening. I think there’s tremendous energy and passion amongst my younger colleagues, and hopefully me too, in terms of new initiatives and different ways of doing things. (page 37)
The whole agenda at this point is about replacing current civil posts with their new breed youngster, and exact replica of the Third Reich.
Session conclusion
From a second report from the committee, and their conclusions to the idea of behavioural change, we are further enlightened as to the mentality of the committee itself.

They have determined that the consent of the people is no longer an issue when determining when the government (Institute of Government) can intervene in the policies of our nation to counteract the peoples behaviour towards thwarting any aspect of their agenda, in order they get the right behaviour to implement their agenda :
Ethical acceptability and “public permission”

2.16. Some witnesses suggested that the ethical acceptability of an intervention was related to its level of public acceptance, or popularity, or even the degree to which its use was based on “public permission”. 24 We are not convinced by this link. For example, levels of public acceptance for interventions might improve after their introduction, as happened for example with the ban on smoking in public places. 25 Moreover, the very fact that the degree to which the public accepts, or welcomes, an intervention can change over time suggests that this is likely to be determined by assumptions about the impact of the intervention which had perhaps initially been based on incomplete information. Consequently, it may be ethically acceptable for governments to introduce a measure even though it is unpopular if there is strong evidence that it will be effective and beneficial. For example, the ban on smoking in public places was not ethically unacceptable despite the fact that it initially had only modest levels of public acceptance.

2.17.    It is important to note, however, that a measure which does not have public support is, in general, less likely to succeed. Professor Mike Kelly, Director of Clinical Excellence at National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) drew our attention, for example, to the adverse impact of using pricing as the primary mechanism of control of alcohol in Scandinavia, 26 and Ms Milton appeared to agree when she observed that “the trouble with nannying is that it can be hectoring, and produce the opposite effect”. 27

Distinction between individuals and business
2.18. The discussion so far has focused on interventions which affect individuals. It was suggested to us that the arguments for the ethical acceptability of an intervention are different if it applies to businesses rather than individuals. Professor Thomas Baldwin, Professor of Philosophy, University of York, summed this up as follows :
“… it is individual persons whose status as rational agents is a fundamental value of liberal society; but commercial organisations are not rational agents of this kind … So they do not merit the kind of liberal freedom from interference which applies to individual persons, and there is, therefore, no principled objection to regulating them in restrictive ways. What they can nonetheless demand is that they be regulated only in ways which are effective, well-motivated, and fair; and they can argue that if the ends sought by regulation can be achieved by voluntary codes, then this approach should be tried first. So here too there is an intervention ladder which starts from voluntary codes and ends up with restrictive formal regulations. But in this case the relevant considerations are primarily pragmatic rather than principled.” 28

We agree with Professor Baldwin insofar as he points out that different considerations should apply to interventions which affect individuals directly than those which affect commercial organisations directly. The latter are more likely to be pragmatic, rather than ethical, considerations.

2.19.Though governments must consider the acceptability of any behaviour change intervention, there is no set of rules against which to determine whether or not an intervention is acceptable. Rather, ethical acceptability depends to a large extent on an intervention’s proportionality. Proportionality can be determined by looking at the scale of the problem the intervention is designed to solve and the evidence that it will be effective in doing so. This should be weighed against ethical considerations including intrusiveness, restriction of freedom and transparency. We do not believe that levels of public acceptance or “public permission” are a necessary pre- condition of an ethically acceptable intervention, but given the potential impact of low levels of public acceptance on the effectiveness of an intervention, this must be relevant to any policy decision.

2.20. The idea of the Government intervening to change people’s behaviour will often be controversial, and so it is important that ministers are always able to explain the evidence-base of any proposed behaviour change intervention, and why it is a necessary and proportionate means of addressing a well-defined problem. (page 14-15)

So it would appear evidence according to the House of Lords is only that they provide via some crap think tank which Cameron pledged to throw out of our system…
[1] Psychiatrists and Professors are Lobbying to Normalise and Decriminalise Paedophilia
[2] In Profile : The Trussell Trust
[8] Dr David Halpern
Further Study
Froebel Education Method and the Third Reich
Psychiatry and its Views on Education
Its All About Behaviour Change : UK Behavioural Insights Team

Hits: 51