We discussed the state of our political parties and what to do about obnoxious and powerful men
February 2026 meeting of the Democracy Café
The meeting started on a sad note. It was announced that Jill Cheatle had died suddenly at the end of last year. Jill had been a member of the committee and had facilitated several of our sessions. She moved to Sheffield last year. She will be greatly missed. Her funeral is on 3rd March in Sheffield and we believe it will be live streamed. Further details from the crematorium.
Two topics were discussed among considering the turmoil in politics at present, we were to some extent, spoilt for choice. The first was to ask whether political parties broadly on the Left could work together to defeat Reform. It was quickly pointed out that the Labour party constitution required it to put forward a candidate for every election.
Who are the left wing parties it was asked? It was sometimes difficult to recognise the sorts of policies regarded as left wing in nature in the current political climate. The speaker was not optimistic at any kind of coming together of different parties. He might have added the parties were split among themselves let alone joining with others.
The tendency for personal attacks was deprecated. There was a lack of discussion of policies and too many ad hominem attacks on individual politicians.
A desire for charismatic leaders was expressed, but it was pointed out that Boris Johnson was regarded as charismatic by many and look where that ended up. Sir Keir Starmer was voted in because he was seen as a reaction to Johnson – a solid sensible looking politician. Well, that was then …
One suggestion was to allow a party like Reform to get into government so that people could see the result. It did sound a bit like one of those medieval cures which tended to kill more people than they cured. Wouldn’t it be a bit drastic? Look at what’s happened in Kent. This was added to later in the debate with the comment that Reform has not had the chance to fail yet.
In the case of Kent, the issues concerning the Reform led council and its supposed ‘savings’ had not had much traction nationally. [While seeking a link to explain this, I could find no links to mainstream media other than the one selected. National media seem to obey omerta for aspects of Reform’s activities (ed)]
Reform should not be allowed anywhere near government it was suggested. Farage for example like to put forward this man of the people image, standing holding a pint, but he relied on the support of misinformed people.
Another thought they succeeded because of a lack of a coordinated response, which is sort of where we came in. The main parties spent too much time tearing lumps out of each other and not focusing on Reform’s steady rise. If the franchise was widened to include those aged 16 and above we might see some different results: or we might not as the young have a low propensity to vote.
Inequality
The debate moved up a gear with the suggestion is was not about parties but the ever rising level of inequality. There was too much influence and control by the powerful who were reluctant to deal with the problem since it might effect their role in society. This was added to by the thought that power was based on the interests of wealthy white people. Class was also a factor. Someone couldn’t understand why Labour was so focused on the interests of older people who, after all, have been the luckiest generation – the issue of colossal student debt was in the news that week. The rot set in with the Nick Clegg decision to start charging students someone thought.
Another aspect was, it was suggested, a ‘wealthy layer’ of people occupied many of the powerful and influential positions in society. From parliament, much of the media and the journalists, and the City – wealthy people were in a position to control the debate. They believed their good fortune was down to their own ability or hard work which led them to disparage those at the bottom of society.
Trump’s appeal it was argued was based on capitalising those who felt hard done-by, while at the same time, offering tax breaks to the already rich. You have to admire the trick in a way.
Image was part of the story with Nigel Farage it was suggested who often liked to be shown with a pint of ale in his hand. He appeals to many though. It was noted that everything he says is a complaint and there was little in the way of policy suggestions.
The debate moved on to a discussion about emotional factors. It was suggested that too much attention was about this and too little on matters of substance – the ‘mind’ as it was expressed. So climate for example was an intellectual issue and so was somewhat neglected in debate. One added that a lot of people believed ‘my mate down the pub’ to any kind of authentic source.
An interesting point emerged at the end of the debate and that was how people blame those weaker than themselves for problems. Currently this is migrants. Worthy of further debate sometime.
Did we answer the question? Yes and no. Several of the discussion points had nothing to do with party amalgamations but on deeper issues of wealth, influence, leadership and class. Parties seemed almost irrelevant to the point at hand, it was these other problems which did matter and they often did not get much of an airing particularly when so much of the debate focuses on personalities.
Part two of our discussion was around the problem of powerful men. This arose because of the multitude of evidence pouring out of America around the Epstein scandal. Far from over yet, it seemed to involve large numbers of men behaving disgracefully towards younger, sometimes underage, girls and women who seemed to be trafficked between them and around the world for their pleasure. The revelations have hit our shores and Lord Mandelson was forced to resign as Ambassador to the US arising from his association with Epstein. The revelations have hit the Royal family hard with revelations concerning Edward Mountbatten-Windsor. What can we do about this was the perhaps ambitious question.
Although there are some women who become powerful, the behaviours we have witnessed around Epstein do not seem part of their playbook. It was noted that the only person to go to prison so far (apart from Epstein) has been Ghislaine Maxwell. A senior female lawyer, Kathryn Reummier from Goldman Sachs resigned this week.
How can we do anything about it? since they seem to ‘own the system’ (echoes of the first half debate). If more women were involved in positions of power would it be different?
Nature v nurture
A fundamental question was posed: was it a result of corruption and the system or was it innate in the male genetic make-up? An echo of the nature v. nurture argument. Perhaps a bit of both. It was noted at this point that so many autocratic and powerful men had violent fathers or otherwise unsatisfactory upbringings.
Role of education
The word ‘entitlement’ appeared and the role of public schools and ‘posh boys’ mentioned. Schools which enabled so many boys of modest ability to progress easily through the system and assume positions in society that perhaps they were not fully suited to. The schooling did not encourage them to question their ability it was suggested. There were the gentleman’s clubs some of which have, after a long struggle, agreed to open their doors to women. Although this may be true and entitlement was surely a factor, it did not explain the unpleasantness witnessed in the Caribbean.
An answer might be to make all schools co-ed it was suggested. It was noted that characters were formed early at around age 7. It was suggested it might even be earlier in nursery schools at aged 5 or so. Some argued that the class system was at play in that from a quite early age, the children of the wealthier parts of our society were educated separately and this continued through the private school system. In short, education was a clear factor in shaping characters and attitudes which were important in adulthood.
The rules don’t apply to them was put forward and how men are applauded for getting on in the world. Was that the case now? It was suggested that today’s young (men?) do not have these beliefs today. We shall see. The suggestion that the young of today may be cut from a different cloth was mentioned more than once. However, the influential role of Andrew Tate with millions of followers for his misogynistic beliefs, alleged trafficking and violence towards women seemed to counter the view of the young being of a different ilk. The late Charlie Kirk was also mentioned, his views which for some are extreme and fundamentalist as far as women are concerned. He was successful at campus events in the US.
Did we come up with an answer? In a way yes, and it was around the education and social upbringing of young men and boys. Mandelson by contrast went to a grammar school yet he would have moved in a world where privilege was widespread. The key to these behaviours did seem to emerge in our debate from upbringing, aggressive or violent fathers, isolation in public schools and the many manifestations of privilege which so many enjoyed.
Peter Curbishley
We want to thank the Library for allowing us to use their facilities which is greatly appreciated.
Our next meeting is on March 14.
Want to join us? We would welcome anyone wishing to join the Alliance and help us promote better systems of democracy.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 