Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Author: welland2

  • Democracy Café, April

    April 2023

    Despite it being Easter weekend, we had a good attendance at this meeting in the Library and we were pleased to welcome two new participants. We had two interesting debates and we could well have gone beyond our allotted time.

    The first was Is representative government truly democratic? We started with the famous President Lincoln quote of 1863 after the battle of Gettysburg: ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth’. The problem is the combination of representation and democracy, two concepts which do not necessarily fit together. Apparently, it was Robespierre, who met an untimely end, who combined these two ideas. We were also reminded that Plato’s idea of representation was to limit it to those who were capable of reason.

    Brexit was an example of representative democracy it was pointed out and the result was it did tie the hands of the government to this decision (for good or ill). This immediately brought up the point that in our electoral system: MPs are representatives of their constituencies, not delegates. But who, it was asked, is being represented? The assumption that it was the ordinary elector is unrealistic. It was the wealthy and corporate interests who really held sway [the debate took place in the week when a Conservative MP was caught in a sting by Times’ reporters offering to sell his services to a fictitious gambling company for a fee of £10,000. This came a fortnight after two ex-ministers were caught in a similar sting].

    It was further suggested that the premise was wrong: MPs are selected not elected. The ‘elective dictatorship’ of Lord Hailsham was mentioned. Some have been groomed for some years for senior positions in their parties. This linked to the comment that historically, MPs were older whereas nowadays they had little of no real work experience outside the political milieu. They left university and spent their years in the Westminster environment before becoming an MP.

    The general tone of the discussion was a sense of dissatisfaction with our politicians but it was pointed out that a lot of good work was done in parliament – evident if you read Hansard – but this was almost never reported. We only read of the conflicts and scandals.

    We moved on to voting and the Australian rule that everyone had to vote. The counter view was that if people don’t want to vote why should they be forced? It was a dilemma. Belgium was mentioned in connection with MPs becoming part of the executive so who then do they represent, their constituents or the government? In that country, if the equivalent of an MP becomes a minister, they resign their seat and and there is a by-election. If they are sacked one assumes they leave the government altogether … [now there’s an idea]. Later, the question of voter apathy was mentioned.

    Do people vote for the individual or their policies? Some said the former; some the latter. It was suggested that parliament is a reflection of our views, the collective zeitgeist so to speak. We had a diversion into what Andrew Bridgen MP said in parliament and this link gives the background to that. It concerned claims – since retracted – about the risks and effectiveness of Covid vaccines. The attempt to introduce equal pay for women by Barbara Castle was mentioned where attempts to introduce it were frustrated by what was thought to be the will of the (male?) public. It was suggested that women do now have equal pay. Legislation introduced by Theresa May requiring companies with over 200 employees shows however, that women definitely do not receive equal pay for equal work.

    What we know is mediated by the media – a familiar point in these meetings. The necessity for good information was stressed and the need to hold the media to account: the issue of social media was mentioned which is largely unregulated. Inevitably, all information was filtered and imperfect it was noted. Information was about power and the process of infantilization, i.e. keeping us (the public) away from the real decisions by deflecting us towards things that don’t matter was suggested. Different countries had differing approaches and the current unrest in France demonstrated that country’s approach to political change which was often violent. The ‘British don’t go on marches, instead we go on shuffles’.

    At several times there was the suggestion that decisions should be made at the lowest level in the political process and in that connection, Flatpack Democracy in Frome was mentioned. A post from 2017 reports on the talk given to the Compass group gives more details.

    But back to the question and that the melding of democracy and representation was imperfect and sometimes muddled. It was sort of assumed that they were much the same and as we have debated, who represents us, how they are selected (or elected) and who they actually represent is by no means clear and whether it gives us ‘democracy’ is perhaps to be doubted. The need for a constitution was suggested but this point was not developed.

    The fact that Switzerland holds regular referenda was mentioned.

    Finally, a Channel 4 programme about a hotel in a village being occupied by asylum seekers was mentioned as a kind of example which reflected some of the points we discussed. A hotel had been block-booked by the Home Office to house a significant number of refugees and asylum seekers. There had been no prior consultation. The village was split: some were hostile some were sympathetic. It shows the problem of democracy in that how do you represent such profoundly different views? Whether it’s representation, a referendum or any other form, there are those who are fierce in their antipathy and those who are not. It wasn’t about what system therefore, it was about people and their attitudes.

    Which segues nicely into our second debate which was What are the benefits of Brexit? Well, it has to be said that there were few put forward. The news this week was of long queues at Dover because, it was thought, to be the result of the need to stamp all passports now we have left the EU although this was denied by the government.

    One argument was the failure of some banks in Europe in particular Credit Suisse although it was pointed out that Switzerland was not in the EU and some American banks had failed as well. The Swiss bank failed because of mismanagement and it had little to do with the EU. The nonsense of Greece being treated the same fiscally as Germany was mentioned which led to a crisis in that country.

    “Now we left the EU we can no longer go on blaming them for everything, now it’s us”.

    One profound point was made and that was we can no longer blame the EU for our troubles. We had got into the habit of blaming the EU so now we have left, that excuse is no longer available. Perhaps it was an opportunity for the country to grow up. Governments have always tried to deflect bad news elsewhere to detract from their own failings.

    A big benefit for Brexit was said to be sovereignty and the slogan ‘take back control’ was a key rallying cry during the run up to the Referendum. The argument was that we were in hock to ‘unelected European judges’ rather ignoring the fact that European judges are elected and UK ones aren’t. It was quickly pointed out that our decision to leave demonstrated we did have sovereignty. The judicial system is not part of the EU.

    Walter Lipman’s quote about the bewildered herd was mentioned again – see the January Café. In that connection the speaker went on to refer to the purchase by JP Morgan of 25 of the most influential newspapers in the US in 1917 in order to influence the decision to get the country to enter the European war then raging. The point being how the media, or more particularly the owners of media, can influence debate, attitudes and decisions in a country.

    A lot of subsequent comments focused on the benefits of EU membership and the EU generally. For example, Europe has been riven by wars, certainly since the fifteenth century, including two major world wars and one lasting for almost a hundred years. Yet since the last war, Europe has seen the longest period of peace in a millennia. [Ukraine was not mentioned but that is not a war between two or more European states].

    Historically, France had a system of internal tariffs introduced by the ‘July Monarchy’ in 1830 as people moved from region to region. When these were abolished, everyone prospered. Several noted the ability to move around the continent once free movement was introduced (back to the queues at Dover). Free movement and free trade benefited the ordinary people it was suggested.

    It seems that some people are beginning to change their minds. The government (even if they wanted to) would find changing theirs extremely difficult. Will we ever be able to have an honest discussion someone asked and perhaps be able to admit we were wrong?

    A possible benefit, following the shortages of salads imported from Europe, was an increased interest in self-sufficiency.

    And whatever happened to the £350m that we will save by no longer being members of the EU? This had to remain an open question.

    There was a brief discussion about the role of the City of London.

    Two interesting debates and actually linked in many ways. The need for informed decisions was crucial for good government. When a poorly informed populace elected MPs, some of whom had been selected for them, a media which was partisan, an unregulated social media and a government which was heavily influenced by commercial and corporate interests, it was perhaps a wonder we weren’t in a bigger pickle than we are.

    Peter Curbishley

    An interesting take on democracy and the Brexit debate is Peter Geoghan’s book Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics, 2020, Head of Zeus Ltd , which is well worth reading.

  • April meeting

    Completed.

    Our next meeting of the Democracy Café will be this Saturday, 8 April at 10:00 as usual finishing at noon. It will be in the Library (upstairs) as last time. Look forward to seeing you there.

  • Progress meeting

    Notes of a committee meeting to discuss progress with our various plans

    March 2023

    Eight of us met this week to discuss progress and make plans for forthcoming event. This is to keep the wider membership in the picture and is not meant to be an authoritative minute of the meeting. Also present were three members of RSA.

    Talkshop

    The main topic of conversation was around the next Talkshop event and we spent some time reviewing 60 cards with suggestions and possible projects. Some were of limited relevance to Salisbury but we still managed to identify two dozen possibles from the full list. After lengthy discussion we boiled it down to 4 possible topics:

    • Trying to include the voices and views of the ‘unheard’. These are people who are marginalised, who do not feel politics is for them, that their views are unwanted or who simply cannot engage because they cannot get out in the evening for example.
    • Involvement in the budgeting process. This might be ambitious since local government financing is highly technical and heavily constrained by Treasury rules. It was once said that only four people in the country understood local government finances and one of those was dead. It is worth serious consideration however as what is in the budget determines what does and doesn’t get done. And why shouldn’t citizens be involved?
    • Citizens’ juries and the need for: hardly any need to expand on this as it is our raison d’être.
    • Involving young people. It will be the young who inherit what we do now and their world is quite different from the generations which went before. Yet they are seldom seen when decisions are taken.

    We then spent some time discussing invitees which will include local politicians, Area Board people, Chambers, TUs. We discussed publicity and it will include posters in schools, the WCA newsletter, Transition City and no doubt others will be added at the planning stage. It will be a ticketed event.

    The objective was agreed: ‘to develop a set of policy objectives or projects involving local people and which could be implemented by Salisbury City Council and if necessary, Wiltshire Council’.

    It will run in Brown Street on May 27th from 10:00 ’till noon prompt.

    Planning

    It was brought to the group’s attention that in the last edition of The Planner, the journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, there was a leading article on the subject of community involvement and citizen’s assemblies. It is likely that officers in WC planning dept. will have seen the article and it was agreed we would write to the head of planning suggesting a meeting to discuss. Update: letter sent 18th March copy below.

    Local Plan

    Consultation on the local plan was well underway and it was queried whether we should make some kind of response. The plan was well advance it was noted and it was suggested there were a number of shortcomings which will make its implementation problematic. See an earlier post and see also a response to our letter lamenting the lack of a citizens’ assembly during the preparation phase.

    Eco Hub stall

    We shared a stall in February in the Market Place and the results were a little disappointing. For next time the lessons learned were: sharing a stall does not work; there were too few flyers and we need something similar to the Brexitometer run by Salisbury for Europe that is, a board with options or questions to engage passers by.

    People in the Park

    Whether we should have a stall at this event again was discussed but the cost of insurance – which exhibitors have to pay themselves this year, means it is no longer viable.

    Democracy Café

    The last café was run the previous Saturday in the new venue in the Library. This had been a success although if numbers grew too large it might be a problem. The next meeting is on 8 April. A report of the last meeting can be read here.

    Generally we felt it had been a worthwhile meeting and plans for the second Talkshop look exciting. The next planning meeting is on 18 April at 14:00 probably in Brown Street (to be confirmed).

    PC

    Letter to Nic Thomas, WC Download

  • Democracy Café, March

    March 2023

    This was the first meeting in our new home at the Library. It turned out to be a good location with no distracting noise and of course it is central.

    The first topic was almost a forgone conclusion: namely, Gary Lineker who was the subject of a major row. Gary is the presenter of the BBC’s Match of the Day and following the announcement of the latest bill by the government to deter refugees travelling by boat across the Channel, declaring them automatically illegal, had tweeted “An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” This had prompted his suspension from the programme and as the other presenters decided not to appear meaning the programme would have to be aired without a presenter at all.

    A large number of points were made in what turned out to be an interesting debate. The first point was that he was freelance and not a BBC employee. As a sports presenter, he should be free to express his political views as a matter of free speech. If he had tweeted his support for the government’s proposals, what someone wondered, would have been the reaction?

    The view was expressed that celebrities from other realms of work should not be allowed to express their political views (this did not receive much support).

    The BBC’s view was even though he isn’t a political commentator, he has an enormous following and is thus influential.

    An important point was made that this whole row had acted as a distraction to the real issue namely the immigration and asylum system itself and the failure of government policy to tackle this issue adequately. Was the bill merely theatre someone wondered? The government knew it wouldn’t work it was suggested but just wanted to show that they were trying to do something knowing it had little chance of becoming law. Someone who had met the local Conservative MP in the past few days reported he did not think his party to be in power after the election which might support this view. Greg Dyke, former DG of the BBC, was quoted as saying in an interview that he thought the BBC was mistaken as it gave the perception they had bowed to government pressure.

    A feature of the debate – and a key element of Lineker’s tweet – was the issue of free speech. It was noted that Lineker did not use the word ‘Nazi’ that some commentators and politicians had accused him of. Was the range of recent bills inhibiting protest and limiting access to judicial review, together with attacks on the BBC in general and Lineker in particular, signs of growing authoritarianism a la Germany in the ’30s? Was the reported decision, also by the BBC, not to broadcast the final episode of the forthcoming Attenborough series because of a fear of a right-wing backlash, a further example of a creeping curtailment of free speech?

    It was noted that over the past few weeks, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and Lee Anderson, all currently serving as Conservative MPs, had been given their own shows on GB News. They will be free to air their views every week yet there has not been an outcry about their appointments or conflicts of interest. We were also reminded of the scandal surrounding the appointment of Richard Sharp as chair of the BBC following his substantial contribution to the Conservative party and his failure to declare to the selection board his role in securing a major loan for Boris Johnson, prime minister at the time, who subsequently appointed him.

    The debate moved on to the issue of impartiality and was true impartiality ever possible anyway? There is a legal case at present where the views of Fox News presenters appeared to different from those aired during the Trump era. This aspect of the debate arose around the question of ‘balance’ which sat alongside ‘impartiality’ at the core of the problem. Climate was an example where the BBC balanced reporting of climate change by inviting speakers who did not accept global warming to debate with scientists who did. This resulted in a false balance since the ‘deniers’ had little science to support their views. After a prolonged outcry, this no longer happens. On the other hand, employees of local government, government departments and agencies are not allowed to engage in political activity or air their views on these matters in public.

    Linked to this was the failure by broadcasters to ask who was funding some of the people they interviewed. Some contributors were funded by fossil fuel interests which was not declared to the listening or viewing public.

    Hard to sum up but there was a feeling that it was important for commentators to be free to air their views. There was a simmering sense that with the foreign ownership of our media and with hostility towards the BBC (and we might have added Channel 4) we were at risk of losing key elements of free speech and a slow drift towards a one party state was not impossible. The first thing the BBC should do someone suggested is not follow what the government says.

    In the second half we attempted to tackle the question who runs Britain? You cannot say we lack ambition.

    The first theory out of the blocks was it was all rooted in money. The City and other interests were focused on this aspect. It was money which gave you power someone said. Second was the influence of public schools and their desire to maintain their influence in society and, it was claimed ‘to keep at all costs, the socialists out [of power]’. They devoted great efforts to maintain their role in society.

    The media was mentioned on the basis of ‘who controls the media controls the message’. Whether that is so true today with such a diversity of platforms is to be questioned. We were then introduced to the Beckhard and Gleicher’s change formula – which is probably the first time a formula has been introduced into our proceedings – and that is (D x V) + FS > C where D is dissatisfaction, V is vision and FS, first steps. Latterly, the C component has been replaced by R representing resistance to change. If the first set of factors is greater than the second, change might happen. To note is that if any of the left hand terms are zero, there will be no change.

    Corporations were another source of power and the multi-national ones in particular. Not all were venal it was pointed out and some did want to improve the lot of their fellow man.

    China was mentioned and the role of Deng Xiaoping who, following the death of Mao, told the Chinese to ‘go out and make money’. This led a discussion of the seemingly impregnable one party states like former East Germany and Romania which, despite having formidable security apparatuses, collapsed quickly following modest protests. Would China be like that despite their highly sophisticated surveillance system? Their swift change of course on Covid lockdown in the face of protest was noted. However, the failure of the Arab spring demonstrated that not all protests and uprisings led to happy results – look at Egypt.

    One of the paradoxes of politics today in relation to who runs the country, was the fundamental belief of the current government in less government following the neoliberal agenda. They believed in freedom and the ebb and flow of markets to decide matters, not government interventions. Well that was the theory.

    Two debates which circled freedom of speech and good government. The first focused on a specific incident and a tweet by Gary Lineker, the second on the more general issue of where the power lies in our country. The support Lineker received, while we were debating this issue, and resulting in the disruption of the BBC’s sports coverage, perhaps demonstrated that power can often be illusory and hard to control.

    Peter Curbishley

    Book mentioned: Another Now, Yanis Varoufakis, 2020, Vintage

    Of relevance:

    Who Governs Britain? Anthony King, 2015, Pelican

    Posh Boys: how the English public schools run Britain, Robert Verkaik, 2018, One World

  • Next Democracy Café

    Next Café and note change of venue to the Library

    Today!

    Following the closure of Progress café we have relocated Salisbury Democracy Café to Salisbury Library. So, the next café on Saturday 11 March between 10am and noon will be held in the Portico Gallery on the first floor at the front of the Library. We will normally be in The Lounge area but, unusually, this is occupied on Saturday. Tea and coffee will be available and you are welcome to bring your own mugs if you wish. However, biodegradable paper cups will also be available as well as the library’s own mugs. Hope to see you there.

    DB

  • Democracy Cafe, February

    February 2023

    Some cross-over in the topics put up for discussion today but the first one chosen was How important would it be if the UK withdrew from the European Court of Human Rights? This desire is one put forward by several Conservative politicians and some cabinet ministers including the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. It became a hot topic when the Court overruled the intended deportation of immigrants to Rwanda.

    The proposer said that it was a threat to our rights. We had signed the Universal Declaration in 1948 and subsequently, the European Convention of Human Rights. Withdrawal from that risked us becoming a ‘tiny little country’. It was all part of Brexit and the idea of ‘taking back control’ particularly our borders. The current government didn’t want anyone telling us what to do. This was particularly relevant in the context of the channel boat crossings. If we left the ECtHR it would give the government more power and the citizens less.

    A counter view was that the UN Declaration and the ECtHR were both mistaken since it gave states the legitimacy to remove them (our rights). Our rights came from God it was argued.

    Concern was expressed over the power struggle with our relations with Europe. There was a kind of ‘thuggishness’ in our government at present, not just around the bullying allegations against the Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab (which are denied), but the aspect of our role with Europe and the desire to leave the jurisdiction of the court. There was a kind of desire to appear strong. They were keen to show themselves to be above the judges and were seemingly happy to engage in battles with the Good Law Project. That it was a Conservative, Winston Churchill, who was a moving force in the signing of the UN Declaration seems to have been forgotten by some members of that party. We were reminded that the justice system was in crisis at present with massive waits for cases to be heard.

    It was pointed out that we got the Human Rights Act because the government was constantly running into problems with the court in Strasbourg. They were overturning decisions by our courts which was proving embarrassing. People seem to have forgotten that our judges were quite reactionary. Examples included rights for disabled people and the right of elderly people to live together in a care home where the decisions of our courts were overturned.

    The discussion moved on to discuss the Shamima Begum case. She was one of the three girls who fled to Turkey, thence to Syria, to join ISIS. The debate was around did the government have the right to remove her citizenship and to make her stateless? She currently lives in a camp in Syria. One view was that we should not be concerned about her welfare: she went of her own accord to join a murderous and fanatical group. What happens to her now was on no consequence.

    Others pointed out that she was an immature teenager when she left and would have been easily misled. She had become the object of a media hate campaign. Would it not be better to accept that she has British citizenship, to bring her home and put her on trial? Another suggestion was to send her round to schools to explain the severe results of doing something such as she did?

    This case – and our earlier discussion – both brought up the role of the media in generating negative ideas about the European Court and cases like Shamima Begum. Was the fact that she was a person of colour important in her demonisation someone wondered? It was important someone stressed, that rights existed for people you don’t like as well as those you do.

    This discussion drew to a close with some remarks about our media, with their predominantly overseas ownership. Our rights were hard won over centuries (yes, Magna Carta was mentioned) yet there was a libertarian trend, promoted by some of the foreign media owners, who wanted more deregulation and who believed in increased libertarianism. It was these beliefs which led to the Grenfell Tower tragedy it was suggested. It was pointed out on the other hand that the print media was in danger of losing touch with younger readers in particular who no longer bought papers and often did not agree with their views.

    We then moved on to discuss the question Do we need more immigration? a matter which arouses considerable controversy at present. The question was posed in the context of large numbers of European workers having left because of Brexit and sometimes because of the hostile environment. Many of those who came here were not allowed to work.

    The economic argument was put forward namely, that British firms had relied on cheap labour, whether indigenous or imported, instead of investing in new kit and skills training. Corporate welfare was mentioned which meant that firms externalised their costs and employees were receiving benefits from the state and some were forced to use foodbanks.  It was not just low investment but economic uncertainty which also contributed to our economic problems.

    Was the nation’s attitude a reflection of being an island nation it was asked?  Other nations had borders which had moved over the centuries with mixed populations.  Britain was an island so its borders were fixed.  This had engendered an ‘island mentality’.

    The contrast in speaking to people whose family members had emigrated and the pride they expressed at their success and evidence of enterprise and ‘get up and go’, with attitudes towards those who came here was interesting. If our people go there, it’s good. If they come here, not good.

    Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the need to frighten people to work was brought up.  However, it was noted that the number of registered disabled had increased significantly so that, it was claimed, something like 20% of the working population was so designated (this figure was disputed). Many people suffered chronic illnesses it was said.

    The discussion moved on to other issues to do with the labour supply and mobility was mentioned. We needed more labour mobility, both nationally and internationally: people needed to go where the work is. Some of the barriers are the housing supply and frictional costs in moving, and affordable childcare.  Significant numbers of older people had left the workforce as a result of Covid but many had not returned.  Perhaps training to encourage them back might be a solution.  It was harder for older people to return however.

    Should we in fact promote emigration?  A period working abroad could be an attractive option for many. 

    Two interesting debates, both connected with our attitudes towards the outside world.  They concerned a widely held and suspicious view of Europe closely connected with a fear and hostility towards immigrants.  Our ‘island mentality’ has no doubt played a part.  But it was interesting that just over half a million Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong have come to the UK almost without anyone noticing, whereas the 40,000 boat people had generated considerable anger and almost frenzied media attention.  That seemed to point to a basic humanity which still exists in contrast to the hostility which grabs the headlines.

    Peter Curbishley

    Venue. There are some issues about out venue but we hope to know more before the next meeting on 11 March. Details will be posted here.

  • SDA news

    The organising committee of SDA met this afternoon (1 February 2023) to review progress and to look at future activities. The democracy cafés continue, now in our new home in the Progress Café in Endless Street*. It is good to see new members joining us as well as the regular stalwarts. You can read a note of our debates elsewhere on this site of course. It is free to come (although we do ask for a small contribution if you can) and they start at 10:00, finish at noon, on the second Saturday of every month, the next one being on 11 February.

    This is a brief note of our meeting today:

    – We shall be sharing a stall in the Market Square on Saturday 25th February and we should be there from around 9 am or soon after. It would be a good opportunity to drop by and chat if you want to know more about us. We are sharing with Make Votes Matter.

    – We had a long discussion about possible Talkshop events. The first one was very successful and played a key role is getting the EcoHub project launched. Various possible topics were discussed and New Local Politics looked an attractive option. You can read more about this innovative idea by following this link. This is still in the very early stages of planning so details are not available as yet. If you are interested, keep an eye on this site as planning progresses. It will probably be run in June.

    If you would like to join us either at a Democracy Café, or at the stall, you would be most welcome and if you would like to be more active and contribute to planning events, that would also be welcomed.

    Peter Curbishley

    *for those of you not from Salisbury, Endless Street is off the eastern end of the Market Square and the café is a few yards up on the right.

  • Democracy Café, January 2023

    The first café of 2023 was held in our new venue – the Progress Café in Endless Street, Salisbury. Mark, the chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance, welcomed everyone and explained that the Café was part of SDA’s activities which was to promote deliberative democracy, an issue which surfaced coincidentally in the second topic we discussed.

    The first topic which won the vote was about the conflict in Ukraine and how people thought it might end. The proposer of the topic quoted an article in the Global Policy Journal. The background to the conflict it was suggested is that the US wanted to draw Russia into a war in Ukraine which would drain it of resources over time and weaken the perceived intention of Putin to recreate the Russian empire, thus reducing its chances of becoming the dominant force in Asia. The US was also worried by the Russia/China link.

    Similarities were drawn with the war in Afghanistan where America and other western countries supplied weapons and military equipment sufficient to keep Russia bogged down there for years. The point was made that these wars are often testing grounds for equipment to see how well they perform on the battlefield. In Afghanistan, the Stinger missile was a crucial weapon which destroyed many Russian helicopters.

    The Ukraine war produced two surprises: first the tenacity of Ukrainian resistance and secondly, the weakness of the Russian military. It had been assumed that Russia’s military might would enable it to sweep through the country but the opposite had happened and its gains were limited. Although their army was strong in numbers, it was a conscript army and had weak NCO leadership.

    A key point was the actions of the West in the post Gorbachev era. It was suggested that Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan both failed to respond to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Instead of developing something like the Marshall Plan, it gradually expanded NATO eastwards, taking in more and more members, up to the border with Russia. In other words, the invasion was a kind of reaction to this eastward push by NATO.

    Another point was that Putin saw how the US and other NATO countries abandoned Afghanistan in some haste. They also failed to respond to Russia’s original invasion of Crimea and were largely mute with its support for the brutal campaign by Assad in Syria. They are likely to have concluded that the West were unlikely to do much if a full-scale invasion of Ukraine was undertaken. In this connection, we were reminded that the Crimean Oblast was handed over to Ukraine in 1954 by Khrushchev.

    How will it end? One suggestion was that the voice of the people (by which it is assumed the Russian people) must be heard. How? was the question in a state where opposition is not allowed and the media was tightly controlled. How long the western public will put up with the expenditure in view of other well-known pressures on the public purse at present? Will anyone be held to account for the war crimes?

    A theme, which was a kind of leitmotiv to the discussion, was that the media tended to underplay the role and responsibility the US has had in the current war. The deliberate confrontation with Russia particularly with the eastward push of NATO, and the desire to weaken the state and to depose Putin and the policy of giving just enough weaponry to the Ukrainians but not (it is alleged) sufficient for them to win it are all aspects of note. This is not to downplay or excuse Russia’s actions nor the war crimes which it is alleged they have committed.

    The second half discussion was on the suitability of our MPs and how they are selected. It would be fair to say that variations of this topic have been debated over the years reflecting, perhaps, the disquiet over poor decision making and some disastrous policy mistakes. The introducer gave a tour d’horizon of the problems as he saw it. He gave examples including the Iraq invasion and gambling legislation by Blair; the referendum by Cameron and more recently Johnson and Truss. In his view, MPs should be properly paid, truly independent and provide evidence and reasons for their policies and decisions. He also suggested their should be regional assemblies although he was reminded there were proposals to introduce these around 15 years ago and the legislation was never proceeded with.

    Some suggested that PR was a way forward as this might help smaller or newer parties gain seats. We were reminded that UKIP secured nearly 4 million votes in 2015 but gained not a single seat. Not everyone was convinced by PR however claiming that it risked have candidates who were party hacks and it might prevent independents getting elected.

    One problem was that MPs were expected to be all things to all men. One minute they were in their surgery dealing with a constituent worried about a pot hole outside their house, and the next expected to deal with affairs of state.

    On the question of pay, the issue of second jobs was mentioned. Some MPs have significant commitments, and sizeable earnings, from this activity and this raises the question, where do their loyalties lie (and when do they get the time to do the job they are elected to do?)? Linked was the question – some might say scandal – of lobbying which was on a huge scale. Isabel Hardman’s book ‘Why we get the wrong politicians‘ which painted a fairly grim picture of life as an MP.

    The legal system was mentioned and the jury system where a group was selected more or less at random, to hear a case and decide on guilt or otherwise. Could this not be a model for politics? We were reminded that one of the objectives of SDA is just such an idea – a citizens’ jury. This would review a problem in detail, using experts as necessary, and recommend a course of action. We had tried to introduce this idea with WC and Salisbury City Council, so far without success.

    One telling point was made however. We can talk about selection of MPs; lobbying; second jobs, and the poor quality of so many MPs, but the fact remains that it is we who select them at election time. Do we not get the MPs we deserve? How do we encourage the electorate to vote for the right person, although as Hardman points out, we are all too often presented with a candidate already selected by the local party?

    We were reminded of Walter Lippman and his phrase ‘the Bewildered Herd’. Lippman had a low opinion of democracy and assumed many people were too disengaged to understand the complexity, made worse by poor journalism.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Why we get the wrong politicians, Isabel Hardman, 2019, Atlantic Books.

    Putin’s People: how the KGB took back Russia and then took on the West, 2020, Catherine Belton, William Collins.

    Mistakes were made but not by me, 2007, Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson, Harcourt.

  • New Year, New venue!

    SDA kicks off the New Year with a new venue in Endless Street. Today

    As we enter what I think may be our seventh year, we do so in a different venue in Endless Street in the Progress Café. We must thank Amanda enormously for allowing us to meet in Brown Street for the past few years which did also have the advantage of being able to meet outside during the pandemic.

    The meeting is on 14th January 2023 starting at 10:00 as usual and finishing at noon. What to talk about? Whether it’s local or national, democracy seems to have taken a bashing over the last 12 months and the prospects for 2023 do not look too promising either. But you might be an optimist and can see brightness where others see gloom! Whatever your political bent or outlook, you will be welcome and we look forward to welcoming you at our new venue.

    For those not familiar with Salisbury, Endless Street is in the north east corner off the Market Square.

    Peter Curbishley

  • December Cafe

    We regret to announce that the December Cafe, due to be held this Saturday 10th, has had to be cancelled. This mostly due to various members of the team being away or otherwise indisposed.

    We hope to be back 14th January 2023 and we look forward to seeing you then. In recent meetings we have seen a return to the sort of numbers we normally had pre-Lockdown which is encouraging. Note we are exploring a different venue and when and if that is agreed, we will let you know. It will be more central.

    Seasons greetings to you all.