July Democracy Café

July 2026

Our thanks to Salisbury Library for allowing us to use their space for our debates. We were also delighted to welcome back a visitor from Southampton.

A thinly attended café this month due partly to the weather and several being away. Nevertheless, we had two most interesting debates the first on the question Will Andy Burnham really make any difference as prime minister? As this is written, Mr Burnham has all the nominations he needs so there will not be a contest and he will become prime minister soon. [For American readers, we do not in the UK elect the prime minister in the way that the president of the US is elected. It differs from party to party but it is the members of parliament who nominate someone and there is a vote. In this case Andy Burnham was the only candidate]

First off it was noted that he says the right things about having a broad church and being inclusive and also has offered apologies for the party’s approach to Israel and the conflict in Gaza. However, we remember the high hopes we had of Sir Keir Starmer when he came in and how different he was to some of the previous prime ministers. This has made the disappointment so much the harder.

Will he be respected on the foreign stage especially as this was a strong point in Starmer’s leadership? The choice of Chancellor will be crucial it was felt. The team in No 10 will be important too, and it was implied that under Starmer this was a failure.

Burnham was a ‘people person’ someone said and he had done some good things in Manchester [a large city for our American readers, not a ‘town’ as Mr Trump said]. There was a worry that he might be a ‘people pleaser’. Will he be able to shake up Westminster?

There was a concern that he was something of a ‘blank sheet’ as someone put it. There was a reference again to the unqualified support offered to Israel by Sir Keir and a blinkered view by those in top positions in government.

The idea of a second No 10 in the north was generally welcomed. A lot depended on the top three appointments it was felt. The question of Shabana Mahmood the home secretary was mentioned. She has a lot of support for her hard line immigration policies: how is Mr Burnham going to approach this contentious topic? So far he has indicated she will keep her post.

Back to No 10 in the north. Why just the north it was questioned? The South West, the North East? there were other places which needed attention. Perhaps we needed something a lot more radical like a completely reshaped parliament with a more circular layout than the confrontational current layout. There was also doubt about the degree of state ownership he envisaged. Another worry was the appointment of James Purnell which has caused concern among some Labour MPs.

If we were to reform parliament then keeping the best traditions was important.

How will he handle Trump was raised? Sir Keir did well in many ways since dealing with someone so seemingly irrational must be difficult. Someone thought we should ‘stand up to him’ which sounds good but … It was suggested that President Trump was not totally wrong concerning European defence [defense] issues: Europe had free-loaded for decades, uninvesting in its own defences and Trump’s straight talking has come as a shock.

We should ignore Trump it was stated. We should also get rid of the bases since the US in Britain as they no longer wants to support NATO, why are they still here? The utterly disgraceful decisions to allow American servicemen to be court marshalled on their base for crimes committed against British women off base was condemned. British police and prosecuting authorities which ceded there jurisdiction was quite wrong. Two have now been reported on.

Back to Burnham and his ability to take on Reform was noted. His willingness to speak of reducing divisions in society was significant and in this connection it was important not to demonise Reform voters it was suggested.

The discussion moved onto neo-liberal economics: that is a belief in small government, low taxes, the superiority of the private sector and deregulation being necessary for the success of a nation such as ours. It was a dream that largely died in the crash of 2008 when the effects of this nearly brought down the UK economy and has left us with a massive debt. The question posed was whether Andy Burnham will resile from this Thatcherite legacy?

Our discussions were somewhat cerebral up to this point with comments about printing money and so forth. It was suggested that we [by implication Andy Burnham’s team] need to ‘start where people are’. They are not concerned or aware of these big issues. They are more worried about the day-to-day – the famous pot holes for example. Hifalutin talk is ‘not going to wash’. Which does rather focus our minds on one of the big conundrums namely, how do you bring about major change when people’s minds are focused on such day-to-day matters? A future debate perhaps.

The overall conclusion was hopeful and that Mr Burnham will bring both presentational change and substantive policy change. But there were doubts as there were too many unknowns about him and his future team. Will the much touted ‘Manchesterism’ work in Westminster? We shall see.

Our attention was drawn to West Country Voices as an interesting site.

Our second debate was on climate, an apposite topic in view of the heatwave we were experiencing. What do we do with the heat wave? was the question which soon morphed into climate. We spent a little time on government advice on how to respond. Not everyone agreed but we did not hear what the alternative was.

It was noted that climate denial was still alive and well: one of us had met two vehement denialists at a party the previous day. The debate (about climate change) was very polarised it was noted. The science was pretty clear and the evidence largely incontrovertible. Some of the denialist arguments were perverse. The protests against noisy wind turbines in New York [State?] was noted.

We were reminded that water is an issue. The likelihood of shortages (already visible in Kent) will have profound effects in various parts of the world.

Electric cars will help the environment although it was noted the government is set to lose income from declining fossil fuel sales. Not all was green and lovely with an increasingly electric future it was pointed out. The way the rare earth minerals were mined with dangerous conditions and little the way of protections for the miners in places like DRC was referred to.

We moved on to planning and the lack of it as far as future energy policy was concerned it was claimed. [Not altogether fair as this link shows]. The policy was market led and led it decide it was claimed. It was noted that as far as agriculture was concerned, planning never applied to them: they were excluded from the first planning act in 1903.

The use of viable agricultural land for solar farms was criticised and linked to a lack of supply of foodstuffs in shops. The closure of pick your own sites as well. This was queried as the lack of supply of some food stuffs is not a shortage of land but of labour to pick and process the fruit and vegetables. This has worsened with immigration controls. A cheap food policy has not helped and has led farmers choosing to install said solar farms as they gave a better yield with no effort. The principle of EROI was briefly mentioned: the economic return on investment which was steadily declining for fossil fuels.

A report by Minette Batters (who farms in Wiltshire) was mentioned which is apparently gathering dust in Whitehall. One of the problems it was suggested was the low status that DEFRA enjoyed.

Another factor which never seems to get a mention is the multiplier. This is the principle – well established in economics – that an investment, public or private, can create a continuous stream of benefits. So a £1 investment can yield five or ten times that over time. Some welfare expenditure had high multiplier effects whereas defence expenditure was 1.

The efforts by the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust to educate the public on climate change issues was praised.

Some science was difficult to absorb, AMOC for example: the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current was a quite complex issue to grasp. Yet might be massively significant in future years.

If we are to tackle climate change and prevent further global warming, then there will need to be huge changes in our lifestyles. Jetting off to winter holidays, eating strawberries in winter and driving gas guzzlers will all have to go or be seriously modified. Are people ready for this? A cartoon was mentioned which showed hands going up for ‘who wants change?’ but no hands up for ‘who wants to change?’

Which in a way brought us back to Andy Burnham because climate control is going to need regulating and government control. The notion of leaving all to the markets was no longer tenable. The powerful lobbying activity of the fossil fuel firms was mentioned and their ready access to ministers and civil servants whereas, Jo public did not have any thing like that access or influence. Will Andy Burnham change that?

Peter Curbishley

Next meeting on August 8th