It is certainly feasible that one organisation can have pervasive, extra-system influence throughout an entire system of government, including its agencies. Groupthink has no barriers.
The real concern is whether Agenda 21, now presumably replaced by Agenda 2030, is aiming to bring about long-term 0% growth, 0% interest rates and zero carbon emissions in an issue-illiterate way to bring about "sustainable development". In the twisted mind of a Leftist, all economic activity is zero-sum, so 0% growth means no change, therefore is more likely to be "sustainable" than otherwise.
In others' analysis of Common Purpose, I find that the analyses describes what I observe. So far, I cannot fault the analyses. Common Purpose is an agent to bring about Agenda 2030.
As a useful by-product for the Leftists, the same 0% interest rates enables misappropriation of wealth from modestly wealthy savers (the poor-ish) via the wealthy reckless borrowers (the über-rich) to the banks (the ultimate debtor). Leftists reckon that this is equality-of-outcome; normal people see it as feudalism and serfdom.
A better by-product for the Leftists is that the agenda's policy choices also lead to taxation without representation, equality-of-outcome, the abolition of meritocracy and, consequently, the de facto redundancy of democracy. The end-games resemble a heap of Daleks ruling over masses of "upgraded" Cybermen.
All of a sudden, the context of the European Union looks all too clear.
But is this fair criticism?
Common Purpose's own publications
WebsiteFrustratingly, Common Purpose's website doesn't seem bothered about defending itself, or even selling itself! Does it reckons that its "graduates" are so deeply embedded into governmental systems that it's work is substantially done?
CP's own website contains little of any substance that a normal charity would publicise to prove its existence, or to drum up membership/sponsorship. CP sounds coy about its alumni, its impact, its achievements. Its message is a seemingly all over the place, a mishmash of subtle socialisation, some incomplete tangible achievements, general nonsense, a bit of psycho-babble, comprehensive missing-the-point and inadvertent admission of wrongthink.
Impact report 2017CP's impact report of 2017 also fails to hit the spot. Where one would expect a series of concrete, measurable deliverables being disclosed (i.e. "We did X which made Y happen which benefited Z people by enabling them to do W at time T"), instead we get:
- "The programme helped me reflect on how I could create better ecosystems for promoting innovation."
- "I think I’m so open minded, I try to be politically correct."
- "Common Purpose is the organization par excellence, with the mission to put diversity at the heart of the leadership debate. What it does in practice—and in terms of walking the talk—is bring people from different communities, different sectors, different generations together to address the challenge and opportunity of leadership."
The third example above is classic Leftist gibberish used as a tool of socialisation. It hits the right sound-bites, gives the reader the impression that the reader understands what they've read, but, actually, it says nothing useful to the reader. The reader will only agree with the comment if the reader is pre-disposed emotionally to want to believe it. Completely airbrushed out of that warm, fuzzy feeling is the measurable damage that Leftist policies - issue-illiteracy, wrongthink, equality-of-outcome-at-all-costs, Malthusian philosophy, diversity over meritocracy, identity politics over tangible achievements - aim to wreak over communities, sectors and generations.
One testimonial is worth quoting at length, because, at first sniff, sounds very close to being convincing. Charles Asiedu, MD of Ecobank, said:
"I engaged the government agency responsible for the food procurement and suggested a collaborative approach involving the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, the agency and Ecobank to resolve the food crisis. We brought the partners together and, after sharing what role we each thought we could play, together we designed a solution. Now we are mobilizing $50 million to support the importation of maize to help feed eight million Malawians. Prior to CSCLeaders I wouldn’t have thought more broadly about bringing in other partners to handle the crisis."This simply doesn't make sense! How did simply talking to other people who arguably should have already cared make a difference? What was in the business interest of the other partners to engage in such solution, merely on the say-so of one bod from Ecobank? The more one thinks about this example, the more a smell of something odious arises.
CP's impact report of 2017 also claims to have worked with 1,182 organisations, listing the most prestigious and well-known (PDF page 12). It is nowadays quite common for private sector organisations to brag about their social activities ("corporate social responsibility", which is another tool of the same agenda to which CP is aligned). There are quite a lot of banks on the list. And these are the same banks who are so signed up to Leftist social justice that they tend to accumulate wealth at their customers' expense (customers' deposits taken, 0% interest returned to depositors, cash used to hedge purchase of assets anyway, erosion of cash value places net burden on depositor) and then expect their own corruption to be bailed-out at the taxpayers' expense. The brazen display of such cognitive dissonance is remarkable: here, the banks are practising stealthy confiscation of wealth by rigging the monetary system, yet publicly supporting a charity that espouses equality-of-outcome. The only way in which this couldn't be cognitive dissonance is that the equality-of-outcome is "all equally poor and enslaved to a capitalist master".
Without irony, CP even names Deutsche Bank as one of the prestigious organisations with which CP has worked! Is this the very same Deutsche Bank which, in 2016, the German government was planning to bail-out but which the same government realised it probably couldn't afford to do so? Oops. Puts the European Union's state-aid rules to the test, doesn't it? By contrast, what's really going on - stripping out politico crap - is explained by the MoneyGPS (12 minute video, source Bloomberg). It's difficult to say whether Deutsche Bank is a good advert for CP. On the one hand, DB represents the very model of financial impropriety, to the extent that a government looks set to change its own rules to fudge the issue. So much for the rule of law. Not a good advert for CP. On the other hand, DB represents such an elegant way to defraud the people - laundering the peoples' gains away from the via the official banking system - that it is perhaps the best advert for aggressive, goalpost-moving socialism that could ever have been invented. Marx and Trotski would have been so proud. So perhaps a brilliant advert for CP, after all.
Annual report 2017 - Common Purpose (disclosed by own website)CP UK discloses - as it is lawfully obliged to do - its corporate status. It also discloses its charitable status. Its UK company number is 3556983. Its UK charity number is 1023384. It also has a Scottish charitable registration, SCO41166.
A search for "Common Purpose" at Companies House lists six entities with "common purpose" in the name, sharing the same registered address, Monmouth House, 38-40 Artillery Lane, London, E1 7LS. (As at 23Dec2018).
A search for "Common Purpose" at the UK Charity Commission lists three registrants with "common purpose" in the name that look related to CP.
According to the annual report of 2017, CP UK's turnover was £1.7m (2016: £1.9m), of which £1.2m was course fees (2016: £1.1m).
I'm not convinced that 2016's numbers actually cast. 1900673+1709358=3610031, but 1747658-1785260=-37602. The use of brackets seems to be negligently inconsistent. 2016's annual report didn't appear on CP's website as at 23Dec2018.
The balance sheet as at 31Jul2017 was in net deficit, £100,624 (2016: £63,022). In spite of this, the trustees believed that the entity was a going-concern. One would the trustees to say where the money comes from, but the trustees don't reveal this. Instead, the entity discloses its ultimate controlling entity as Common Purpose Charitable Trust ("CPCT").
Annual report 2017 - Common Purpose Charitable TrustCPCT is a company limited by guarantee. Its company number is 02832875 and it uses the same charity number as above, 1023384.
CPCT discloses no list of members, as befits a private company. In its Persons of Significant Control 03Jul2016 in an annual confirmation statement of 08Jul2016, "The company knows or has reasonable cause to believe that there is no registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company." However, the PSC legislation caught quite a few people out. Julia Middleton was the Person of Significant Control with effect from the regulation's effective date of 06Apr2016 to 03Jul2016. Middleton was a registered officer of the CPCT, no longer is, yet CP holds her out as the "founder and chief executive". Normally, a chief executive would be a currently registered director of a company. Middleton isn't a director of CP (company 3556983) either, but she is listed as one of three people of significant control for CP (company 3556983). As at 23Dec2018, Middleton has a total of nine past and present directorships.
CPCT's turnover was £5m in the year ending 31Jul2017 (2016: £4.7m). In both years, course fees represented the largest plurality of income, with "income from non-UK bodies" comprising the second largest plurality of income. 2017 saw a significant increase in "other trading activities" relative to 2016.
There is no segmental analysis by geography or by function to understand the "income from non-UK bodies". This doesn't smell right, especially for a Leftist organisation whose soulmates include the Tax Justice Network. Here is a report from the TJN lamenting the lack of global corporate transparency, co-funded by the European Union. The difference between what the Leftist TJN preaches and what the Leftist CPCT practices is quite stark.
Again, I'm not convinced that 2016's numbers cast: 4740733-5321632=-580899, not -581971 as reported.
CPCT's balance sheet as at 31Jul2017 was £0.8m (2016: £0.5m). Operating cash flow was £-0.8m (2016: £0.13m). CPCT employed 68 people in both years. The simple average salary is £33,793pa, but the disclosure of 9 highly-paid individuals means that the lowest salaries are considerably lower than the simple average salary. Social justice in action?
CPCT discloses no ultimate controlling entity.
Charity Commission disclosuresThe registered aim of CPCT is:
"CPCT oversees the activities of CPUK, CP International,CP Customised Ltd, CP Global Customised and CP Asia Pacific. It safeguards brands, intellectual property, web domain names and trademarks, holds the overall strategic plan and supports the alumni. Our educational courses give people the inspiration, skills and connections to become better leaders at work and in society."This sounds much more corporate than a "real" charity that us ordinary plebs would recognise as a charity. The last sentence is cynically vague.
ConclusionNo wonder democracy feels frayed and exploited.
There is a strong whiff of the Leftists' "old boys network" about Common Purpose, an ideal vehicle whereby the ideology of Cultural Marxism can be spread, to perpetuate issue-illiterate policy choices at government level, to lock in corporate corruption, to lock out democratic control, to achieve the perfect state of taxation-without-representation, the global Soviet. Leadership and training for the parasites of any political system.
Common Purpose makes no attempt to debunk allegations of its ulterior motives. On the contrary, Common Purpose continues to evangelise diversity over meritocracy, socialisation over rationality, emotionalism over empiricism. The only possible consequence of this evangelism is the promotion issue-illiterate policies and related groupthink.
Given Leftists' dire hatred of Vladimir Putin, the nature of Common Purpose is enough to make a normal, ordinary pleb wonder whether Putin has a valid point after all.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/common_purpose_a_fraudulent_poli (see also the annotation from clothcap on 04Oct2010)