Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Blog

  • Is the Democracy Café just a talking shop?

    January 2026

    At the last meeting of the Café, one of the proposed topics was ‘is the DC just a talking shop’? It arose because the proposer had met someone on the way in who, when told she was on her way to the meeting, her friend replied ‘Oh that’s just a talking shop’. In the same vein, some have said they have come once or twice and decided that the absence of a conclusion is a problem for them. Some seem to want action or some kind of closure for something to be worthwhile.

    Needless to say that those who do come, don’t agree with that view and find discussing a topic valuable in its own right. Someone said they found listening or watching Question Time or Any Questions hard to bear because of the low quality of many of the participants, endless cross-talk and a kind of political predictability to the discussions.

    There is also the problem of social media leading to an entrenchment of ideas because their algorithms selected topics which matched reader’s interests. It was good to come to a debate which wasn’t mediated in this way and to discuss things with ‘real people’.

    People agreed with the view that the debates were really interesting and it was rare not to come away having learnt something new. There was actually value in not coming to a conclusion: many issues were not reducible to a simple conclusion in any event. There is often no right answer.

    One aspect was briefly touched on was the absence of people who might broadly be said to be ‘on the right’. They have appeared from time to time but seem not to return. It must be said that all are welcome and the structure of the session is designed to listen to all views. There are no aggressive interruptions as we see or hear on the BBC programmes mentioned above. We do not shout at each other. Possible answers might be around those who have firm beliefs find it hard to have them challenged. If for example, you think as many do that Mrs Thatcher was a brilliant prime minister and we need someone like her today, then it will not be comfortable to hear a discussion claiming that her decision to sell off council houses led to the lack of affordable homes today.

    Or if you believed – as the majority did – that Brexit was a positive decision, long overdue and enabled Britain to regain its sovereignty and ‘take back control’, then to sit in a discussion where people point to some of the disbenefits which have emerged will be discomforting. It would be good to hear from them what they think.

    An interesting if brief discussion. Yes, we are a talking shop but it is good to talk as the BT ad once claimed.

    What is …

  • January Café

    January Democracy Café

    The New Year (2026) got off to a flying start with the capture of the president of Venezuela by American forces and threats by Donald Trump to annex/invade/occupy/purchase Greenland depending one assumes, on the mood he’s in that day. He’s promising to tackle the unrest in Iran ‘we’re locked and loaded’ he said and today, he’s promising to intercede in Syria where unrest has erupted. Cuba is on the list as well. One wonders how he’s got time to be president of the US – no wonder he’s falling asleep in meetings.

    So perhaps it was no surprise that several of our proposed topics focused on how we (the UK) that is, should rethink our relations with the US. Whither the ‘special relationship’ – do we even want a special relationship with a rogue state? It was quickly pointed out that values seem to be changing. The rules based international system which came into being after WWII seems to have died. The present situation seems to have put the government in a bind with Sir Keir Starmer equivocating about whether US actions were justified or not. Some thought that there was little he could do without risking sanctions against British goods.

    Our view of the US it was suggested was profoundly affected by Hollywood with films and TV series showing America at its finest. It rather overlooked the poverty and the fact that millions of Americans had no access to health care for example.

    Did we in fact ever have a ‘special relationship’? Suez was mentioned and the 1946 McMahon Act could have been mentioned [an act which prevented the UK and Canada from having the nuclear weapons secrets despite their scientists involvement in developing the weapon]. The much vaunted help in WWI and WWII was as a result of American interests (Pearl Harbour for example) not to help Europe.

    A lot was to do with Americas distaste for European colonialism and this led to the Monroe Doctrine and the notion of spheres of influence with America claiming a kind of dominion over the whole of the Americas. In the light of recent developments, it has wittingly been renamed the Donroe doctrine.

    A kind of summing up of the debate so far was the question ‘do we want the situation as it is?’ We have lived this belief in shared values with the US and their major support of NATO. Recent events seem to have left us in a kind of limbo. Should we not think more about who we are?

    Perhaps, it was suggested, we should adopt a more robust attitude to things like the many US bases in the UK. Should we close them down? Up till now it was noted, we tended to be reactive: with each action by President Trump we just seem to accept it. Closing the bases would, by contrast, be pro-active. Would there in fact be advantages in the ending of the so-called special relationship. We will no longer to be seen as part of the Anglo-Saxon world which could be of benefit on the world stage.

    Europe had been mentioned and maybe the dreaded B word had been uttered but we were reminded that Europe was far from united. The Mercosur agreement between the EU and some S American states was mentioned which has taken 25 years to complete. It still awaits ratification. No one in Europe is going to stand up to America if it decides to seize Greenland. Would such a seizure mean the end of NATO?

    The world order has changed. There were now three power blocks: US, Russia and China. By inference, despite its size, Europe was not one of them partly because it wasn’t united. China was the most ominous and would their likely invasion of Taiwan ‘bother anyone’ it was asked? There seemed to be no coherent resistance to these autocratic states (including the US under Trump to have many of the features of an autocratic state).

    However, to counter this view, it was noted that the Venezuelan oil adventure was almost certainly built on sand. The oil was heavy and costly to refine. The extraction equipment was old and in need of billions to bring it up to date. ‘Peak oil’ was drawing near and it was doubtful if the oil majors would be interested in risking major investment in an unstable environment. Will the whole adventure come to be seen as a foolhardy move? It was noted that Trump seems to think in real estate terms [implying that the wider politics gets ignored in the desire for profits].

    Some of the assumptions about these power blocks was questioned. How real were they? What proof of was there of US military strength? [if China invades Taiwan we will no doubt find out]. Russia hoped to occupy Ukraine in a few weeks yet here we are 4 years later and they have only secured a small part at enormous cost.

    To end this part we were invited to look at this brief but amusing video about Greenland.

    An interesting discussion and one about a moment in our history which may be seen as a defining one. A bit like Suez which finally brought home to the nation that we were no longer a world power and a command from the US president led to a national humiliation. Will recent events finally bring us to the realisation the ‘special relationship’ is dead in the water (if indeed it ever existed) and that we and the Europeans need to get wise about how the world has changed? Perhaps it will turn out President Trump has done us a favour by making it patently clear that our reliance on the US is over. We can no longer afford to be subservient.

    The second half of our discussion was a bit problematic. The events discussed above were behind several of the suggested topics which meant we were a little adrift. An element we had not discussed however was the role of drugs in several aspects of government policy. In the lead up to the arrest of Maduro, it was alleged that the country was a major source of drugs into the USA. A number of speed boats allegedly carrying drugs, have been blown up in the Caribbean. The US is in the midst of a fentanyl crisis and these do not come from Venezuela.

    A surprising allegation was made that Israel was smuggling drugs into Gaza adding to the distress there. This seemed difficult to believe and the motive for this questioned. However, a search on line reveals the story is likely to be true. There are indeed a number of reports [from the New Arab; Tempo; Middle East Monitor; Economic Times and the Times of Israel] which all claim the drug Oxycodone is being smuggled in. The motive for this was unclear.

    Some speculated it was an attempt to control a population. We were reminded that Aborigines in Australia were paid with alcohol which fuelled the notion that they were always drunk. There was a brief discussion about states subjugating parts of their populations meant they weren’t getting the best out of them. Talents were being wasted. A lot of this activity was based on racism e.g. in South West Africa. We were reminded of Juvenal’s ascerbic quote panem et circenses – bread and circuses to keep the population on side.

    One of the biggest examples was the British Empire’s activities in China with the importation of opium leading to the Boxer rebellion. The profits from this were vast and the need to move the money from the Far East to Britain led to the founding of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank which became HSBC. Britain’s role in this is still resented in China. Recently, the bank has been involved in moving the billions of dollars made by the Sinaloa cartel into Mexico.

    It also was an example of the role of the City in facilitating the vast profits from drugs, trafficking, diamonds and arms sales and moving them to off-shore destinations. The oligarchs and the billions of roubles was mentioned in this connection.

    We then had a brief discussion around the topic is the Democracy Café just a talking shop? I shall post a separate item on this soon.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Four Thousand Weeks, Oliver Burkeman, 2021, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pub

    Too Big to Jail, Chris Blackhurst, 2023, Macmillan, pub

    Putin’s People, 2021, Catherine Belton, William Collins, pub

    Off White: The Truth About Anti-Semitism, 2025, Rachel Shabi, One World, pub

  • Democracy Café

    December Café discusses two topics, one very topical

    December 2025

    The last Café of the year chose two topics to discuss. One concerned the plan to restrict the number of offences which need to go to a jury and the second was a more general question concerning how democracy works.

    How do we feel about David Lammy’s proposal to reduce the number of offences needed to go to trial by jury? This procedure has an extremely long history dating back to Magna Carta which refers to no man being punished without the judgement of his peers. The principle may have pre-dated this document in fact.

    There were a number present who had served on juries and had a reasonable degree of experience to offer. This cropped up during the debate and for the most part people felt it was time consuming although there were some who found it fulfilling or interesting.

    One found that people were reluctant to convict in drug cases. They also found that there was a degree of ’emotional play’ with the jury taking place. Were people selected for service always capable of examining evidence and being objective it was wondered?

    A major focus of the debate was the state of the judicial system generally, a topic we have debated before. Was the purpose of the proposal really about reducing the lengthy delays before trials could take place? This could be years it was pointed out and was often to the advantage of defendants who hoped that witnesses would fail to turn up or other problems leading to an acquittal.

    Justice delayed was justice denied it was pointed out. Only 3% of cases went to jury trial so was it so important was the inference?

    We were reminded that there used to be three magistrates, now there was only one. If we removed more jury trials then more people would be sentenced by just two individuals i.e. the magistrate at first instance and then the judge sitting without a jury. It might be more efficient and quicker even but was it justice?

    Another aspect of the debate was the nature of judges. The great majority hailed from a privileged background. Around 60% or more had gone to just 6 of the public schools, then on to Oxford and thence into chambers often via family connections. The suggestion was a profound class and establishment bias and a lack of any experience of ‘real life’. Were these the best people to decide on our justice?

    We were reminded of the Birmingham Six whom the justice system manifestly failed over many years of trials and appeals. Master of the Rolls Lord Denning was mentioned who said:

    “Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further“

    Their convictions were quashed after 20 years of imprisonment and they received compensation of around £1 million.

    The case of those arrested for alleged criminal damage at Elbit Systems which makes drones for use in Gaza (which the company denies) was mentioned. The initial judge in the case has been replaced by 3 others who are alleged to be more sympathetic to the government’s case appointed. [There is considerable (and astonishing) evidence of collusion between the police and Elbit including video footage being given to the company and stored in their safe not in secure police facility.]

    Concern was expressed that this (reduced number of juries) was yet another example of the whittling away of our rights. The series of acts which limited protests and was making it harder and harder to mount or attend demonstrations were mentioned. The right to protest was fundamental and historically has achieved many improvements which to an extent we take for granted today – votes for women for example.

    Was this the wrong answer to another problem? was the theme of another part of the discussion. The prison system was in a terrible state with overcrowding, infestation and drug abuse. By removing some rights to a jury trial it might reduce numbers held on remand but would it solve the major problem of a dysfunctional system which has suffered decades of underinvestment? Not for the first time Rory Stewart’s book Politics on the Edge was mentioned and how difficult, nay impossible he and other ministers experienced trying to reform it.

    It was connected to the steady increase in sentence lengths which in turn was connected with tabloid mania about any government being seen to be ‘soft on crime’. Attempts at reform just seemed to get nowhere because of this fear by politicians who saw it as career ending.

    Another aspect was the ending of legal aid. This was a major problem for those with limited resources trying to seek justice.

    Has there been any research into the effectiveness of the jury system and juries themselves? Short answer, almost none largely because the jury room is private and their deliberations secret. [There have been calls for researchers to be allowed into jury deliberations]. So we do not really know how much about them.

    There was a suggestion of the use of AI in jury deliberations. Mad? or will we wake up one day to find that it’s happening or is government policy? Let us hope no one in the Justice Dept. is reading this.

    What did we think overall? Not a good idea. There were too many worries about government motives, the integrity and background of the judiciary, the ending of an ancient tradition and the wrong answer to another problem.

    The second part was a debate around the question How do we improve our political process? There is clearly a degree of despair evident in the public at large about politics, politicians and the process as a whole. No sooner had Labour been elected into power than its popularity has fallen dramatically. This seemed to show a degree of fickleness by voters.

    One aspect was the adversarial system which seemed to be about being adversarial for the sake of it someone suggested. It was a lot about getting media attention the inference being that the media was only interested in conflict.

    Would compulsory voting make a difference? it was asked with addition of a ‘none of the above’ as one of the choices. This latter suggestion was roundly disagreed with: we should make a choice it was suggested. The country cannot be run by ‘none of the above’.

    There was a case made for a well trained civil service along Confucian lines in China. This led to a discussion about the nature of our political leadership. We elect MPs many – the majority even – have had no experience of managing a major enterprise or indeed managing anything. Once elected they can find themselves minister of this that or the other with no experience or training to call on. The ministry may contain thousands of civil servants and a budget of billions.

    The select committee system was praised as a major improvement particularly since the whips office lost the power appoint members to it. It was noted however that it did not receive that much publicity which meant it did not get the recognition it deserved. The recent enquiry into Royal wealth was mentioned and how the representatives of the Royal household were extremely reluctant to reveal any details. This raised the issue of transparency particularly around Royal wealth with financial details concerning the Duchy of Cornwall for example shrouded in mystery.

    It was claimed the politicians in the Nordic countries were more trusted than ours for reasons unknown. The media perhaps? Maybe it starts in schools with pupils being taught critical thinking and citizenship, a topic we have discussed before.

    The current Reith Lectures being delivered by Rutger Bregman was mentioned and his first about the problem of a lack of seriousness by our current crop of politicians was relevant.

    This prompted a discussion about tax and the universal belief that we are better off with taxes as low as possible. No politician can argue the opposite or that there is some kind of optimum tax rate. A fundamental issues such as this is reduced to almost mindless claims at elections that ‘my party is going to fix everything but not raise your taxes’.

    Should we have a benevolent dictator? A question not debated.

    Proportional representation was put forward which did not receive much support. How did they tackle the fundamental issues? How does it solve the low quality of politicians? It almost always led to coalitions which is not the same thing as cooperation.

    More subsidiarity was also suggested. This has advantages in leaving local people to decide local issues instead of everything being Whitehall led. But, poor parts of Britain have few resources however much subsidiary they have whereas wealthier areas have plenty that is, it’s a matter of distribution which is what a national government should be about.

    A more global issue was mentioned namely that Britain had achieved its wealth via plunder. Were we as a nation living beyond our means? Was there any politician or party capable of facing reality and telling the public what it needs to face up to? An interesting point of view can be found in a recent post to this site What could possibly go wrong?

    I am not sure we really cracked this problem although there were interesting points raised. We have a democratic process which we accept as being the least worst system and does enable us to evict politicians who fail. But we don’t seem to be able to say how to make it work better. We stick to electing local MPs who may appear personable and charming but many are seriously lacking in relevant experience, judgement or knowledge of how the business of government works. Some are dishonest and lacking in other ways. When a ‘personable and charming’ MP gets given a ministerial position we seem surprised at their incompetence a fact which was probably obvious from the start. Perhaps much greater rigour at the selection stage – not by the party machine – but by members of the public perhaps possessed with recruitment experience might help.

    Next meeting is on Saturday 10th January 2026.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Rory Stewart, Politics on the Edge, Jonathan Cape, 2023

    Brené Brown, Daring Greatly, Penguin, 2013

    Previous posts:

    Thought of joining our committee? We would like more support. Please get in touch if you are interested.

  • What could possibly go wrong?

    What could possibly go wrong?

    December 2025

    In the complex political world in which we live, it seems that the standard response to any new proposal or initiative is “What could possibly go wrong?” Even allowing for the British love of sarcasm, this is quite a worrying trend. The implication, of course, is that any venture is doomed to fail and with it the probable demise of the lead actors. Although we know that politicians (and civil servants) are held in low esteem, does this mean that we think they are, ipso facto, incompetent, or do we think that whatever they are planning is pointless? Either view is alarming.

    How did we get to this state? Clearly, for any venture, the chances of error are very high. But they are made much more damaging if the original policy is mooted as a solution to a recognizable problem. One has only to think of any recent Budget, with the furore resulting from some tax change which might have unexpected consequences. Politicians tend to react to this kind of treatment by preparing the ground beforehand issuing various hints and leaks, with the inevitable risk of that playing out badly too. The recent IHT changes came about because the government wanted to clamp down on rich landowners purporting to be farmers so that the land could be kept in the family, but it ended up appearing to be an attack on the farming community.

    There is no doubt that a Labour government has a particular

    problem in that the right wing press will present its actions in the worst possible light. But that is all the more reason for giving an honest presentation of what the policy is, how it is intended to work and the possible snags. Apart from helping to block attacks from opponents, this would mean taking the public into ones confidence, surely an astute move (and also resulting in a better informed electorate).

    If it does all go wrong, the best response must be to own up and try to explain  what happened, instead of looking for someone to throw under the bus. Politicians would no doubt say that the public would be enraged, but they probably are anyway. If MPs want to be respected, they are going to have to level with the voters. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

    Andrew Hemming

  • Dissatisfaction with our politicians expressed at latest Democracy Café

    That and tax were the two topics discussed

    A recurring subject of our Cafés is the dissatisfaction both with our MPs and the political process generally. This is clearly becoming a matter of national concern with low voter turnout at elections, falling membership for the main parties and a rise of what were once called ‘fringe’ parties.

    The escape of various prisoners that week from Wandsworth Gaol was the focus of our first topic: not the escapes themselves but the unedifying debate which took place in parliament particularly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Two prisoners, Brahim Kaddour-Cherif and William Smith were released mistakenly and there ensued a major political row with the Conservatives blaming Labour and Labour blaming the Conservatives.

    The question which won the vote was How can we encourage more cooperative working [between the parties] in Parliament? The proposer was motivated to pose the question by the debates about relatively petty issues and insufficiently on the big ones. The slanging match which took place between the parties overlooked the years of underfunding of prisons which had taken place under both parties. Prisons were unpleasant places said someone who visits one regularly and they too little time was spent on things like behavioural change. No party was willing to tackle the system or the huge investment the estate needed.

    A lot of theatrics we saw was around PMQ and this often got televised. Many politicians were playing to the popular press. Would it not be an idea to stop televising parliament it was suggested? We did not pursue that thought and it would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Another thought was Eton. The school has a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons and boys practice the skills (if skills they be) of debating. Since Eton has provided a preponderance of ex-pupils to become MPs and ministers including many prime ministers, could this be a contributory factor to the public school raucous style of debating?

    The need for a constitution was suggested. However, the US has a constitution and it hasn’t ruled out bad politics. Could not the Speaker control things better?

    It was noted however that the Select Committee system works well where party members do work together on them. This system has been a success especially after control of the selection of members was wrested from the whips. But how often do people follow select committee debates? People watch the spectacle of PMQs are less inclined to follow the dry stuff of a select committee even though it was often more consequential. As we have noted in these debates before, do we not get the politics we deserve?

    Back to PMQs. Was it not absurd that the prime minister was summoned each week to answer what can be trivial or detailed questions? The session was dominated by point-scoring and appealing to the gallery not discussing matters of strategic importance. Imagine for example if the boss of M&S was asked each week why one of their stores was out of a particular size of trousers say. Would you run a major corporation that way? Probably not.

    One of the shifts which has taken place in recent times is the way all parties now have focus groups and fashion their policies around what these and other sources of public opinion thinking. They were no longer leading but following. But what many are crying out for is leadership. The election this week of the charismatic Mayor of New York was mentioned. What we seem to be getting is followership.

    The quality of our MPs was mentioned. Do we need to know more about candidates? Should there not be some kind of minimum standard? What that would be and how it would be enforced was not discussed.

    An interesting point was that we elect our MPs but have no say over who gets into the Cabinet or goes onto the government payroll. Since it is the latter individuals who exercise the power it does seem anomalous that we spend all the time selecting someone to represent the constituency who then may well go onto become a minister of some kind. Rory Stewart discusses this in his book Politics on the Edge (Jonathan Cape, 2023) where no interest is taken by selection committees in someone’s policy making experience or management skills in the selection process. It suggests large numbers of people being elected with no regard at all for the skills they’ll need to run the country. And we wonder why we’re in a mess.

    Back to the public school system and whereas it was true that such schools provided a disproportionate number of MPs and hence ministers in the past, a Sutton Trust study in 2024 shows that just one member of the current cabinet had a private education. This contrasts with the last Conservative government where just 19% of ministers did not have a private education.

    Another feature of Stewart’s book was the practice of ignoring expert advice. There was a suggestion that there should be more in the way of expert input into decision making. One said their experience of meeting civil servants to convey expertise or knowledge was met by the response ‘this is what the minister wants’ with little or no interest in whether it was practical or workable. Another said there was no shortage of reports, McPherson and Louise Casey into the Met for example. Most ended up ignored. The problem was a ‘we know best’ attitude not a lack of informed input.

    Was our government a product of the class system? Perhaps we should debate this as a topic all of itself in the future. As noted, the role of public schools has lessened in recent years.

    We digressed somewhat to talk about the removal of power and money from local authorities.

    As a kind of summing up it was thought that manifestos should be more visionary and not the product of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The lack of interest in the political process was also noted and we will not get improvement or change unless the public presses for it.

    On to our second topic which was Should the wealthy pay more tax? It is only about 2 weeks until the Budget around which there is already considerable debate. The Chancellor gave a speech a week or so ago which was widely seen as a hint that there will be an increase in income tax. The immediate answer the proposer noted was to say ‘yes’ but in fact the system already enabled sufficient tax to be collected the problem was all the loopholes. [Official statistics show it stands at 5.3% of theoretical liabilities i.e. £46.8bn (2023- 24 tax year). Experts say this figure is an order of magnitude too low].

    The major problem with the system was it was concentrated on earnings not on wealth. Considerable wealth was in the possession of those who paid little in the way of tax on that wealth. Land for example was not taxed (but rents would be). However, it was noted those who owned property did pay tax on any rents. Major estates could gain exemption from Inheritance tax by opening their homes to the public once a year or more. It was stated that art did not attract tax [This is incorrect. Works of art are subject to capital gains tax when sold subject to current rules and exemptions. So if you are thinking of selling your Rembrandt, be careful].

    One of the things not mentioned in the debate about tax is the moral question. It is frequently said that the rich would leave if taxes were too high. Taxes paid for the things we need in our society. It was pointed out (from the perspective of a wealthy person) that they might say they do not need many of the services. They pay for their own medical treatment, they educated their children privately, they live in gated communities and do not need police protection and rarely use roads on the way to the airport to board a private jet or helicopter. Why should they pay tax certainly a higher rate? Why should they pay yet more to keep individuals who were too lazy to work? They might even use the word ‘feckless’.

    However, they lived in a society which is getting ever more unequal. Placing the burden of higher taxes on the poorest in society risks bringing the whole system down. A recent BBC programme on inheritance had noted that inequality was embedded in the system. As some people got wealthier, they were able to pass on this wealth and its attendant advantages to their children thus further increasing inequality. Home ownership for many was but a dream but those who had access to the ‘bank of mum and dad’ ‘could achieve this. We should think more about what to do with our wealth it was suggested.

    There was some discussion on loopholes which is where we came in. The role of the so-called ‘treasure islands’ as discussed in Nicholas Shaxson’s book Treasure Islands: Tax havens and the Men Who Stole the World (Bodley Head, 2011) is key to the system of avoidance. He estimated around £12 trillion was stored in them (2011 figures). These havens were a relic of Empire.

    Part of the discussion about tax was based on the notion we were better off with lower taxes which is why politicians constantly promised that they, and their party, were dedicated to lowering them. Would any politician who said we needed to pay more tax if we want the services we expect ever get elected. Almost certainly not. As we have noted before, lower taxes will enable you to buy some more consumer goods or services but it will not buy you a road system, a health service, schools, defence and so on: all the things which gives us our society.

    Which led to the notion that we should be proud of paying tax and such individuals should be admired. Paying tax should be seen as a duty.

    It was noted that wealth also gave power. So we would not see changes in the tax havens for example because many of those who use them possess the power to stop change. On the subject of loopholes, Eton cropped up again and that it, along with other public schools, did not pay VAT or business rates until this year. They were regarded as charities going back to their foundations but were far from charities today.

    I suppose there is a theme linking both debates and that is our role as citizens. It is surely up to us to demand better service from our leaders, to take a closer look at those standing for election and to enquire about their ability to lead, manage or develop workable policies, to take a closer look at those policies and promises made and to be realistic about things like tax. We cannot have something for nothing. The focus should be on making sure that the tax system works as it should but how many people know of the tax gap or how much it is? Two interesting debates which raised several interesting questions.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on December 13th

    Thought of becoming a subscriber?

  • Conspiracies: the Five Factor Theory

        

    Some ideas about conspiracy theories

    We went to a talk at the Cheltenham Literature Festival recently and the topic was conspiracy theories and why they are so widespread.  I have been thinking about this and done a little research and these are some of my conclusions.  I propose The Five Factor Theory which is discussed below. Conspiracy theories have cropped up in our Democracy Cafés from time to time so they are a matter of interest for us. I would welcome comments on this idea.

    I suggest that there are 5 major factors involved in conspiracy theories (CF) and why they are widely followed.

    1. Believability
    2. Psychology
    3. Power
    4. Politics
    5. Information.

    1              Believability

    A conspiracy has got to be believable and not utterly bizarre. Indeed, many provide simple answers to complex issues or unknown forces.  Crop circles were by aliens visiting not by a group of blokes going out at night. The solution was simple, providing an answer to a problem which originally did not have an answer.

    It has to provide an answer. So how did a loner like Oswald manage to kill JF Kennedy?  It seemed unlikely he did it on his own so a mountain of conspiracies were produced about other’s involvement and state actors.

    Often the conspiracy is more interesting.  Instead of dry facts, evidence and complexity, we have a simple and interesting story.  It must be easy to grasp.

    It mustn’t be mundane. They are never dull but involve dark forces, aliens, secret cabals and so forth.  So much more interesting than the truth. 

    They are often embellished to enhance the theory. So crop circles had force fields around them which scientists couldn’t explain.  They couldn’t because there weren’t. Notice by the way that crop circles have disappeared as a story.   

    There has to be a degree of topicality to them.  Recently, anti-vax theories have been the game in town. It is extraordinary to note in passing, that to get a science or medical theory off the ground, you have to collect evidence using established protocols, a paper has to be produced with copious references to published work, then submitted to a journal who will get 3 referees to review it and then, after any corrections, it get published.  Others in the field will comment on it and the experiment might get repeated.  There are occasional frauds and mistakes do happen but these are rare. A conspiracy has absolutely none of this, yet people believe in them and will scorn established science or ‘conventional’ medicine.  ‘Einstein proved Newton wrong’ is my favourite numpty phrase: no he didn’t, he refined Newton’s theory which is still taught as the basics in understanding mechanics.

    However, scientific theories are sometimes wrong even well-established ones.  Phrenology was widely believed and practised for example.  Cold fusion another scientific mistake.  But the point is that there are methods to check on scientific hypotheses or theories.  Another point is that they make testable predications. Experiments can be performed to see if the theory is correct.  Einstein’s prediction about the bending of light by the sun was dramatically proved with the orbit of Mercury for example.  Conspiracy theories on the other hand cannot be tested. 

    2              Psychology

    It gives individuals a sense of power.  A lone person can nowadays launch onto the internet all manner of theories and ideas and see them spread in no time.  A successful blogger may enjoy hundreds of thousands of people viewing their theories and conspiracies some of which will get repeated more thousands of times. Some are monetised and make their promoters large sums. The woman claiming that the French president’s wife isn’t really a woman has made her millions of dollars. 

    Linked is a sense of excitement. Just knowing that people are reading what you have written is a powerful force almost like an aphrodisiac (whether it’s a conspiracy or otherwise).  And it’s very tempting.  I get excited if the number of readers of my posts get into double figures.  If I posted something outrageous would I get hundreds or even thousands?  Hmmm.  Moving on –

    It is a means to bite back especially if you or your community has been left behind. Suddenly, you can be heard and listened to (or read) whereas the politicians are nowhere to be seen. It is also a means to vent anger.  It might even be therapeutic.  You are angry at an injustice and in a few lines you express your anger and ‘let it out’ possibly making you feel better.

    There might even be a childlike pleasure in metaphorically throwing stones at the powerful or successful. This might be linked to a sense of resentment at such people.  It is a feature of the media landscape that bringing down the successful is a popular newspaper activity.  It sells copy and people like to see them brought down. 

    But another feature is that conspiracists are likely to be more gullible.  They may actually believe the theories.  Flying saucers are ultimately unbelievable (why have they never been found and how are they able to traverse the vastness of space?  Why here?). But rational thought does not intrude. Homeopathy is widely accepted despite the total lack of evidence. The lack of evidence can be explained by a further conspiracy.  But what about religions?

    There is a thirst for answers.  Everything seems a lot more complicated now.  The world seems full of protocols, rules, regulations, endless button pressing – nothing seems or feels simple.  People thirst for a simple answer and to an extent a CT provides that simple explanation.

    3              Power

    Closely linked to the above comments, it can give people a sense of power. Those who pester stars for example are able to exert power (negative though it may be) over someone cleverer, more attractive or able than themselves.  People sense that nobody really cares about their condition or plight.  The ease with which they can mount an attack on Facebook or X etc is a form of power for them. 

    It also seems to give them power in conversational situations. You are left – if you are not a conspiracists – feeling that you are naïve to have believed what you read in the paper or saw in the news.  They have the real story: you believe what they want you to believe, they being some secret cabal or some such.  It can be difficult to pursue the conversation because how do you prove the negative?  I believe from having read about it and seen film and pictures that the Great Barrier Reef is suffering from bleaching because of ocean warming.  Not so a conspiracy man insisted to me.  A scientist who says the opposite has lost his post in a university and his works shut down and he is not allowed to speak.  The true story is being suppressed.  How do you answer this?  By their nature conspiracies are almost unprovable so the promoters of them gain power over you the listener.

    Believers have a sense of superiority.  You, have been duped by the fake media and believe what they want you to believe.  They (the conspiracists), on the other hand, are privy to the real story i.e. it’s a conspiracy. 

    British law prevents much truth coming out because of fear of lawsuits.  The powerful are in a position to suppress truth because of the shear cost of defence.  It is worth noting that it is up to the person making the allegation to prove the truth of it.  This suppression of free speech provides perfect space for conspiracies to take place. It can even be argued that the conspiracies can actually be true. 

    Ordinary people have lost power and influence.  Our society is such that many doors are closed to the powerless and fomenting or spreading conspiracies is a means to fight back. 

    4              Politics

    There is almost a complete loss of trust in politicians and the political process.  There is a widespread belief that we are constantly being lied to. This is linked to a belief that various forces – ill-defined – are actually running things – Liz Truss’ ‘deep state’.

    That there are background forces who exert some form of control is not altogether untrue, the City for example has considerable power.  But they are not totally hidden and we know who they are even if we don’t know all the details.  Media influence is strong and to state it is not a conspiracy. 

    There is a degree of muddle here in that there is some truth in the allegations (or is that conspiracy at work?).  The problem here is that the political world is murky.  Honesty and integrity is hard to find and knowing what is true or not extremely difficult. 

    5              Information

    Most of the information we get comes from various forms of the media.  Social media is substantially unmoderated and not controlled by anyone.  So any theory, however wild, can be posted on any one of dozens of sites and quickly gain traction.

    There are few controls and a desire to make a profit. If a lot of people believe there is life on Mars then it will find an outlet either because of a lack of control or because there is money to be made.

    People do realise that a handful of men own and control our media so it is not a conspiracy to believe this.  But it is likely to lead to ideas that we are not seeing/reading the whole truth.

    Belief in once trusted sources like the BBC has declined.  Partly due to constant attacks by rivals but also its own behaviour and not broadcasting stories for example around Gaza.

    The anti-vaxers are widely believed and are causing great damage in the US, less so here.  Dr Wakefield of MMR fame is back in business in the US and is widely believed.   I looked into one case, promoted by one of our local MPs and it was founded on nothing.  There was no science, no published papers and no peer review.   Just a motley crew of keep fit types, a gym owner and ordinary citizens expressing their views.  He also made a basic schoolboy error of confusing cause and effect.  But it has taken root and is very hard to shift. 

    Types of Conspiracy

    I suggest conspiracies take several different forms:

    1. Full on conspiracies.  These have no foundation in fact
    2. Partial conspiracies. These have some truth to them but are embellished by conspiracists into something much larger
    3. Actually true things which seem as though they are conspiracies
    4. True things which people believe to be conspiracies.

    Many years ago at a party in Brighton we were pinned in the corner by an American who told us at great length about a conspiracy involving President Nixon.  He seemed quite mad.  His story seemed fantastical and totally unbelievable.  A year or so later, Watergate broke.  Recognising truth from conspiracy can be extremely difficult. 

    I said at the start that they need to be believable.  That does not mean they necessarily have any truth at all.  That Microsoft was putting trackable microchips in vaccines was widely believed and spanned the globe.  It was believed because people thought it was possible.

    A perusal of the above will show that there is no way in the current world to prevent or even limit conspiracies.  The ease with which they can be started and spread, the sheer number of people who have the psychological make up to a) to believe in them or b) create them in the first place, is vast.  There is also the lack of serious penalties for carrying out this activity. 

    There is also the influence of overseas actors.  China, Russia and others are busy engaged in trying to destabilise the West and are actively engaged in cyber warfare an element of which is promoting conspiracies.

    They are ultimately undeniable.  Because there is no science or facts to support them, demonstrating their implausibility or falsity is impossible.  Attempting to do so is another conspiracy of itself. 

    Disinformation, Lies and Conspiracy

    There is a link between these factors. We are subject to disinformation that is, deliberately producing wrong information in order to persuade or confuse.  We are also lied to.  From individuals all the way through to governments, lies are told or truths withheld which is a form of lying.  Then there is conspiracy as discussed above.

    They are nearly all linked to power and a desire by those with power, or seeking it, to deceive for some kind of gain. They are not identical – that’s why I say ‘linked’. 

    The unifying factor is power.  From and individual through to a state or politician, they are a means to exert power over others.  However, as you move up the food chain so to speak, there is a risk for promoters of conspiracy theories to look foolish.  This is likely to be because of greater scrutiny by the media and others looking for the source of the claims.  This critical review is likely to reduce the likelihood of those at the top of the tree using them but it does not stop their currency.  Indeed it may even enhance it.  Think of the logic: there is a conspiracy, the rich and famous do not discuss it, ergo, it proves the conspiracy.

    PC

  • October Democracy Café

    Probably the 100th Café to be held

    We think this meeting was the 100th Café to be held and is a testament to the format that it has survived several different venues and came through the Covid crisis unscathed. Sadly, numbers were down for this meeting – the lowest for some while – but that did not inhibit the discussion.

    We are grateful to Salisbury Library for allowing us to use their venue.

    The first topic of the morning was the vexed question of immigration which has filled the airwaves in one form or another for months now. It featured strongly in the recent party conferences. The question was Surveys show that immigration is of prime concern at the moment despite other matters being more important: discuss. The first comment was to expand on the topic to say that Reform is largely centred on immigration and kindred matters and the other parties are keen to jump on the band wagon. Matters such as the NHS, education and roads for example are more important but do not receive the same attention. Another said immigrants had become the whipping boy for problems in the country and the concern was the degree of traction it was getting. A general election tomorrow would probably see a Reform government elected.

    Who’s to blame for this? Was it the likes of Robert Jenrick or the Labour party? Or was it the failure of politicians to stand up for immigrants and to point out that the NHS simply could not function without them? Why are they so defensive?

    One spoke of his early life experience going to Wales because his father was a key worker in the nascent plastics industry. They were given houses in Barry (of Gavin and Stacey fame) which was much resented by the locals. Life was quite uncomfortable such that many wanted to return to England. It is easy to understand the resentment however with English ‘immigrants’ arriving and taking the newly built houses (actually prefabs).

    One spoke of her discomfort at the display of St George’s flags. They were looking after a property tenanted by Egyptian medics. The neighbour next door displayed one of these flags and there was some unpleasantness. It was quite provocative.

    It was similar in some respects to Brexit someone suggested: a simple solution to a complex problem. Why were there no ‘grown ups’ in the room spelling out the [real] problems? Was it a case of deflection? Another thought was that voters tend to vote against something not for: voters were given some ‘ugly’ but simple things to vote against it was claimed. If the economy was doing well, perhaps there would be no need to demonise immigrants? A recent Question Time programme was mentioned where the audience appeared to turn against Reform which was encouraging.

    Much of the public debate centred on ‘illegal’ immigration but it is not illegal to enter the country to seek refuge. It was more properly ‘irregular’ immigration. It was demonising and dehumanising. There was a comparison with the ’30s in Germany and the campaigns against the Jews who were alleged to be to blame for many of the country’s ills and the loss of the Great War.

    There was some discussion about the role of the rich in our society triggered by an assertion that Nigel Farage receives massive coverage despite his party only having a tiny number of MPs. Having a simple message was part of the answer it was suggested. He also defended the position of the rich which was popular with our newspaper owners. In this connection, the recent events concerning the PPE scandal and the award against Baroness Mone in the PPE scandal was discussed. None had gone to prison it was noted. Millions had been spent on the court case but the award was against the company, Medpro, which is now in receivership and whether any of the £122m award will ever be seen is questionable. By contrast, benefit cheats do go to prison.

    Were political parties frightened of the rich? Promises to do something rarely came to anything. The distraction idea surfaced again, with suggestions, along the lines of Juvenal’s bread and circuses, that governments were more interested in distracting the voters rather than tackling root problems. Where the fundamental beliefs that used to determine the parties someone asked? Sir Keir Starmer’s lack of charisma and vision was mentioned.

    One curiosity was mentioned and that was how people spoke disparagingly about immigrants and others not from these shores but if they were in the presence of such a person would say ‘I don’t mean you’. It was a kind of ‘othering’ and how the word was detached from individuals. So people were grateful for help and treatment in a hospital from a foreign medic, but would still sound off about immigrants as though they were some kind of different species. It was noted however, that assaults and racial abuse on medical staff had increased dramatically.

    There was discussion about the use of the St George’s flag and how they were visible all across Somerset someone claimed. Some of the complaints about immigrants were not just about housing and ‘taking our jobs’ but suggesting it was to protect our daughters and the risk of rape. Dangerous lies were being told. There is an interesting post on the local Amnesty site on the immigrant/refugee situation.

    If there were some themes to emerge one was the pusillanimity of our politicians who were seemingly too afraid to praise the contribution of immigrants to our country. Second was the success of simple arguments peddled to complex problems and thirdly, finding scapegoats for problems no matter how relevant they were. Which sort of linked to the second topic …

    The second half of our debate tackled the notion ‘Did it matter which political party was in charge?‘ This it was explained was based on the assertion that a range of outside forces meant the room for manoeuvre by governments was extremely small.

    Parties keep a close eye on the polls and spend time with focus groups as they want to be re-elected. They have few principles that can survive this and the need to placate the media is another factor. There was also the question of representing the views of the electorate which politicians had to be mindful of. ‘It’s what my constituents want’ is a frequent cry from some politicians. They always claim to be ‘listening’. One anecdote was of a politician invited onto Desert Island Discs, who organised a focus group to give him advice on what records to choose [the politician was named]’. Tony Blair relied heavily of focus groups.

    We were reminded of the term ‘Butskellism’ which emerged in the ’50s and was a combination of two leading politicians Rab Butler (Conservative) and Hugh Gaitskell (Labour) because many key aspects of their policies were similar and centrist in nature. Both parties pursued broadly similar policies in fact.

    Politicians were in a difficult position it was noted. If they stuck to their principles they risked losing the whip and were of limited use to their constituents. Isabel Hardman in her book Why we get the wrong politicians (Atlantic Books, 2019) described the lonely and stressful world that some lived and how badly they were treated as backbenchers. It was suggested that this was less of a problem in Europe where they do not have whipping systems.

    Back to the question and the role of lobbying was mentioned. There was a considerable number of lobbyists in the Commons and they played a key role in shaping policy and representing the interests of their mostly, powerful backers. Many were centred on Tufton Street which has become infamous for their behind the scenes activities. They were sometimes referred to as ‘junk tanks’. Often their funding was opaque and they were funded by fossil fuel interests.

    There have always been lobbyists it was noted and they do sometimes have a purpose in introducing outside views and expertise into the political arena. There was discussion we have had before about the narrow nature and backgrounds of politicians in parliament. Public school, university, a think tank then into parliament. Many lacked real world experience. Shuffling between ministries was mentioned as discussed by Rory Stewart in his book Politics on the Edge: no sooner had a minister got to grips with a department, they were moved. The narrow pool from which ministers are chosen was also noted. Most were MPs (the occasional person from the Lords) and if you were appointing the boss of a major corporation, there is no way such a method would be used.

    There were comparisons with other countries where often circular arrangements were employed in their debating chambers to avoid the confrontational approach. In Belgium, ministers resigned their seats once appointed. It was noted that we seemed unable to learn from other countries. The UK system was not fit for purpose it was suggested, designed for managing the Empire not for the present day.

    But do we, the electors, have some responsibility? We demand low taxes in the belief we are better off the lower they are. The current government was in a bind having won power partly because of its low tax promises. We want the services, the NHS to be fixed and pot holes to be filled etc. but we do not want to pay higher taxes for them. Or rather, we want others to pay more but not us. It was noted that money spent on defence might be better used elsewhere.

    Two interesting debates, linked in some ways around responsible government, politicians to show more courage and to be honest and how increasingly, simple solutions and scapegoats employed to tackle complex problems.

    The next meeting, number 101, is on November 8th.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Progress with People’s Assemblies

    First to say, there is progress. Enthusiasm doesn’t always turn into action and although there is a long way to go, things are moving. Readers will recall we gave a presentation to Councillors at an Area Board on 3 July which was for the most part, favourably received. A change in the political composition of the council has helped and is more receptive to the idea of listening to people’s concerns and ideas. There was a feeling previously of ‘you voted us in, now go away.’

    If you are new to this site, we held three assemblies over the spring and summer at which over 100 people attended giving up 2 hours of their time to discussing what they felt was important to the future of Salisbury. They voted for 5 ideas which we presented at the Area Board. A team of 3 went up to the national event called the House of the People to present the results with around 100 others. There is an excellent review in the Byline Times which gives a flavour of the event. Parenthetically, I can recommend this publication which comes out once a month and gives an interesting take on current political issues. It can be deeply critical of some of the media coverage we are served up. They have been extremely critical of the BBC’s coverage of the Gaza war for example.

    People’s Charter created

    The Charter has set out the following five things:

    • Tax wealth by: removing tax loopholes and closing tax havens; ending pension tax subsidies for high-earners; charging the equivalent of National Insurance on investment as income over £5,000 a year; and applying VAT to banking services.
    • Strengthen and enforce anti-corruption laws; prohibit lobbying, gifting and second jobs in politics.
    • A Future Generation Act – Implement a first principle act that ensures all government policy prioritises well-being, sustainability, and nature over GDP for all current and future generations.
    • Immediate total embargo on arms, trade and support for all countries that are in violation of international law, with immediate priority to be given to Israel.
    • Long term decommodification of housing, ensuring renters rights; councils repurchasing disused housing/empty homes/holiday homes to repurpose and build green council housing; enshrining structural laws without loopholes; and implementing rent increase caps.

    Housing was one of the issues which the Salisbury discussions focused on with matters such as planning and affordable homes. Developers fulfilling their planning obligations was discussed (where developers promise x numbers of affordable homes then discover when they get on site that it cannot be afforded because of unforeseen difficulties).

    Local meeting

    Committee members and others met last evening to review progress with those who we hope will lead on some of the projects. To remind you these were:

    1. Housing and issues around quality and affordability
    2. Traffic and transport
    3. A Community Hub
    4. An Environment Centre
    5. A college for the performing arts

    We discussed the performing arts suggestion and one idea proposed was a ‘City of Story Telling’. This would build on the Stage 65 idea and hopefully create a centre of excellence for story telling with an emphasis on encouraging young people. It could tie in with Salisbury’s Cultural Strategy. It did seem to be promising and could link to the Cathedral whose theme next year is ‘Joyful Noise’. It did sound promising but it did not fully address the idea of a college for the performing arts though that might follow in future years. It will take a lot of organisation, a need for fund raising and some good marketing. The government is keen on the notion of oracy at present so the idea should be propitious.

    We then moved on to discuss transport and this is a tangled web if ever there was one. If the road to hell is paved with Wiltshire Council transport reports and plans then there can only be a few yards left before meeting Beelzebub himself. The discussion focused around the idea of 15 minute communities. There is the Wiltshire Council LTP4 plans which, if you have mastered War and Peace, you may be equipped to tackle being 310 pages of plans, 604 pages of assessments and a 15 page plan. The problem it was said was that there was little sign of action. This may change with the new LibDem administration. It was noted that there is £6m of unspent s106 monies which could provide funding for any workable ideas.

    There was discussion of People Friendly Streets which seems to be relevant. It was noted that the issue of transport and related matters was an ideal one for a Citizen’s Assembly or similar exercise. Another matter was Park and Ride which is operating sub-optimally.

    We briefly discussed the Community Hub ideas but the person concerned was not able to make the meeting. It was noted that a hub existed in the central car park in Warminster. We got on to talk about 3G pitches which are lacking in Salisbury. There are prospects however and at least 2 possible locations. The new owner of the football club may be a key influence.

    We finished by briefly discussing citizenship and government plans to reduce the voting age to 16. There will be a need and an opportunity for more schools work to interest pupils in the political process.

    So that’s where we are at present. We did also briefly touch on making SDA a bit more ‘formal’. We are currently an ‘unincorporated association’ by default. We could change to become a Community Interest Company but there are few advantages. It would be advisable to agree a set of rules and procedures and these will be discussed over the coming months.

    Finally, finally – have you thought of joining us? We can do with all the support we can muster especially now things are beginning to happen.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next Democracy Café is on Saturday 9th August at 10:00 in the Library.

  • SDA comes of age

    SDA makes successful presentation to Area Board

    The Alliance was able to report to the Salisbury Area Board on 3 July following the three successful People’s Assemblies we ran in the City. The response was on the whole positive and we did feel that we have made some progress in our quest to improve the manner in which decisions are made in the local political sphere.  We are grateful to Karen Linaker for her help in arranging for our presentation.

    Mark Potts presented the results of the three assemblies noting that around a 100 people attended at least one of the meetings and some all three.  It demonstrated a keen interest by people who were concerned and interested in the future of the City and wanted to be involved in what happened.

    There were two main types of consultation: DAD and EDD he said.  They stood for Decide – Announce – Defend and, Engage – Deliberate – Decide.  Unfortunately, there had been a tendency towards the former where people felt proposals had all been decided and their involvement was just a formality. The Alliance was naturally enough, keener on the second approach.

    The top five

    After the three meetings the top five issues emerged.  They were:

    1. Housing and issues around quality and affordability
    2. Traffic and transport
    3. A Community Hub
    4. An Environment Centre
    5. A college for the performing arts

    A full description of these and a brief report of the final assembly, can be found on this link.

    Mark said that present in the room, were the five ‘champions’ for each of these ideas and he suggested the next step is some kind of engagement with councillors and others. He mentioned the idea of citizen’s juries, another idea being promoted by SDA, which has been successfully used to tackle more complex problems.  It was true they cost money but the cost of getting these things wrong needs also to be considered.  They have the advantage of engaging experts into the debate and engaging a cross section of citizens in the process.

    Responses

    In response to Mark’s presentation, councillors had some questions and comments.

    Cllr Sven Hocking asked how will those who took part in this event or SDA help councillors find the budget.  Mark replied that it was not the role of SDA to try and manage the council’s budget.  We were only seeking to submit ideas.

    Cllr Ricky Rogers said on the housing issue, it was government who decide.  Developers were in a strong position he said.  This was a matter which came up in our debates and is a fair point. 

    Cllr Ed Rimmer was more sceptical.  He thought it better for people to engage in the existing system.  He questioned whether the [five priorities] reflected the wishes of the wider community. Is there not a risk that what is proposed subverts the [electoral] system we have?  After all, the councillors here have been voted in to represent people. How can SDA demonstrate political balance?

    In replying Mark said we were not suggesting our method was better. He stressed people had given up their time.  The point was our method was deliberative.

    Cllr John Wells said he had attended one of the sessions. He suggested some of the ideas should be built into the things they are engaged in already.

    There followed a general debate in which it was stressed that the process was about helping the councillors do their job.  It was agreed that better engagement was wanted and was a good idea.

    Cllr Paul Sample (Chair) said the work was opportune.  There was a review of the Area Boards underway and he welcomed the ideas and energy put in.  “Keep doing what you’re doing – it’s not wasted!” 

    Comment

    After the work put into organising and running the three assemblies, we were encouraged with the overall response we received. There does seem to be a change of attitude among the majority of councillors that admits they do need input from organised events of this kind.

    It is true that councillors (and members of parliament) are voted in to run things but the question is how many of the public would have read their manifestos before doing so?  How do you accommodate changing circumstances?  Are people only to have a say every 4 or five years?  As new problems or opportunities arise is it not best to tap into any local expertise?

    The three sessions demonstrated the degree of enthusiasm and commitment local people had. The point surely was to bottle some of this enthusiasm and use it to change or improve things. Trust in politics is at a very low ebb. People feel ignored and left out. This kind of deliberative approach would surely put a small dent in that thinking.

    The future

    We shall be meeting soon to consider next steps and there will be a post here so subscribe if you want to remain in touch. Why not join us? We need more people who want to play a role in local affairs. As we have debated in several of our Democracy Café meetings (next one on Saturday July 12th, 10:00 in the Library finishing at noon), the role of parties in the local political scene is doubted by many and is seen as an irrelevance. We are not a political party and our aim is to improve how things are run.

    Peter Curbishley

  • People’s Assemblies

    Third Assembly a success with over 40 taking part

    June 2025

    UPDATE: there is an interview with Mark Potts on That’s TV and the link is here (6 June)

    The third of the assemblies was held on Sunday 1st and 42 took part to discuss the suggestions put forward by the previous two. There was earnest debate on all the tables and there were some who were passionate about their topic or what was important to them. We ended up with our top five and these will go forward to contribute to the national debate. We hope some of those who volunteered to go to London will be able to do so to carry the message forward.

    It occurred to me as the afternoon wore on listening to the debates on each of the tables, that where else is there for this kind of debate? Our election process – national or local – will consist of the parties telling you of their plans for the country or the area. You don’t get to debate them unless you are a member of one of the parties and even then, policy is often imposed from on high. If you go to a hustings, as I did last year, the candidates have their say and one or two from the audience get to ask a question, but there is no debate in any meaningful sense of the term. It’s all very ‘top down’ with non party members – the vast majority – being passive recipients of the supposed wisdom of our political masters.

    Yet in the three assemblies, there were six hours of vigorous debate by a wide range of people. A few came more than once but the majority were first timers. Things didn’t quite go to plan as the last event was meant to be a game of two halves: each group to select their top five and then in the second half, to decide on the final five having heard what the other’s thought. Well, we more or less decided on the top five after the first session so the debate switched to suggesting which one or two topics were the most important.

    What are the top five you are eager to discover:

    1. Housing

    Provide more good quality and low energy consuming homes, which are genuinely affordable and some of which will be in public ownership. Ensure that developers provide such homes, fully meeting their planning obligations and including the provision of appropriate and agreed infra-structure. [this is a combination of the various individual suggestions into one piece of text].

    2. Transport

    Produce and implement a traffic plan for the city with youth advocacy, that includes low emission zones, car free zones, people friendly routes, promotes active travel, considers 15-minute communities and free or cheap bus travel, especially for under 21s.

    3. A Community Hub

    Create a community hub for young people and families including 3G sports pitches and activities including life skills.

    4. An Environmental Centre

    Create an environmental centre which provides Salisbury’s residents with information on sustainable homes, travel and living. A permanent, free home will allow Ecohub to provide a better information and advice service to local residents.

    Residents and the environment would benefit from this service as sustainable homes and transport save money while reducing greenhouse gases.

    5. A College for Performing Arts in Salisbury.

    Power

    One of the topics which arose in several debates and in discussions afterwards, was the matter of where the power lies and who is in a position to deliver on any of these. If we take housing for example, why do we not have more affordable homes? Why are new houses going up around Salisbury and elsewhere, the majority of which do not have solar panels and are not built to zero emission standards? Why are we building on flood plains? Why are developers able to promise affordable homes at the planning application stage then amazingly, discover that once on site they cannot afford to actually provide them? These were all things discussed during our three sessions. It is likely that most involved at the local level – officers and councillors – are well aware of these problems yet are largely powerless to do anything about them. It’s about where power lies.

    The government has decided that we need houses – lots of them. They have also stated that one of the major problems is the planning system (full disclosure: I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, now retired). Reform the system they claim and Hey Presto! masses of houses will appear to solve the problem. There are one or two snags though. Firstly, the developers already have 2 or more years of land with planning permissions in the bag but are not building on them. Some people have alleged it is because land is an appreciating asset so it can sit on the balance sheet steadily getting more valuable. It is also alleged that the big builders decide among themselves where to build so as not to depress prices by all building in the same vicinity. To build houses you need services: boring things like drains, a supply of fresh water, electricity, roads and somewhere to send the err, foul water. If local planning committees point some of these issues out, and maybe turn down the application for this or other reasons, the developer can appeal knowing they will get a favourable hearing. The Minister might also call it in and decide for himself.

    So you can ‘reform’ (=weaken) the system and you will get more houses but they will be poorly insulated, packed in together, and without solar panels. Oh and you can kiss goodbye to any affordable homes.

    But back to the assemblies which demonstrated that this is a matter of great concern to people. They are unhappy at seeing huge estates appearing with no doctor’s surgery, sometimes no shop or community space – just rows of lookalike houses. They think it ludicrous that houses should be built on land susceptible to flooding. One of the issues today with our febrile political system is the wide dissatisfaction people have with it. They feel marginalised. They feel not listened to. They say things like ‘they’re all the same’ which is not true but widely believed.

    So maybe this exercise is a small contribution to allowing people more say in their affairs. It has revealed a thirst by people to have their say, not just tick a box at an election and then be forgotten.

    What next?

    We will be contributing to the national event and locally, we want to follow through with the City and Wiltshire Councils. One of our goals is a citizen’s assembly a place where policy matters of moment can be discussed involving experts and local people. We want to move away from the process where people are invited to comment on policies more or less agreed anyway, a kind of tokenism.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next Democracy Café is on Saturday 14 June starting at 10:00 in the Central Library.

  • A House of Experts

    Fresh thinking on how to reform the House of Lords

    As a long-time supporter of the idea of citizen’s assemblies, I have felt conflicted by the current argument about the future of the House of Lords.  While the present structure of the Lords is clearly untenable, we must be wary of replacing it with something that might turn out not a whole lot better.  For a continuous second chamber, I suggest we need to think from scratch what would be the best option rather than trying to squeeze an existing concept into the same hole.

    The organisation Assemble want a House of the People (presumably an anti-political entity).  Others have suggested an elected house based on a form of proportional representation, or a house representing the regions in some form, or a random body of people like a jury.  My concern would be how much are they bringing to the table? It’s all very well to say that ‘politics is broken’, but where does that leave you?  If we want a complementary House of Ex-Lords, surely it should bring in those unrepresented by the Commons?  I don’t mean the underprivileged, who need better representation, which can only come from a better working democracy rather than a replacement body.  My view is that we need greater expertise.

    MPs have to learn about a lot of things on the job. The fact that so few of them have experienced work in “normal” jobs before parliament only makes the situation worse. Also, of course, government and opposition parties will adopt stances based on political criteria rather than objectivity or close study of the issues.  So, to have a body of people on hand who know stuff could only be beneficial.  It would also obviate the activities of lobbyists, as they could be scrutinised at source.

    So the House of Experts I would envisage would be something like up to 500 people who are specialists in their fields.  They would serve for, say, 6 months (on sabbatical?) and being replaced by persons with similar qualifications, to cover those areas where legislation is problematic (probably all of them!).  It would mean that, instead of the current situation where politicians declare their aims of fixing a problem in five years, say, the detail and difficulties and realistic solutions would be in the open debating chamber rather than muttered by people who lack the resource to influence what happens.  

    Since the chosen members would not be parti pris, debate would be a more constructive, Habermasian procedure than the antagonistic Commons (to be fair, the current Lords and proposed citizen’s assemblies also aim to do that).  Selection procedures would be up for debate: one possibility would be choosing by geography (different areas might have different approaches to issues).  It would also be useful to have overlapping knowledge areas debating in the same place (e.g. climate change and farming).

    An obvious question that arises concerns the authority such a chamber may have. Is it purely advisory, or can it legislate, in which case by what right?  My feeling is that it should be essentially advisory, but that the Commons would have to have very good reasons for going against the advice of the Experts.  I would not expect the new House to be able to initiate legislation.

    So where does that leave our cherished citizen’s assemblies?  In a better place, because I believe they are more suitable for specific (and maybe local) issues than as a national body (think of a CA deciding foreign policy).  It was originally felt that their value lay in resolving political impasses, and I would expect there to be a future in that line of business.  This would also, of course, do away with the problem of maintaining such bodies, as they would be entirely ad hoc.  Even better, it would stop complaints that we are trying to take over from the politicians!

    Andrew Hemming

  • Welcome

    Updated June 2023

    Welcome to the Salisbury Democracy Alliance Webpage.  We are a group of people and organisations dedicated to bringing deliberative democracy to the city.  We aim to provide citizens with the time, space and capacity to engage in free and equal dialogue.  We began in 2017 with the Salisbury Democracy café, which meets in Salisbury Library every second Saturday in the month and has been extremely successful.  We now want to create the city’s first Citizens’ Assembly, which will involve randomly selecting a representative group of people to deliberate on an important local issue and make recommendations to our councils. 

    We have organised two Talkshops the first of which was instrumental in establishing the Salisbury EcoHub which has a stall in Salisbury Market place. A second was held in May 2023 and we may follow up with a second meeting to progress some of the ideas which emerged from that.

    We are supported by the RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce)

    There is no membership fee at present and we welcome new members and supporters. Contributions are invited at our meetings to help with our costs.

    Democracy Café

    Democracy Café is held once a month on the second Saturday of the month. It takes place in the Library here in Salisbury starting at 10 am and lasts 2 hours. Elsewhere on this site you will find write-ups of these cafés to give you a flavour of what they are about.

  • Next Democracy Café

    The next DC takes place today, Saturday 10 January starting at 10 am in the Library. Free to come but a contribution to our funds would be welcome. Finishes at noon and you can see reports of previous cafes on this site.

    Lots to talk about but you do not have to have your own topic.

  • Democracy Café

    The next Café will be this morning Saturday, 8 November starting at 10:00 as usual in the Library. Lasting 2 hours with a break. If you haven’t been before, the idea is people bring a topic – ideally in the form of a short question – and we vote on which topic to discuss. Typically, we debate two. You can just come and take part – there is no compulsion to offer a topic.

    If you want to see examples of previous sessions just scroll down and see the write-ups. It’s free but there is a collection if you are able to spare any half groats that would be appreciated.

    There seems no shortage of things to talk about – the Royal family, the state of the economy – but you might find these too depressing so if you have any uplifting ideas they would be welcome.

  • Democracy Café

    The next meeting of the café takes place this morning, Saturday, 11 October, starting at 10 am in Salisbury Library. It finishes at noon. All are welcome and write-ups of previous cafés can be found on this site and on the list of previous posts at the bottom of this post. It is free to attend but a small contribution of a few groats would be appreciated.

    You can come with a topic for discussion or just come and join in – it’s up to you. If you do have a topic, try and express it as a question or in a few sentences. We vote on the suggestions and usually the top 2 get debated.

    Lots to talk about so see you there.

    PC