 |
 |
David I wasnt arguing against social constructionism or seeking to promote a clinical discourse. What Tony was questioning was I thought the silence of psychology, critical or not, on a/the social and political issue of our time. As I understand it the BPS walked away from its climate change conference due to the credit crunch crunching its finances.They pulled a number of events didnt they? Despite your own obvious cogeniality your email represents to me a problem with the list. How does critical psychology relate to/engage with non critical psychology. The psychology and politics of translating green aspirations into green behaviours isnt critical psychology but is a serious and interesting debate. This may be heresy but I have time for both positivism and social constructionism. Just to rubbish or stereotype all of non critical psychology as the musings of a oppressive power elite is surely facile. There are important linkages between climate change, meat eating and obseity. In the spirit level wilkinson and pickett spell out the linkages between inequality poverty and obseity and question why this association seems to be stronger for women than men. They rightly argue for 'lessening the burdens of inequality' as a contribution towards resolving the epidemic of obseity.They also rightly point out that behaviour change is easier for people who feel in control and who are in a good emotional state. If you accept the flourishing hypothesis,which I do, that isnt that many people. Richard On 4/19/09, Fryer, David <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > > > From my standpoint many of the most destructive phenomena with very ‘real’ > impacts on people are socially constructed and, from my standpoint, > > claims are ‘only’ true because they have been 'truthed', i.e. legitimated > as truth by the discursive practices of a dominant interest group. > > > > Tony Wainwright's review is yet another example of the construction of the > problem of climate change as one of "behaviour and attitude change" and yet > another manifestation of truthing by linking it with the (spurious) > authority of "further data", "American work", "interdisciplinary ... > experts" and "Professors" suggesting that climate and change and obesity > pose the same behaviour and attitude change issues! Tony W was on the BPS > committee I referred to which is mounting a conference. Tony is a congenial > colleague and I am sure he is a nice person. However whatever their good > intentions, the impact of the deployment of a clinical discourse is, from my > standpoint, to reinforce problematic, acritical, clinical frames of > reference for sense making and intervention. > > > > David > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of richard > pemberton > *Sent:* Sun 19/04/2009 01:45 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: UKCP Conference addressing climate change - room for > equality and diversity > > I am not sure that things can be both real/true and socially constructed? > > > > This review by tony wainwright which was in the psychologist a while ago > is both interesting and helpful. > > > > http://www.isse.ucar.edu/communication/book/pdf/psychologist_bookreview.pdf > > > > > > I am pro the lewes pound and similar initiatives. I dont see it as just > middle class posturing. Its launch was truely impressive 600+ out of > a population of 12,000. Its worked as a catalyst for a community to grapple > with and organise/collectively respond to the implications of climate > change(its definately noticeably hotter down here in the south), peak oil, > and the relentless march of the supermarkets. I spotted psychology all over > the place. > > > > Richard > > > > > > > On 4/18/09, *Deborah Chinn* <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Just because something is real, doesnt mean it's not also socially > constructed. Ian Hacking's book is good on the idea that there might be > different degrees of social constructedness in different contexts. > > Actually I think it is a good idea to think about the different discourses > that cohere around 'climate change' and wonder which interests they serve. > Discourses do have unpredictable and contradictory effects and can be > pressed into action by 'goodies' and 'baddies' > > The other point is whether 'climate change' is a theme that we want to > collectively organise around specifically as critical/community > psychologists or whatever. Are there communities or groups who are would > jump at the chance of getting a psychologist on board to think with them > about 'climate change' issues? Or would they rather have a town planner or > a gardener, or an engineer? > > Deborah > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Burton" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 10:03 AM > > > Subject: Re: UKCP Conference addressing climate change - room for equality > and diversity > > > Before we get into a sterile debate about whether or not CC is areality > - here is a compilaion that debunks the supposed arguments that it isn't > really happening - or if it is it wasn't me (or SHell, Texaco, Coal) guv. > > http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/ > > > John McGowan wrote: > > Hi Craig, you've mentioned this a couple of times now and it would be > interesting to hear more about it. Both the notion that human activity has > limited influence over climate (I presume you might have someone like Bjorn > Lomborg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg in mind?) and the > kind of vested interests crerading and plugging this concept might serve. > John ________________________________________________ Dr John McGowan, > Year/Academic Director, Centre for Applied Social and Psychological > Development, Canterbury Christchurch University, Salomons Broomhill Road > Southborough Tunbridge Wells Kent TN3 0TG +44 (0)1892 507778 > [log in to unmask] www.salomonscaspd.org.uk > www.canterbury.ac.uk > ________________________________ > > From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of CRAIG NEWNES > Sent: Fri 17/04/2009 11:30 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] UKCP Conference addressing climate change - > room for equality and diversity > > > Does ANYONE on the list understand that the "idea" of climate change serves > vested interests? > Craig > > --- On Fri, 17/4/09, John McGowan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: John McGowan <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] UKCP Conference addressing climate change - > room for equality and diversity > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Friday, 17 April, 2009, 9:19 PM > > > A little late to this. The prospect of a conference on these issues sounds > very > interesting. I'm genuinely curious as to the contribution psychological > thinking can make in these areas. Had a look at the Manchester website. It > looks > as if it is quite conprehensive in some ways. It does however seem to place > grerat faith in local production of commodities as a way of reducing carbon > emmissions. This often seems quite questionable. My view of this is a > little > skewed I think by my local transition town group (Lewes in East Sussex) who > basically seem to be a club of middle class people who really struggle to > say > anything relevant to the wider community and place all thier faith in the > notion > of local purchasing and a large (and incredibly widely publicised) LETs > scheme > which seems to have little demostrable value beyond novelty. > > > I also wonder about if a climate change adgenda with a social justice one > as > the two may not always be the most natural bedfellows. Obviously the > reality is > that poor people tend to get disproportionately screwed by climate change > but > the debate often tends to scapegoat them too (flying too much, or shopping > in > ASDA os whatever etc). It leaves me curious as to how, short of taking a > completely dystopian view that the collapse of many familier entities is > imminent, is is possible to involve wider communities in initiatives > relevant to > them. Especially in tough economic times wiere the low road to ASDA may > look > more attractive. > > There is a case to be made that a number of capitalist tools such as > managed > markets might have some controbution to make if the caps can be brought low > enough. This kind of tool does seem to have had a powerful effect on acid > rain. > > Anyway, friday night and perhaps am not making much sense. > > John > > > > ________________________________________________ Dr John McGowan, > Year/Academic > Director, Centre for Applied Social and Psychological Development, > Canterbury > Christchurch University, Salomons Broomhill Road Southborough Tunbridge > Wells > Kent TN3 0TG +44 (0)1892 507778 [log in to unmask] > www.salomonscaspd.org.uk www.canterbury.ac.uk > ________________________________ > > From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of Annie > Mitchell > Sent: Wed 15/04/2009 3:28 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] UKCP Conference addressing climate change - > room for equality and diversity > > > > Yes. Following though on this link, you can find > > in an interview reported on BBC home page, Ian Stewart from University of > Plymouth School of Earth, Ocean and Environmental Science who presented BBC > Earth: Climate Wars, saying stuff that surely should give us pause as > (community) psychologists and get us thinking about our role/contribution ( > or > lack of so far) (I've cut and pasted): > > > > If society is to make any progress on effectively dealing with climate > change > at a regional or global level, what is imperative is that ordinary people > help > build a political climate at grass-roots level that accepts the problem > exists > and demands some serious actions by business and government. For me, that > begins > with people accepting that there is no hiding place left in the science - > the > overwhelming consensus of the vast body of scientists that study climate is > that > the trends we are seeing in the air, the oceans and in our ecosystems are > entirely consistent with the theory of global warming, while the > alternatives > offered by sceptical scientists - even the much heralded role of the Sun - > so > far fail that test. > > Blaming scientific uncertainty is now not an option to delay action. Sure, > actions by individuals can make a difference, but real progress will only > come > when individuals come together with a strong, common voice to demand that > rhetoric turns into regulation. And that's where I see my role - in > convincing ordinary folk that this is an issue that they should care about, > not > because it will affect them but, more insidiously, it will be their legacy > to > their kids and grandkids. > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/f/t.gif< > https:[log in to unmask]:%20[COMMUNITYPSYCHUK]%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image005.png<https:[log in to unmask]:%20%5BCOMMUNITYPSYCHUK%5D%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image005.png> > > > > > > PROGRAMME INFO: > > > · Network Radio > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/radio/wk38/> > · Nations > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/nations/index.shtml> > · Feature Films > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/films/index.shtml> > · The Week's Guests > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/guests/index.shtml> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/f/t.gif< > https:[log in to unmask]:%20[COMMUNITYPSYCHUK]%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png<https:[log in to unmask]:%20%5BCOMMUNITYPSYCHUK%5D%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png> > > > > > > NETWORK TV > http://www.bbc.co.uk/f/t.gif< > https:[log in to unmask]:%20[COMMUNITYPSYCHUK]%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image007.png<https:[log in to unmask]:%20%5BCOMMUNITYPSYCHUK%5D%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image007.png> > > > > > > · Week 3 (17-23 Jan) > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2009/wk3/> > · Week 2 (10-16 Jan) > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2009/wk2/> > · Week 1 (3-9 Jan) > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2009/wk1/> > · Week 52/53 (20 Dec-2 Jan) > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk52/> > · Week 51 (13-19 Dec) > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk51/> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/f/t.gif< > https:[log in to unmask]:%20[COMMUNITYPSYCHUK]%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png<https:[log in to unmask]:%20%5BCOMMUNITYPSYCHUK%5D%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png> > > > > > NETWORK TV - FEATURES > · Highlights of the week > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/index.shtml> > · Earth - The Climate Wars Feature > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/feature_earth.shtml> > · Tess Of The D'Urbervilles Feature > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/feature_tess.shtml> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/f/t.gif< > https:[log in to unmask]:%20[COMMUNITYPSYCHUK]%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png<https:[log in to unmask]:%20%5BCOMMUNITYPSYCHUK%5D%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png> > > > > > NETWORK TV - DAYS > · Unplaced programmes > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/unplaced.shtml> > · Saturday 13 Sep 2008 > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/sat.shtml> > · Sunday 14 Sep 2008 > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/sun.shtml> > · Monday 15 Sep 2008 > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/mon.shtml> > · Tuesday 16 Sep 2008 > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/tue.shtml> > · Wednesday 17 Sep 2008 > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/wed.shtml> > · Thursday 18 Sep 2008 > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/thu.shtml> > · Friday 19 Sep 2008 > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/fri.shtml> > > > · 7-day print version > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/7day.shtml> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/f/t.gif< > https:[log in to unmask]:%20[COMMUNITYPSYCHUK]%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png<https:[log in to unmask]:%20%5BCOMMUNITYPSYCHUK%5D%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png> > > > > > Information for journalists > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/infoforjournalists.shtml> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/f/t.gif< > https:[log in to unmask]:%20[COMMUNITYPSYCHUK]%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png<https:[log in to unmask]:%20%5BCOMMUNITYPSYCHUK%5D%20UKCP%20Conference%20addressing%20climate%20change%20-%20room%20for%20equality%20and%20diversity.EML/1_multipart/image006.png> > > > > > > > > > > > From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of richard pemberton > Sent: 15 April 2009 14:33 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] UKCP Conference addressing climate change - > room for equality and diversity > > > > Don't offset - sandbag > < > http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=BtxVq7ODlSeHFKIiGnwPJ0oTGC5H5-4kB4_yY6AvAjbcBsMwLEAEYASCGj4ACKAQ4AFDgo963_v____8BYLu-roPQCrIBCWdtYWlsLmNvbcgBAdoBMGh0dHA6Ly9nbWFpbC5jb20vN3M0NTB3bmVpYnZlZHdwM3Q3OXoyMmdjcjNwOTE4bYACAakC5eDRw6L7uD6oAwHoA_0D6AO0A-gD2gPoA_wE9QMCAAAE&num=1&sig=AGiWqtw3rlIeCxkhRQtFfODugeWNUIwaFg&adurl=http://sandbag.org.uk > > > - sandbag.org.uk <http://sandbag.org.uk/> - Make a real difference in > the battle against climate change. > > > > Richard > > > > On 4/15/09, CRAIG NEWNES <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > The "idea" of climate change is indeed promoted by individual action > with vested interest (selling tropical plants in Halifax, anyone). But > "climate change" happens in cycles far removed from human endeavour. > The climate is way beyond human control or influence - unlike newspaper > articles > which are wriiten by over-excited "experts" getting their slice of > cake. > > Craig > > --- On Tue, 14/4/09, David Fryer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: David Fryer <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] UKCP Conference addressing climate change - > room for equality and diversity > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Tuesday, 14 April, 2009, 11:53 PM > > > Hi Craig, > > > > Obvious but ... to assert that destructive climate change has been brought > about by the behaviours (or actions as I prefer prefer) of individual > people > and that it can be reversed or prevented from getting even worse by > psychologists changing the behaviour or action of individual people one at > a > time, as 'institutional' psychologists do, even if they were effective > in doing so which, as you say, is not the case, is not only silly but > hugely > problematic at practical, theoretical and ideological levels. That needs > pointing out ... but we claim as 'community' psychologists to know > something about less problematic ways of deploying psychology. So why not > do > both through a uk ccp climate change initiative? No point in pointing at > the > mainstream acritical institutional psychologists saying 'told you so' as > the water covers all our heads? > > > > By the way I am not sure psychologists need to know a lot about behaviour > change to be complicit in it happening ... the roles of psychology in > governmentality and control of behaviour / action) have been pretty > persuasively > spelled out by Foucault and Rose in my view. > > > > David > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: CRAIG NEWNES <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Tuesday, 14 April, 2009 23:01:19 > Subject: Re: UKCP Conference addressing climate change - room for equality > and > diversity > > David, Psychologists know FUCK ALL about behaviour change. As you know, it > just > happens, and we don't know why (even if you were to believe in the rather > silly concept of "why"). To claim they know might give them 5 minutes > of fame but, hey, look what just happened to "financial experts" > > Cx > > --- On Tue, 14/4/09, Fryer, David <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: Fryer, David <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] UKCP Conference addressing climate change - > room for equality and diversity > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Tuesday, 14 April, 2009, 1:56 PM > > Hi Craig, I agree that any achieved progressive change would be > wonderful > and worth more than any number of futile gestures. I agree that any small > achievable change re psy complex tyranny would be really worthwhile but > think > any small achievable change re climate change would be worthwhile too > (both may > be possible simultaneously given some psy-complexperimenters' insistence > that climate change can be addressed through behaviour change) - we would > not > need to address the whole problem of climate change (or psycomplex > tyranny) in > order to achieve something worthwhile? However there seems to be > enthusiasm > on the list to see what we can offer distinctively as community critical > psychologists in relation to climate change so why not go for that as a > starting place? David ________________________________ From: > The UK > Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of CRAIG NEWNES Sent: Tue > 14/04/2009 22:00 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: UKCP > Conference addressing climate change - room for equality and diversity > Some time ago I suggested that the list considers putting effort (not talk) > into ONE small achievable change. Climate Change seems a little - er - big > and way outside of human, let alone Community Psychology control. It's not > as if > there aren't countless groups protesting, marching, publicly debating the > economics of American and post-industrial exploitation etc, etc. Agreeing on > ONE > focus does not take away from the need to address process, mutual respect > and > so on but it might make a small difference - > to us and the wider community. We could, for example, as a group voacalise > the need for a ban on psychiatric and psychological diagnoses. We could > fight > for ONE example of the PSYcomplex's tyranny to be overturned - e.g., there > is a case in Holland of parents trying to have their son killed > (euthanased) on > the basis he is diagnosed with ADHD - this has been in the courts for > three > years and has yet to appear in the UK press. In a way, it doesn't matter > which target we aim at, as long as it is achievable. After all cling film > was > originally designed exclusively for the Apollo missions - and now it's > taken over the world. Craig --- On Tue, 14/4/09, David Fryer > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: David Fryer > <[log in to unmask]> Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] UKCP Conference > addressing climate change - room for equality and diversity To: > [log in to unmask] Date: Tuesday, 14 April, 2009, 1:36 > AM Dear Jacqui I will reply separately to the two issues so > they have different subject lines for ongoing discussion In > case > it was not clear I agree that equality and diversity are absolutely key > issues > in relation to climate change and would hope and expect that they would be > addressed either directly or indirectly in all conference debates. But I > am > suggesting we try to focus debate at our conferences rather more in the > future > than in the past. I suggest a community critical conference focusing on > climate > change which addressed issues of equality, diversity, participation, power, > ideology, praxis, poverty in relation to climate change would be exciting > and > potentially more productive re leading to action than our meetings have > tended > to be recently. I think a title directing people to the focal issue of > climate > change from a community critical perspective and some fairly tight > reviewing of > submissions could help produce a more > focused and more effective conference whilst still making room for all. Of > course we will all have ideas and it will be the conference organisers > ... Annie, Lisa and their colleagues who should decide on what form the > conference takes if they decide they are going to proceed but I took Annie > to > request list people to contribute their ideas etc so am glad you and I are > doing so Since my earlier message I heard of a conference > which > may also be of interest not so much because many of us will be able to > present > actually or virtually but because it illustrates a different and > interesting > way of tackling the issues SIXTH INTERNATIONAL > CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY > University of Cuenca, Ecuador 5-7 January 2010 > http://www.SustainabilityConference.com<http://www.sustainabilityconference.com/> > <http://www.sustainabilityconference.com/> < > http://www.sustainabilityconference.com/> best wishes, > David ________________________________ From: jacqui > lovell > <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask]: Tuesday, 14 April, 2009 5:01:29 Subject: Re: UKCP Conference > addressing climate change from a community critical standpoint? "tetchy" > David, I prefer to think that from the frustration comes the > growth! I agree with David that a focus may be good but can > we > leave room for equality and diversity in this as well please Annie, I like > your > original title, "equality, sustainability and community well-being" > as this has room for all. Jac > ________________________________ Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:45:58 > +0000 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: > [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] > UKCP Conference addressing climate change from a community critical > standpoint? > To: [log in to unmask] Dear Annie, I > think your tentative suggestion of the UKCP Conference > addressing climate change from a community critical standpoint is really > valuable. We seem to have got into a pattern of organising our conferences > to > be as wide in topic as possible so that anyone interested in CP could > present > whatever they are doing. That is well intentioned but leads to very > general > conference conference reflected in all inclusive titles (even 'Equality, > Sustainability and Community Well-Being' verges on that). That has been OK > up to a point but we have had some rather unfocused and sometimes > defensive or > even tetchy meetings. I think it is worth trying a different tack. I think > going for a specific focused problem such as climate change, ensuring it > is > addressed searchingly from a community critical psychology perspective, > and > designing it from the start to be ecologically sound in process (e.g. > reducing > its carbon footprint) and action oriented in outcome, would be good. In > line > with our approach, this can be > inclusive in the sense that people need not be experts in climate change to > contribute but can apply whatever experience, interests and skills they > have to > climate change issues. For example there has been a lot of interest in the > NHS > and 'the market' on this list lately and some might like to think about > how the NHS and/or market are related to climate change. Others might be > interested in interrelations between poverty and climate change ... you > might remember that Cathy McCormack talked to us at one conference about > radical tenants' activism in relation to damp housing, health and mental > health which also addressed climate changes (the poorest in Glasgow were > spending massive proportions of their inadequate benefit to heat the sky yet > shivering and suffering damp related illness and misery. Others with > participatory working > skills might like to think how to deploy them re climate change. Others can > develop effective praxis in related to > climate change. Others can critique the discipline of psychology in > relation > to climate change etc. I think there is a lot of important international > lessons to learn. For example Trisha Conway taught me recently that middle > class climate change activists have much to learn from the US > environmental > justice movement within which poor Americans, often black, have > collectively > fearlessly challenged the (re) location of their communities in > ecologically > toxic sites. I strongly support you in thinking about > hosting > the next CP conference in Devon in Spring 2010 but when you are thinking > about > dates please remember the III International Conference on Community > Psychology > will be held in Puebla, México, from 3rd to 5th June 2010 please try to > avoid > a clash of dates as some - including me - might want to attend both. Just > before or just after would be great (for me) David > ________________________________ From: Annie > Mitchell <[log in to unmask]> To: > [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, 10 April, 2009 > 18:45:25 Subject: Re: thanks Annie Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a > market-based NHS - BY 30 APRIL Dear David and all, Seems > unlikely to be a co-incidence, as you say - frustrating process and v > unsettling as you say re mainstream academic and applied psychology > uncritical position re climate change - and it sounds from what you say > that the latest planned BPS event will, true to current BPS form, be pretty > uncritical...be great if we as community psychologists could assemble a more > critical take (beyond " large scale behaviour change projects" ), that puts > together > the social inequalities agenda, along with the climate change/peak oil > issue and economic collapse ( linking perhaps with some of the more critical > medics who are writing on this topic using public health arguments as their > way in) . I > thought > that mark's essay on the site he posted us to came the closest yet of > anything I;ve read to do that - ( do read it everyone who is interested in > this > debate!); also there is a good chapter on this in Richard Wilkinson's/ > kate Picket's Spirit Level isnt there . A community psych > conference might be a good way to take a more critical stance... lisa > thorne > and i are hoping to be able to announce via this list by end of April > that we > would be willing and able to host next conference in Devon spring 2010, > but we > are still not certain ... meantime, at this pre-planning stage - any > comments > re whether this would make a good conference theme very welcome.: we are > thinking so far something along the lines of "equality, sustainability > and community well-being". Good wishes, Annie > ________________________________________ From: The UK > Community Psychology Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of > David Fryer [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 10 April 2009 11:31 To: > [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] > thanks > Annie Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30 > APRIL Dear Annie and everyone on this list, Annie wrote > "I know David Fryer was involved in what he called a "high > level" BPS event planning re climate change which didn't happen for > some reason ( unexplained)." Here is an explanation. There > are two parts to the explanation. After consulting people > who > had been elected Fellows of the BPS (collectively sometimes known as 'The > College of Fellows') the Committee of the College of Fellows of the BPS, > of > which I was a member and then Chairperson, decided to address a series of > issues identified by Fellows as important. The first of these was a day > conference on community psychology. This was held in London. Half of the > day > involved presentations by Ed Cairns > (Northern Ireland), Serdar Degirmencioglu (Turkey), Reachout Mental Health > Expressive Arts group (Scotland), Cathy McCormack (Scotland) and me. The > second > half was discussion. As you can tell it was critical in standpoint. It > was a > sell out. The second issue to be addressed was 'psychology and climate > change'. Lots of effort went into planning this, a date was set and Ian > Parker invited as Key Speaker and accepted. Ian was preparing his talk > which > promised to argue something along the lines that neo-liberal > manifestations of > capitalism required the rape of the planet and the exploitation of its > peoples > and psychology was complicit with the maintenance of the current > neo-liberal > status quo. Officers of the BPS then got in touch with the CoF and told us > that > the Society had decided to put a lot of resources and effort into a big > climate > change event, that the CoF climate change event could detract / distract > attention from this /duplicate / > etc and asked if the CoF would go in with the bigger event instead of > doing > its own thing. After much agonising the CoF decided to do that but only on > condition that the invitation issued to Ian Parker was honoured and he > spoke at > the bigger do. That was agreed at the time. See below. Note here though > that shortly after this, the Society decided to reconsider if there was a > role for the CoF and eventually decided there was not and to wind it up and > that has now happened. As Chair of the CoF I had been asked > to sit on a > Society Committee to develop the bigger Climate Change event. It was made > clear > at the first meeting that the new committee did not consider itself bound > by > the decision to invite Ian Parker to address the new conference and > decided not > to do so. There were quite a few meetings and a lot of work was done. I > was not > that happy with the discussions myself as it seemed to me to be largely > acritical and individualistic. Nevertheless I persisted in arguing for > community psychology and critical > inputs at the conference. Then out of the blue the BPS decided that it was > in > financial difficulties, that it needed to trim its activities and suddenly > the > climate change conference - even in its incipient conservative version - > was > put on the back burner. Even so the committee persisted and the latest > plans > are for a half day meeting maybe in October which will publicise > multi-disciplinary and multi-centred large scale behaviour change projects > drawing on psychological research at the principle research centres and > then > give short presentations on contributions of health, counselling, > clinical, > organisational & community psychology I think there is > something very coincidental about two climate change conferences being > cancelled. I also think there i something very unsettling about the > uncritical > position of mainstream psychology re climate change. Psychology and climate > change is at risk of becoming a middle class hobby > horses concerned with getting people to recycle their claret bottles. The > complicity of institutional psychology (including clinical psychology) > with the > preservation of the neo-liberal status quo which is hell bent on > exploitative > expansionism damaging people and ecosystems is not receiving the critique > it > requires. David ________________________________ > From: Annie Mitchell <[log in to unmask]> To: > [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, 10 April, 2009 8:15:05 > Subject: Re: thanks Annie Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a > market-based NHS - BY 30 APRIL thanks Mark excellent links. So > great to read > what you are doing in Manchester. Here in Devon some of us are involved in > the > Transition Town movement. Working with others re climate > change > surely should be now our top priority . It links with everything > community > psychology is about: challenging power and vested interests re consumerism > and capitalism, bottom up political action, reducing social inequalities > internationally as well as nationally, linking local l with global > concerns; community well-being and resilience with sustainability etc etc; > not to mention > leaving a world behind so our grandchildren can live. It is very > disappointing how behind the times both academic and applied psychology is > on > this topic; I know there was a recent special issue in the Psychologist > recently with a few good articles ( none very radical though) but for > example > almost every issue now of BMJ has climate change/ public health in there > somewhere. I know David Fryer was involved in what he called a > "high level" BPS event planning re climate change which didn't > happen for some reason ( unexplained) . Now - if I were > less of > a luddite I guess this is the moment when I should turn to the new > technology > Grant has initiated for us, as there are at least 2 different topics > budding off here: save our NHS ( can Sustainable Communities Act help etc > etc); > climate change action ( what could/shuld community psycholgists do etc > etc). Annie ________________________________________ From: > The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [ > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] > On Behalf Of Mark Burton [[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>] Sent: 09 April > 2009 23:26 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]> Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] thanks Annie > Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30 APRIL > Thanks Annie Good to see you are > ative onclimate change - despite my recent attempts ther has been almost > zero > interest from the list on this and related topics. Anyway I'm quite busy > on a couple of inititiatives http://greendealmanchester.wordpress.com/includes my latest analysis > of th 'crisis' http://www.calltorealaction.wordpress.com/ Mark > > further to my email below , here attached > for those who want to know more, > or who want to alert others, > the > Local Works guide to the Sustainable > Communitities Act. > > > Annie > > > > ________________________________________ > From: The UK Community > Psychology Discussion List > [[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Annie Mitchell > > [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] > > Sent: 09 April 2009 22:31 > To: > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30 > > APRIL > > I wonder whether actions under the > umbrella of the new > Sustainable > Communitites Act may be medium/ long term helpful re NHS ( > and potentially > in other socially progressive ways too). > > > This Act is being described ( by some) as the biggest constitutional > > change in UK for decades. > > I have been exploring it > because our local climate change organisations > in Devon are very > hopeful that it may assist with democratic grass roots > bottom up > change > towards dealing with/ mitigating the effects of climate > change and > peak oil. I haven't fully got my head around it but I;ll do my > > best to explain as I understand it - and would be keen to have comments > > from others - eg Mark -( I know you are active re climate change/ > > chaos) ? - who know more than me: > > The general idea is > that the Act enables local authorities ( they can to > chose > whether > to opt in) to receive, consider and put forward for national > > consideration, locally prioritised suggestions from local individuals or > > organisations about changes in central government legislation that > > would, if enacted, help build more sustainable communitities ie enhance > , > > > social, economic and environmental functioning . These local suggestions > > will then go to a panel at central level, who will decide on national > > priorities. Central government has a duty to reach agreement on how to > > take ( some of) these forward; with a published action plan on which > > central government may be held to account by the electorate. The new bit > > here is the duty to reach agreement, so this is ( in theory anyway) not > > just another empty consultative process. It's ( intended to be) about > > medium and long term change from the bottom up. > > > The trick will be to suggest, in solidarity with others, suggestions that > > can make a positive difference through > legislative changes. there are > many many pitfalls ( eg will local > grass roots suggestions simply tend to > promote the interests of the > haves versus the have-nots?) but this is an > important Act, which > we > need to get our collective heads around.. This > will be an annual > process; > the first wave is happening now. > > Find out more from > Local Works, the campaigning organisation who have been > behind the > Act, > on http://www.localworks.org/ > > Happy spring time, all ( at > least, to all in UK - happy times to others > elsewhere) . > > > Annie > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: The UK Community > Psychology Discussion List > [[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Frederic Stansfield > > [[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>] > > Sent: 09 > April 2009 17:07 > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]> > > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30 > > APRIL > > I am not sure how to go forward on this. > > > Let's start by thinking how the NHS was originally set up. > It wasn't > totally a top down nationalised industry run from > Whitehall. In fact, much > of it was under the control of local > government. Westminster ran centrally > some parts of the NHS > where > national strategic management was necessary > or, as in the case > of > teaching hospitals, thought to be necessary. County > Councils ran > services > that needed to be provided over a fairly wide area > such as the > Ambulance > Service. But many local services, such as local > hospitals and the > management of GPs, where run by District Councils, under > the > powerful > guidance of a doctor who held the position > of Medical Health > Officer. The situation was rather more complicated > because of varying > council repsonsibilities, e.g. many larger > towns > and cities were unitary > County Boroughs. But you will get the > idea. > The NHS was not a separate > bureaucracy, but an integral part of > British democracyin which > responsibility for each part of the service > was devolved to the lowest > practical level (the European principle > of > "Subsiduarity"). And there were > professional advisers to > the decision-makers with sufficient power to stop > elected members > doing silly things through ignorance. > > The trouble was > that professionals didn't like to be accountable > (accountability is > always uncomfortable!). The Tories used this to split > of the NHS > into > indirectly appointed authorities in the 1974 > re-organisation of local > Government. Ever since, we have seen > accountability destroyed bit by > bit, > for instance by replacement of local > suthority nomination of > Health Authority members by Westminster patronage, > and then the > whole charade of private enterprise tendering. The result is > the > badly managed, over-centralised, unfit for purpose, poor value for > > money, shambles that we have today. And the professional doctors etc. who > > didn't like oversight by amateurs now find they have got much much > worse. > > Come back to the current discussion. We are being > encouraged to > contribute to a consultation process on improving > market processes within > the NHS. But the idea of an NHS, > inherently > a public service, being > submitted to market forces is inherently > flawed. The whole mess is beyond > reform. It needs to be swept > away, as after World War 2 (although with > less compromise to > professional interests) and replaced by a structure > which, as > between > 1948 and 1974 but with > improvements, devolves > responsibilty for health services to > directly elected representatives at > the lowest possible level, > supported > by Medical Officers of Health > combining the role of professional > adviser and chief adminstrator. > > In the case of Community > Psychology, it is difficult to see why services > should not be > provided and administered in electoral units smaller than > the current > English District Authorities. Clinical Psychology may not be > devolvable > to quite such an extent, but all the same it could be locally > run in > the > vast majority of cases. > > If this seems silly, ask yourself why > the United Kingdom's National Health > Service is, I believe, the > third largest employer in the world (after > Indian Railways and > the > Chinese Army) when the United Kingdom is nothing > like the third > largest > country. Surely the answer is that other countries > think it is a > bad way to run a health service (most other Western > countries > use insurance based services with saftey nets). But will a > > Whitehall led consultation take such a glaringly obvious point on board? > > You know the answer, don't you. > > If we want UK > health services brought back under democratic control, > wherever > possible under local government, the fundamental question is what > > actions will be effective towards this end. Is responding to a > > consultation process that will only act on answers already sharing the > > bueaucrats' mistaken values such an action? > > Frederic > Stansfield > > --- On Thu, 9/4/09, CRAIG NEWNES < > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > From: CRAIG NEWNES <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> > > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30 > > APRIL > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]> > > Date: Thursday, 9 April, 2009, 1:23 AM > > What a lovely > idea "choice" is - for marketeers > Craig > > > --- On Thu, 9/4/09, Wendy Franks > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > From: Wendy Franks > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY 30 > > APRIL > To: > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Thursday, 9 April, 2009, 12:15 AM > > Hello all, > > > I'm not sure how exactly how to fit it into this argument, > but I'm going > to throw something in anyway, and hope someone who > knows more about it > (...Mark? Carolyn? others?) can help me out > with > the details. > > I'm learning a > bit about Boundary Critique at the moment, and am hoping to > find > it useful in developing some coherence for myself around > > participatory research. I wonder if it is helpful in this argument too. > > As far as I can reasonably simplify it (always tricky to simplify > > something complex that you're in the early stages of grasping, so > sorry > about this), Boundary Critique enables us to take a critical > position on > where/how/with whom we draw the boundaries around an object > of discussion, > interest, study, etc. In a way, it reminds me a > bit > of quantum uncertainty > in physics (of which I also have a very, very > tentative grasp!) - in that > - the way in which you choose to measure > a > phenomenon (as a wave or > particle for example) has an impact on > the > measurement you get. In this > case, we can make choices about whether we > look at the NHS as though it is > a market, and make certain > judgements and claims about it on that basis. > Another of many > options is that we can also look at it as if it is a > service > (shock, horror!) that is, as John Cromby expressed it, something > that > is > there to care for, heal and if we could so imagine, even nurture > > us. > > > Each way of addressing the issue at hand is likely to produce > different > conclusions. Of the things that I find appealing about > Boundary Critique > (as described by Midgley, 2000, in 'Systemic > Intervention'), is the > recognition of the role of ethics and > values in informing the judgements > we make. > > I think > my point might be something like this: > Of course we can look at > everything we do as if it is in some way driven > by a market and all > the > stuff that gets exchanged in that market as > commodoties. > > Or we can choose to conceptualise all of those things in different > > terms, and make > different judgements about them informed by other frameworks. > > > I think I'll leave it there for now. I'm only half way through > Midgley's > book, it's getting late, and I might get a bit unstuck! > > > Of course, it would be great for me if someone with a > better understanding > could suggest how Boundary Critique could > help with this argument. Always > good to have an idea of how theory > works in practice. > > Thanks, > > Wendy > > > > > --- On Wed, 8/4/09, John McGowan < > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > wrote: > From: John McGowan <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - > BY > 30 > APRIL > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]> > Date: Wednesday, 8 April, > 2009, 9:58 PM > > > I clearly did an absolutely > rubbish job of trying say what I was trying to > say > about > markets. The gist of it was that marketisation of the NHS might not > be > a > > completely unalloyed evil and that "resisting it > absolutly" might be > going a bit far. I realise this view might > be a tough sell in this crowd > but > it's worth go. > > Penny > Priest came closest to what I was meaning I think when she said > > mentioned > market corrections. I've been wondering lately if > markets (as opposed to > The > Market) are quite as bad as I thought > they were in say 1985. For starters > we're all part of them. Every > time we by or choose somethine we're part > of a process of > compiling collective judgements on commodities or services > or > > innovations. This goes from which which care we drive, coffe we drink ISP > > > hosting the community psych > website or whatever. Some things flourish and > other > > things don't make the cut and often the way that gets decided is by a > > bunch > of collective judgements saying one thing is more > suitable than another. > You may > not always think we get > it right (my wife would rather we used hot air > balloons > > instead of planes) but a lot of the time we do. All of these activities > > are > basically are markets choosing one thing over another and there is > quite a > bit > of literature on the conditions needed for them to > function well or badly. > > One of the features of the NHS is > that it has adopted certain market > principles > but is less > engaged with others. If two groups are tendering for a service > it > is > possible to choose one group over another on the basis that > they're > cheaper > but the two basically selling the > same thing: whats recommended by > NICE. > We get > the cost control side but not the > innovation that would happen in a real > business. > > > The reason for using IAPT as an example (other than the special feeling > > help > for it on this list) is that I think it is worth > appropriating commercial > language to point out that one way of looking > at it is as a very poor > business > model. In some ways its > like if Lord Layard took over my local shop. > Implausibile and not > entirley reassuring given his record bu who knows > where > > this recession might lead. You can imagine how his plan would look. > > > "We have good professional evidence that bread is a versatile product and > > will be very popular therfore that's what I will > sell. My advisors in the > baking industry assure me that the trials > they've conducted will translate > into consumer demand". > > At > this point I'd be inclinded to > toddle along and ask a few obvious > questions: > Q: Don't you > think it might be worth selling other products? What about > milk or > cheese? > A: As and when the evidence becomes available we will > consider > stocking > other > things, but my baking advisers point out > dairy products have been sold for > years > without RCT > evidence of consumer appeal. > > Q:You don't think this bread > thing is a passing fancy then? Surely there > is > evidence for > other things > A: The bulk of the evidence is mainly there for > bread > so that's the way > we're going. > > Q: I at > least fancy a few lentils or maybe some baked beans. > A: I am > convinded > that "third-wave" breads such as wholemeal and > multigrain can > address consumer demand in these areas. > > > I could > (and I'm sure you could) go on and on but I think that joke has > > gone too far already. In this > situation I could do one of two things. One > would > be > to go and get evidence for the saleability of beans, chocolate, Cillit > > Bang, > Sepcial Brew or whatever else I fancied. this would > probably take a few > years. > The other (which ould take 5 > minutes) would be to go to the shop down the > road > > along with most of the other people in my neighbourhood and watch Lord L's > > shop close after a few days. > > My point is really > that in the NHS its difficult to go to the IAPT service > down > > the road beacuse there isn't one. If there was (and I'd be happy > to take > tenders for 173 million from users of this list) it might just > turn out to > be > better. > > Its always > been difficult to get this sort of market aggregation of > > judgements > > in the NHS. Darzi's proposals might actually lead to some kind effect > of > collective judgement around some > aspects of GP services (i.e. the surgery > with > rude staff > and a crappy appointment system may have to shape up). Making > such > > judgements around competing variations on something like IAPT would need > a > lot > of thought. I'm not for a moment trying to contend > that this is an ideal > solution but in the face of the NICE > guidelines > I'm wondering if we need > more not less of this. > > > Happy Easter > > John > > > > ________________________________________________ Dr John McGowan, > > Year/Academic > Director, Centre for Applied Social and > Psychological > Development, > Canterbury > Christchurch University, Salomons > Broomhill Road Southborough Tunbridge > Wells > Kent TN3 0TG > +44 (0)1892 507778 [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]> > > www.salomonscaspd.org.uk <http://www.salomonscaspd.org.uk/> > www.canterbury.ac.uk <http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/> > > > > ________________________________ > > From: The UK > Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of CRAIG > NEWNES > > Sent: Wed 08/04/2009 4:53 PM > To: > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - BY > 30 > APRIL > > > Anyone with responsibility > for budgets in the NHS will recognize this red > herring before you can > say, " THE NHS exists to subsidize Big Pharma and > its PSY > acolytes." For almost 20 years I defended a psy-budget against the > > so-called overspend on GP drug budgets. In 2006 the drug budget in > > Shropshire > was ?5M in the red so the budget managers were told to, yet > again, cut > posts to > pay the bill. The NHS is already a > marketplace. Thank goodness that the > IAPT > scheme will > enable all these unemployed NHS staff to go to CBT therapists > > and - > er - get jobs as cleaners or whatever. > > Craig > > --- On Wed, 8/4/09, John Cromby < > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > From: John Cromby <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - > > BY 30 APRIL > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]> > > Date: Wednesday, 8 April, 2009, 4:40 PM > > > Our > health needs and social care needs have been thoroughly > distorted > by > top-down policy imperatives and so-called 'evidence based > > practice', > and > consistently subordinated to budgetary > constraints that prioritise > the > fighting > of > neo-colonial wars. Meanwhile, on the home front the 'war on > > terror' > legitimates extensive and growing government spending > on > technologies to > monitor > and control us rather > than care for, heal or - dare I even say it > - nurture > us. > > Legitimate challenges to this insane situation, this situation > > structured by > an > insane rationality, are increasingly > portrayed as 'extremist'. > And, > consonant with its > own rational insanity, the reproduction of this > exploitative > > social order is to be achieved by any means that those in power > > imagine that > they can get away with. As of today, it seems that this > can > even > include > telling > lies about and excusing the > death of a bystander caught up in last > week's > anti-G20 > demonstrations in London: Ian Tomlinson, who was beaten > and pushed to > > the floor by the police, without provocation, just minutes before > > he died of a > heart attack. > > In this > rationally insane situation, insane > solutions to > manufactured problems > can gain a > superficial appeal. Marketisation of the NHS or social > care is just > > such an insane solution. We should resist it absolutely. > > > J. > > > > > John McGowan > wrote: > > This is extremely interesting. Thank you so much for > sending it > to the > list. > > I've been > thinking recently however that perhaps an increase in > certain kinds > marketisation might actually be a helpful in the > NHS. In some > > way > markets (i.e. aggregating the people's decisions about > alternative > business > models) could potentially provide an > alternative to the rigidity > of the NICE > guidelines. The Dazi > review tries to create a market of sorts > through, > nominally > > at least, prioritising choice. > > IAPT is potentially > quite a good example of where markets > might > > actually > help. I can't help feeling that if there was 173 > million quid > available > and > the question of improving > return to (and retention within) work > was put out to > tender > some very innovative proposals (including some from members > of this > > list) > might have come back. Perhaps they might even have > produced better > results > than > the plan > we've got! > > John McGowan > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: The UK > Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of > Wendy > > Franks > > Sent: Tue 07/04/2009 9:23 PM > > To: > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > > Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FW: Say no to a market-based NHS - > > BY 30 > APRIL > > > > > > > Hello all, > > In case you are not already receiving these > emails, here's an > opportunity to voice your objections. All the > best, Wendy > > > > > > > > > > > From NHS Support Federation, a founder organisation of > Keep > Our NHS > Public > > NHS services are now to be provided > by a wide range of > organisations all > competing within a market. > The new Co-operation and Competition > Panel > > <http://www.ccpanel.org.uk/> for NHS-funded services is to help > > deliver > the supposed benefits of competition. It will investigate > > potential breaches > of > the Principles and Rules > > < > http://www.ccpanel.org.uk/content/Principle-and-rules-for-Cooperation-and-Competition.pdf > > > > as defined by the Department of Health. It will also advise the > > Department of > Health and the foundation trust regulator > Monitor. The > Co-operation and > Competition Panel is a misnomer > as its > remit is weighted so > heavily in favour > of > > promoting competition, whilst neglecting the considerable benefits > > of > cooperation. > > > > We need your help to > respond forcefully to the Panel's > current > consultation and > to lobby MPs. Please write a letter objecting to > the > imposition > > of competition and commercial values on the NHS and raising the > > crucial > questions listed below. Send your letter to the > Co-operation > and > Competition > Panel at the address below and a copy to your MP. > > > > > Send to: Interim Guidelines Consultation, > > Cooperation and Competition > Panel, 1 Horse Guards Road, London, > SW1A 2HQ or email > [log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>. > Respond by 30 April. > > > > Points to make: > > > > 1. Will > the panel ensure that the > alternative of a > publicly led service > is included in > consultations about future tenders? 2. Is > the duplication of > > services to produce choice a good use of resources which > constitutes > economic > efficiency, especially given that the benefits of > competition in > healthcare > are > unproven (indeed Minster of > State Ben Bradshaw said that the "mix > of > competition and > co-operation in the NHS is a unique model in the > world")? > > 3. Will the tendering process be fair and > transparent, with no > > discrimination > against NHS organisations in favour of either > commercial or > voluntary bodies > or > social > enterprises? 4. Will the public be consulted on an > ongoing basis > about > local tenders e.g. via local involvement networks (LINks)? > 5. > Will the panel > foster co-operation not only between > commissioners and providers, > but between > providers, a hope > expressed by Richard Taylor MP in a debate in > > Parliament on > 24 > February? > > > > > > > It is vital to protect and promote a publicly led NHS > > which has an ethos > which is truly patient-centred. We must insist to > the > Panel that > our > objections > to the notion of a health > service based on a competitive market > are widely > shared. With > your help we must ensure that our views are not > ignored. > > > > > You can see the consultation paper > > <http://www.ccpanel.org.uk/content/consultation-paper.pdf> , the > > four > guidance documents which are the subject of the > consultation, > and > the response > template at > > http://www.ccpanel.org.uk/reports-and-guidance/guidance-documents.html. > > > > > > > Please send us copies of your letters or > emails. Thanks > for your help. > > NHS Support Federation > > > > > > > > ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The > > discussion > list > for community psychology in the UK. To > unsubscribe or to change > your details > visit the website: > > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For > any > > problems > or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant > Jeffrey > > ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) > > > > > ___________________________________ > > COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The > discussion list for community psychology > in the > UK. > > > To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: > > > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK > > For > any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant > > Jeffrey > > > ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) > > > -- ******************************************************** > John > Cromby > Department of Human Sciences > Loughborough University > > Loughborough, Leics > LE11 3TU England > Tel: 01509 > 223000 > Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > Personal webpage: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/ > Co-Editor, > "Subjectivity": www.palgrave-journals.com/sub > > ******************************************************** > > > ___________________________________ > COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The > discussion list for community psychology in > the UK. > To > unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: > > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK > For > any > problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant > Jeffrey > > > ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) > > > ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion > > list > > for > community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to > change your details > visit > the website: > > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For > > any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey > > ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) > > > ___________________________________ > COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The > discussion list for community psychology in the UK. > To > unsubscribe > or to change your details visit the website: > > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK > For > any > problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey > > ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) > > > > > > ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list > > for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your > > details visit the website: > > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any > > problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey > > ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) > > > ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list > > for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to > change your > details visit the website: > > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any > > problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey > > ([log in to unmask]<mailto: > > ... > > [Message clipped] > > > ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list > for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details > visit the website: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any > problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey ( > [log in to unmask]) > ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list > for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details > visit the website: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any > problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey ( > [log in to unmask]) ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator: Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])