We attach a link to an email from the Sortition Foundation which provides a list of the many examples of citizens’ assemblies around the world.
Author: welland2
-
Democracy Cafe: November
November 2022
We had two lively discussions at our meeting on 12 November 2022 and it was good to see a higher level of participants again following the dip in numbers after Lockdown. The first topic was around the Stop Oil protests who had caused disruption to the M25 recently. The question was around protest and breaking the law. The proposer of the question said there were two main responses: those who were sympathetic or empathetic to the cause (and one assumes the protest) contrasted with those who didn’t who thought they were pathetic people and ‘snowflakes’.
The discussion started off with a debate about climate change itself and the statement that ‘feelings are not facts’. Gas was essential, it was claimed, for the production of fertilizer, the lack of which would result in the deaths of millions for want of food.
We returned to the issue at hand and the fact that if we feel those in power are not listening then we are entitled to take action. However, it was argued, we have to accept the penalty for any civil disobedience involved. In response to the charge about ‘feelings not being facts’, we operate on an emotional level as well as factual and that this was a legitimate part of our response.
Civil disobedience was the cornerstone of our democracy. The series of bills the government was currently pushing through parliament for example the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill, represented it was claimed an attempt by government to curtail such protest. The act when it becomes law will mean lawyers and teachers for example, taking part in demonstrations, risked losing their jobs should they be arrested. One person thought that we were slowly moving towards a totalitarian state especially when the new Justice and Courts act has made challenging government decisions a lot more difficult. There were many restrictions in place around Westminster which further prevented the show of dissent.
The point was made that the media are particularly bad at reporting peaceful protests. It was also pointed out that whereas there was considerable coverage of the highly visible M25 protests, the daily ‘under the radar’ lobbying by corporations which takes place in parliament – but which was extremely effective in securing for them advantageous treatment of one kind or another – was seldom reported. Another example of peaceful protest was a visit to the local MP by a group of local Amnesty members to raise concerns about the collection of bills which will have the effect of curtailing or inhibiting protests. It was doubtful if this had much of an effect. The role of the media was stressed because only if they were concerned did the public become aware of the problem.
It was noted that the suffragists formed in the 1866 with the specific aim of campaigning for votes for women peacefully or ‘respectfully’ as they expressed it. Their campaigns yielded nothing and in 1903, the suffragettes were formed who campaigned, sometimes violently, to get them and this was agreed in 1928.
Back to global warming and it was claimed that people concerned about this were not able to come up with the relevant facts. To claim that ‘scientists say’ was not convincing since many of them depended on commercial funding of one kind or another which called into question their impartiality. It was also pointed out that it will be the poorest in the world who will pay the price not the affluent West. Claims of climate disaster of one kind or another have been made for many years it was said but they seldom happened. An example was that Manhattan would be under water by the year 2000.
The role of economic ideology was suggested as a reason for a reluctance to act on things like climate reforms. The prevailing ideology was neoliberal, and protests were seen as a cost to doing business and thus damaged the economy. It was claimed that our local MP, Mr John Glen, as a treasury minister, was dictated to by commercial interests. It was pointed out however that he was the MP for all his constituents.
Finally, the ‘straw man’ argument was noted namely, M25 protests preventing ambulances getting through. This was often claimed but protesters specifically allowed emergency vehicles to pass.
These highly visible protests raise great passions and many are angry at the disruption caused to daily life. People wanted protests to be other than disruptive. The problem was that they then became invisible and the media would take no notice. Since government was in hoc to business and commercial interests and lobbyists, was this the only way to make the voice of protest heard? Demonstrations were not welcome by the current government hence the slew of legislation designed to outlaw any form of protest seen as a nuisance or an inconvenience.
Our second topic was whether the idealism of post war in connection with the NHS and education been overtaken by capitalist thinking? Education for many decades after the war was free but in recent years it has been replaced by fees certainly at the university level. Free education for adults has gone. Chunks of the NHS are being privatised. It was claimed that these services were being ‘contaminated’ by the profit motive.
Why do we have education (for the masses) at all it was asked? The answer, it was claimed, was because the industrial and commercial world needed people for its workforce. This was part of the answer it was true although the push for better education came sometime after the height of the industrial revolution. Increased concerns about superior education – particularly technical – in Germany and USA was also of concern to governments of the day. Another factor was the after-effects of the Great War and the depression. There was a wave of social welfare reforms after WWII with the creation of the health service following the Beveridge Report and the 1944 Butler Act (Education). While it was true there was a fear of civil disturbance by government, there was a number of research and other reports published concerned with how people could lead better lives and fulfil their potential. It did seem that there was a degree of idealism in those post war years.
The debate moved on following a challenge that the premise of the question implied that capitalism was a bad word. The problem was not that capitalism was bad per se but that it was focused on the profit motive. Money dictates what happens someone said. The problems arose if profit became the sole driving force. There was the neoliberalism belief that the private sector was superior to the public and this has led, in education, to the academy movement. It was the profit motive which made them superior it was claimed. The proposition was difficult to test however since few statistics or analyses were available. Academies did not have to follow the national curriculum so comparison was difficult. Nor did academies have to employ qualified teachers.
Britain’s education system was once admired around the world which was not the case today. Finland was mentioned as having an excellent and much-admired system. There were no private schools there and all teachers were highly qualified.
The problems of capitalism was highlighted by the privatisation of the water companies. Little investment had taken place and instead high dividends had been paid out. Rivers had become polluted by sewage discharges and vast quantities were poured into the sea. But, many of those self-same dividends went to pension funds etc so we all profited to an extent. Unfortunately, the activities of a few rogue enterprises tainted the whole sector – not all firms behaved like the water companies. There was a spectrum of companies from the ‘toxic’ to the ordinary firms.
It did seem to be agreed that something had been lost. The idealism of the post war years has been replaced by a focus on private firms and commercial interests whose pursuit of profit was not always for the benefit of the citizen. There was, in a sense, a link to the first debate and the influence corporations have in the parliamentary process. Private firms had been able to influence policy across a range of areas. People were becoming more and more concerned at the lack of progress on climate change and there was also considerable disquiet at the state the NHS was now in. Was the introduction of laws to inhibit and criminalise protest because government was beginning to realise that corporate led policies were no longer working nor popular? A debate for another time perhaps.
Peter Curbishley
Books of interest relevant to the discussion:
Taking Rights Seriously, Ronald Dworkin, 1997, Bloomsbury
23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang, 2011, Penguin
NOTE 1. One of the proposed questions we did not debate was the claim that Pfizer did not test its Covid vaccine before release. This was apparently based on a European Commission hearing on 11 October involving the firm. The claim is misleading it appears and readers may like to read this report by Full Fact which explains the context.
NOTE 2. We may be changing venue in the future but our next meeting on 10 December will be in Brown Street at 10:00 as usual. Details in due course.
-
Democracy Cafe
TODAY!
A reminder that the Cafe meets this Saturday 12 November starting at 10 am as usual for 2 hours. We meet in Brown Street. Lots to discuss at present. There’s quite a lot of debate about the decision which is likely to put the police station up at Highpost. This is the latest in this saga which has involved closing the station on the Wilton Road; sighting it at Bourne Hill in a building not designed for the purpose; using Melksham to put people under arrest and now Highpost which is apparently the only option, so why a consultation?
Attached is an interesting piece by Dickie Bellringer.
-
EcoHub project
Progress with the EcoHub project and news of a gig in Brown Street
Since Salisbury Democracy Alliance and RSA Fellows co-hosted the meeting in May which was the origin of the Salisbury EcoHub project, we are circulatting the newsletter (below) and notification of our benefit gig at Brown Street on Oct 22nd with the legendary campaigning band Seize the Day (attached).
The EcoHub project is approaching a key phase in its development, whether to incorporate ourselves as a charity (an Incorporated Charitable Organisation or ICO) or in some other form, which will then enable us to start the search for suitable premises in which to realise our aim of setting up an environment centre in Salisbury. This will provide a place where the people of Salisbury can go for information on climate change and the other threats to our ecological survival, and on practical questions such as “how can I reduce energy bills, or put solar panels on my roof, or where can I go to recycle X or Y?”. Crucially, it will also provide a hub and shared facility linking together the many voluntary groups in Salisbury (including SDA) who are each active in their own various ways in confronting the crises which confront us in the present climate and ecological emergencies.
We would greatly welcome both SDA itself and as many of its members as possible signing up as potential members of Salisbury EcoHub Alliance as it moves towards becoming an incorporated body to fulfil our aims.
Salisbury EcoHub Alliance – Newsletter #1
How was the EcoHub born?
The population of Salisbury and its surrounding area includes a large number of people who are concerned about climate change and other environmental issues. Many are active in one or more voluntary groups or organisations addressing these matters.
In May 2022 an open meeting was held under the auspices of Salisbury Democracy Alliance and Salisbury RSA Fellows Network to explore ways forward in collectively tackling these issues in general and the current climate emergency in particular.
By far the most popular proposal arising from that meeting was to set up a shared premises in Salisbury where members and supporters of these various groups could meet and interact with each other and the general public. Thus the Salisbury EcoHub project was born. This first meeting set up a volunteer working group to produce a Mission Statement for the project, which was finalised at a meeting the following month.
The project received backing from Salisbury City Council in the form of an offer of a free stall pitch in Salisbury Market to promote the EcoHub and this was incorporated in the Mission Statement, which is attached.
What have we achieved so far?
Since these initial meetings, a core group has continued to meet on a weekly basis and to correspond by email. Our first market stall took place on 3rd September and stalls are continuing on a weekly basis, between 9-12 every Saturday (but not tomorrow!). Please visit the stall, or volunteer to help out if you can.
A general leaflet was produced for use on the stall, and an initial internet presence set up under the wing of the Salisbury Transition City website.A benefit gig featuring the legendary campaigning band Seize the Day will take place on Saturday 22nd October at 29 Brown Street: tickets can be booked online here. The flyer is attached – we hope you will publicise it on social media to help make the gig a great success. Printed copies of the flyer can also be picked up from our market stall.
What are the next steps?
We have been actively researching suitable formal organisational structures, including that of an Incorporated Charitable Organisation (ICO) using a Charities Commission model constitution. We have set up consultative meetings with established Environment Centres:Sarah Mai from Shrewsbury Environment Centre joined our weekly meeting at The Pheasant, Salt Lane
Swansea Environment Centre organisers joined us by Zoom on Thursday 6 October at 6pm link here
You are welcome to attend these meetings: please email us on salisburyecohub@gmail.com if you need further details.
Following this consultation, we expect to reach a conclusion on the best structure to adopt, and to hold a formal general meeting to adopt a constitution and appoint officers (trustees or directors).
As we become a more formal organisation we will need to develop a membership base. If you would like to become a member, either as an individual or on behalf of your organisation or business, please fill in the form below. This will enable you to vote at formal meetings and help ensure that our organisation is run on an open and democratic basis and can grow into a legal entity that can apply for grants and rent or lease premises. You can find further information on our website at www.transitionsalisbury.org/ecohub, and we will keep you in touch with our progress by email.
No cost, no obligation. As we are still an embryonic organisation, there is at present no membership fee, and all are welcome to participate. However, we do welcome small voluntary donations to help cover ongoing expenses, and any pledges of additional financial support once the project progresses further. You may withdraw from membership at any time if you choose to do so.
Membership form(Please return this form by copying and pasting it into an email to salisburyecohub@gmail.com)
I wish to become a member of the Salisbury EcoHub Alliance when it adopts a formal structure, and to be consulted in that process. Please keep me informed of progress
I hereby give permission for Salisbury EcoHub Alliance to hold my personal data for that purpose.
Note: whatever formal structure is adopted will be such as protects members (whether individuals or group representatives) from personal liability.Name (individual) ………………………………………………
email …………………………………………………
Members may join as an individual or as a representative of a group or organisation. If joining on behalf of an organisation, please also complete the following questions.Name of group or organisation ……………………………………………………………………………….
If joining on behalf of a group or organisation, has it formally authorised this? Yes/No
Is your group happy to be listed as a member of Salisbury EcoHub Alliance? Yes / No
Can we include a link to your group’s website on the EcoHub website? Yes /NoGroup website link …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Might your group be interested in showcasing itself on our market stall? Yes/No/ Perhaps -
Democracy Cafe – October
The cafe resumes after a hiatus following the Queen’s death. Two topics were discussed
Following the death of the Queen last month, Prince Charles became King Charles III and this resulted in the first topic: Do we need a king? Closely related, was the news that the King would not be going to Egypt for the next COP conference, because it was claimed, 10 Downing Street did not want him to.
So, do we need a king? The case against centred on a number of objections. Firstly, that someone should not be appointed solely on the basis of inheritance, and not by a form of selection. Secondly, it is often claimed by those in favour of a monarchy, that one of the benefits is that it brings in lots of revenue, especially from tourists, however, as far as anyone was aware, no proper cost benefit analysis has been done to demonstrate this point. The point was made that the argument was back to front in any event: we do not create an institution of this nature for the benefit of tourism. The House of Lords should also be based on some kind of appointment system not on inheritance (it is partly that now).
The Queen, and now King Charles, enjoy considerable influence often exercised behind closed doors. The issue of Prince Charles’s ‘spider memos’ to Ministers has been mentioned in previous meetings and it took a huge and prolonged struggle for some of these to be made available and published. Recent revelations have shown the royal family’s interference in parliamentary bills to protect their financial and other interests. The prince’s alleged role in ending in the tenure of Prof. Edzard Ernst’s role at Exeter University because he criticised the prince’s championing homeopathy was also quoted. It was also noted that the Queen failed to act when Boris Johnson when prime minister, wanted – illegally as it turned out – to prorogue parliament. The BBC came in for criticism for not investigating these and other matters: it was suggested that they were too frightened to. In addition to the monarchy itself, there was a huge retinue of people and sycophants whose future depended on them.
In addition to being our royal family, the King was now head of the Commonwealth although it is not a hereditary position. The Queen ‘championed’ Prince Charles’s (as he then was) appointment to overcome alternative suggestions for an alternative head.
These remarks prompted the question ‘do we need a head of state and what is the role for?’ I am not sure we progressed this fundamental question much further. We are hard-wired to need leaders it was suggested – an interesting point.
Another point was that the monarchy was the tip of an iceberg under which was a pyramid of privilege. Aside from the Lords, there was Eton and other ‘posh’ schools, grammar schools all of which played a part in cementing privilege and advantage in our society. But how to replace them? A meritocracy? This led to a mention of democracy and was it that perfect? We had to reckon with the fact that a series of unsatisfactory individuals have been voted into parliament. We might rail at the incompetence or manifest inadequacy of several ministers, but they were there because we put them there.
Back to King Charles and the Cop27 in Egypt to which the government is reluctant to allow him to go. The problem is that his views on the environment are well known and his presence there will have political significance and the King is now said to be keen to be seen to be neutral. The other point is that we may well support his presence in Egypt because we applaud and support his views on the question of the environment. But if we support him in that, how can we object to some of his other views such as his somewhat doubtful opinions on education and as we have mentioned, his dotty views on homeopathy.
Perhaps it was a pity that there were no monarchists present in the debate to promote their cause and the continuation of the status quo.
Part two was on the question ‘is neoliberalism dead?’ inspired by the recent non-budget by the Chancellor and the speech by Liz Truss at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham. This belief, basically around the idea of a small state, low taxes and reduced regimes of regulation saw the light of day in the Thatcher/Reagan years but it was assumed it had largely died at the time of the financial crash. Yet here it was, live and well, at the party conference.
Some thought it was dead. They felt that although there were some ideologues around, the general public has moved on. More were in favour today of government intervention. Some were even happy with higher taxes and were keen to see some of the poorly performing utilities renationalised – the water companies most obviously. The negative reaction to the budget was also heartening some thought. It would seem the government was out of touch with what people were thinking.
The debate moved on to more economic considerations and one of the long-identified problems of the British economy – short-termism and the unavailability of long-term risk capital – a problem identified by Macmillan when Chancellor before the war. Could the ‘green new deal’ replace neoliberalism and see greater investment in the economy by the state? Perhaps this could be linked to more localism. Green ideas were popular with the young it was noted.
One of the ideas to re-emerge recently was that of trickle down. This was behind the proposals to reduce taxes on the rich (subsequently abandoned) and the ending of controls over bankers’ bonuses. The idea was that the more wealth created, the more it ‘trickled down’ through the economy for the benefit of all. The problem is it didn’t work. It merely increases income inequality. The wealthy don’t spend all their wealth and are able to afford sophisticated tax advice to enable them to protect it, to avoid taxation and for it to be moved offshore. A more useful concept was trickle up since the middle classes and below spend a higher proportion of their income thus benefiting the economy. We briefly touched on the circulation of money at this point.
We touched on issues such as the creation of money, the Thatcher era ideas from Milton Friedman of the Chicago school which argued all you needed to do was control the money supply an idea which so divided the party at the time. It was clear there was a lot of ignorance around and pointed to the need for better education of the public. Politicians were able to come up with hare brained ideas and get elected largely because so many did not understand how the economy worked.
Peter Curbishley
-
Democracy Cafe
CANCELLATION
Following the sad news of Her Majesty the Queen’s death, the Democracy Cafe due to be held on 10th September was cancelled. We hope to resume in October.
-
Next Democracy Cafe
In view of the sad death of Her Majesty the Queen yesterday, this event has been cancelled. Posted 9 September
The next Democracy Cafe was to have taken place tomorrow, 10th September in 29 Brown Street has been cancelled. I expect we shall be inside looking at the weather forecast! If you haven’t been before, the idea is we start by going round the table to ask for suggested topics for debate (you don’t have to suggest anything). We then vote on which topic and away we go. We break after an hour and we usually go onto a second topic but not always. You can look on this site for examples of the many previous debates we have had over the past years since we formed.
-
Salisbury City Plan – a response
We receive a response to our comments about the City Plan
In our previous post, we referred to a letter we had written to the Salisbury Journal lamenting that the preparations for the proposed City Plan had not used a citizens’ assembly. We went on to discuss what we felt to be some of the significant shortcomings in the documents made available. We also wrote to some of the councillors in the same vein as the letter in the Journal and one councillor has replied in the following terms:
“I understand that you and your colleagues are disappointed, but this is not the beginning of the Neighbourhood Plan process, when an approach such as you suggest might perhaps have been more appropriate.
Work on the Plan began under the previous administration of this council in 2018 with a well-publicised call for help from volunteer community members. I can see that at that point, a Citizens’ Jury might well have been helpful in setting objectives and priorities. I wasn’t a councillor at that point and I don’t know whether it was suggested.
But I do know that over the last three or four years those volunteers, along with some councillors, have put in literally hundreds of hours of work, including holding several public consultations on specific elements of the Plan’s proposals, and by the time I took on the chairmanship almost a year ago it would not have been feasible or desirable to start unpicking what had already been achieved.
The aim of this latest consultation is to attract responses from as many individuals and interest groups as possible at this stage of this process, known as Regulation 14. We are required to do this as a steering group, and we will have to satisfy an inspector that we have done so.
Further stages of consultation will follow, as required by law, after the draft Plan is refined as a result of this exercise, and we will continue to be guided by the advice of our professional neighbourhood planning consultant on how best to proceed with this.
I know you will not be happy with this answer but we are where we are“.
We are grateful to the Councillor in taking the trouble to reply. It leaves open several of the points we raised. The idea of a citizens’ assembly was suggested at the beginning of this process. If ‘literally hundreds of hours of work’ by volunteers and councillors have been spent on this, why have some of the glaring omissions we pointed out not been spotted? Why are the alarming predictions of an ageing population – and the deleterious effects that will have on the city’s economy – not been highlighted? It really does look as though the process is charging off in the wrong direction and is gaining a momentum all of itself. The final stages will almost certainly focus on procedural points not on the substance.
It looks as though the process is too far advanced for a change of direction so truly ‘we are where we are’.
-
Democracy Café
There will be our usual DC this morning, Saturday 13th August starting at 10:00 am as usual at 29 Brown Street Salisbury and finishing at noon. Well there wasn’t. A small handful of people turned up and after a quarter of an hour, we called it a day. Hot weather, several people away or on holiday, meant it did not happen.
We shall be back in September when hopefully, the weather is kinder so we hope to see you then.
PC
-
Salisbury City Plan
Welcome if you have come here from seeing a letter concerning the Salisbury City Council Neighbourhood Development Plan (SCCNDP) in the Salisbury Journal (Let citizens have the say (sic) 4 August 2022). The letter expressed disappointment that the Council has decided not to use a Citizens’ Assembly to help prepare such plan. We have tried on several occasions to interest them in this process but so far without success. So what is it all about? It’s how do you go about devising a plan such as the SCCNDP and come up with something which is meaningful, grounded in some evidence, achievable and faces up to the situation Salisbury finds itself in. We believe that the best way to deal with complex issues such as this in the public realm is by using a Citizens’ Assembly.
A lot of work has gone into the plan and there are elements discussing shopfront designs, a strategic environment assessment, a Churchfields master plan (you can’t say they aren’t brave), housing analysis, and a community survey report among others. SCC has to be commended for this work that has gone into this. There are lots of charts, and coloured diagrams. But having ploughed through report after report, chart after chart and photo after photo several omissions are evident:
- There is no kind of analysis of where Salisbury sits in terms of other competing commercial centres. Are we doing better than them or worse? Our level of voids is slightly above the national average which, for a prosperous southern city, should surely be a bit of a worry. The City does not exist in isolation and people are free to travel for their shopping or entertainment to other centres. What does the City have to do to attract visitors? Things like the range and quality of restaurants is not mentioned for example.
- A huge amount of effort has gone into environmental and design issues which one could hardly argue with. But what are they designed to do? What is the purpose of the proposals? A researcher with the Institute of Government says “quick wins on making town centres look nicer are not a long-term fix”. Having nice shopfronts is desirable of course but is it sufficient to enable Salisbury to compete with other centres? I could not find any such argument to support the plan.
- They have also spent money – quite a lot of it by the length of the report – on a Community Survey Report by Community First in Devizes. Astonishingly, the report almost fails from page 8 where it notes that over half the respondents were over 60! It then claims that it is ‘broadly evenly split in terms of gender’ before telling us that 57% were female and 42% were male. A new meaning to ‘evenly split’ I feel. The highest proportion was in the ’69-69′ age group apparently (sic). You cannot claim such an unbalanced set of people can give you anything much meaningful in terms of policy especially in terms of the needs of young people. No conclusions are drawn, there is no executive summary and there are no recommendations.
- A lot of time has been spent in asking people what they want and needless to say you get responses which are extremely aspirational. Of course people want to protect the environment, who doesn’t? But will they give up their 4x4s to achieve any of this wish list?
- More money has been spent with an American consulting firm AECOM who have spent a lot of time analysing a range of sites in Salisbury from the point of view of how they might be developed sustainably. Again, all very fine but isn’t it putting the cart before the horse?
- I could find no mention of Brexit. Whether you are a Remainer or a Brexiter, the effects of leaving the EU cannot be denied either way. Yet there is no analysis of its negative effects or any opportunities there might be.
All in all, a great deal of time and quite a lot of money has been spent on producing suggested plan after suggested plan without much in the way of cogent analysis of what the City needs to survive. Take the Profile report. Largely descriptive with some history thrown in, it is a kind of ramble around the city educational establishments and infrastructure with the odd random suggestion thrown in such as we need ‘to find means of encouraging innovation’ and we need a ‘well-connected and reliable transport system’ and other such bromides. Since the lack of any such integration has been around for decades, what chance is there achieving anything now or in the immediate future? What powers does the City Council have to achieve any such integration, desirable though it no doubt is? It ends with a collection of foreign town centre photos.
Having identified ‘finding means of encouraging innovation’ as a goal, one such area is science and technology and links to universities. A page or two later there is this paragraph: ‘Salisbury does not possess a university and given its population size and its proximity to four universities within 25 miles it is unlikely to however the science based industries located in or around the city may make it attractive to universities wishing to locate departments or faculties’. Perhaps it is intended at a later date to encourage a university to locate such a facility here.
Demographic effects
The Housing Needs Assessment identifies the imbalance in Salisbury’s housing stock and the need for more social/affordable housing and calculates that there is a need for 1,512 such units over the plan period. It discusses the difficulty of achieving this with developers unwilling to provide them and planning inspectors unlikely to support more forceful planning policies. Powerful developers can bring in expensive surveyors and get affordable housing provision removed or reduced which LPAs are largely powerless to defend. But the key element of the report, and something which will have a profound effect on the plan policy as a whole, is the analysis of the city’s aging population. In short it refers to a ‘dramatic shift in demographics expected in the future: an 85.6% increase in those aged 65 and above‘ and that ‘the elderly population will be 14 times the size of Salisbury’s younger population by 2036‘. The recommendations in the report are bland and of limited utility.
This is dramatic stuff. Such an imbalance will have significant consequences for the economy. Tarting up shopfronts and planting more trees will not matter if the population becomes more and more elderly. Trying to attract a university faculty to set up will be made much more difficult if there aren’t the young people and limited places for them to live. It will affect spending patterns, the ‘night time economy’ and more and more care homes will be needed. There will be economic impacts with reduced spending, increasing pressure on infrastructure, and what experts term ‘increased dependency’. It is probably true to say this fact alone will be the dominant consideration in the next few years. Yet this potentially explosive fact is hidden somewhat in one of the reports.
Citizens’ Assembly
Would an assembly have produced a better result? We would say ‘yes’ of course so we need to say why. Firstly, as we have noted above, if you produce a community report based on an unbalanced and mainly elderly pool of people, you’re going to get an unbalanced result. A CA would properly select a group of people demographically and socially balanced. There is an organisation which would do this for us.
Secondly, the discussions would be informed by experts. Such experts might suggest for example, what are the important factors in developing a city economically beyond something of an obsession with the environment. Consideration might have been given to looking at Salisbury’s relationships with competing centres of retail and leisure in the vicinity – what are we good at, what needs to improve. Participants would have an opportunity to debate and discuss in detail the elements of a plan not asked to read a collection of unconnected documents. Finally, one would also hope that the process would lead towards the elements of a strategy: where to start and where spend needs to be focused to achieve a realistic outcome. This must be better than expecting people to plough through pages of unconnected reports.
Policy options from promised legislation also seemed to have been overlooked. The current issue of The Planner* (pp 24 – 27) suggests various policy changes which could be of use in this exercise. For example the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) may introduce rental auctions to enable local authorities to lease a shop which has been empty for at least 366 days. Since Salisbury has slightly above the national average of empty shops, this would be of great value. Easier Compulsory Purchase Orders may also be introduced. These and other proposals may become law in the plan period and are worth considering now.
Of course, we wish SCC well with this exercise while lamenting a missed opportunity for a more in-depth approach. Most of the responses they have received so far are either ‘satisfied’ or ‘happy’ however, although few who have responded to the detailed reports. The results will go to WC as the LPA thence to an inspector and finally, maybe, a referendum.
*Street and Level, Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, August 2022
Peter Curbishley
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 