Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Author: welland2

  • Selecting the new prime minister

    Is the current system fit for purpose?

    To which, many would answer ‘no’. The prime minister is the prime minister for the whole country. Although he or she is the leader of the party able to form a government, they are running the country as a whole for the benefit of the all the people. Yet the selection process starts with only Conservative MPs making the choice.

    I am sure we can all be confident that the MPs are doing that on the disinterested basis of who might be the best candidate to carry out that extremely important role. There may be some however, just some, who are voting for the candidate who has promised them preferment in some form: maybe even that treasured cabinet post with its car and chauffeur. That is a choice based on personal ambition not on who might be best for the country.

    Next comes the vote of the Conservative membership. A self-selected group of trusty souls who live mostly in the south or home counties: around 200,000 of them it seems (since membership of the party has dropped dramatically over the years). How many will have experienced the effects of policies carried out by their party? They read about them in the papers and see interviews with various folk but direct experience? Limited.

    And how about the selection process itself with the candidate interviews on television? A great deal of the first session on Channel 4 was taken up with trust issues. A rather pointless exercise in my view which seemed to lead nowhere. Then there were the spats about tax reductions or no tax reductions. Setting aside the nonsense as I have argued elsewhere, that it is a myth that we are automatically better off with lower taxes if services are reduced or are non-existent: the arguments themselves were no more than cursory. It was almost pantomimic ‘oh yes you can!’ ‘oh no you can’t!’ they cried – all that was missing was someone to cry out ‘look behind you’. Only Sunak stood out reasonably well as someone who seemed to know what was actually possible.

    In the week when temperature records were broken – and not by just a fraction of a degree – it was chilling to listen to their desire to carry on with fossil fuels.

    So we will have just Conservative MPs selecting the two candidates, from an altogether lacklustre field, who will go forward to the final vote of a tiny and extremely unrepresentative part of the kingdom.

    And, a factor that does not seem to have occurred yet to the commentariat, is the continuing presence of Johnson. Like a wounded beast, raging but not yet dead, he will be a continuing presence on the backbenches. As a narcissist, he does not, and will not, have any grasp or acceptance of his role in what is to come. As the new PM struggles with the mounting and quite frightening crises which lie ahead, he will be there to jeer and be a focus of discontent. ‘What have you done?’ cries the Mail. Others, such as supporters sent to the backbenches with him will say the same before too long. Neither Sunak, with his history of curious tax arrangements, who will have a great deal of difficulty showing that he has any kind of understanding of how ordinary people live, nor Truss who will quite simply be out of her depth and I think, is a bit delusional, will be able to rise to the challenges. They will also have a great deal of difficulty in distancing themselves from the policies which have led us here and which they so vociferously supported all these past years.

    Locally, John Glen MP is supporting Rishi Sunak and he is another one who has relentlessly supported government policies and paraded that support week in and week out in the Salisbury Journal, who must now try and pirouette to a completely new position. What were they debating on Channel 4? Ah yes – trust, that was it.

    Altogether, it is simply no way to run a country or to select its leader. Every element of the chain has serious weaknesses and shortcomings. In all the press and media excitement and breathless interviews, it is sometimes difficult to see the overall picture of a failed system guaranteed to produce a failed result. It is just not a way to select our new leader.

    Peter Curbishley

    CORRECTION: There are 160,000 Conservative members, not 200,000 as stated above. Apologies for the error. PC

    UPDATE: Liz Truss was appointed Prime Minister on 7 September 2022

    [A personal view not necessarily reflecting the wider membership of SDA]

  • Democracy Café: July

    Meeting of the Democracy Café, July 2022

    This meeting was held following the week in which Boris Johnson was forced to resign as prime minister of Great Britain and the start of the selection process for a new PM. The final straw was the revelations about Chris Pincher, the deputy chief whip, and when and how much the prime minister knew of his unwelcome groping of other men. Johnson was found to have lied about the matter and this prompted a series of resignations which rapidly grew to a flood resulting in his departure, although he was still in Downing Street as we speak, and he had formed a new cabinet. The uncertainty surrounding his departure led to the first question we debated: Do we need a written constitution? This is not the first time we have debated this.

    Peter Hennessy, a writer on the UK political scene, called our system the ‘good chaps’ model, a kind of echo of Victorian times when gentlemen ran things and there were rules – some unwritten – about they were to behave honourably. This point was made along with the point that one problem with a written constitution was that changing it was difficult. Ireland has such a constitution and they have been able to change it so perhaps it is possible. Mary Dejevsky, writing in the Independent, has argued recent events demonstrate that reliance on the gentlemanly way of running things was no longer tenable and that we needed a written constitution.

    The point was made however, that we did have a wide range of rules and procedures governing behaviour, including precedent, but if they were to be brought together who got to decide? If it was parliament then they are likely to do it to suit themselves.

    We were brought up short by the question: what is the purpose of a constitution, written or otherwise? Later in the debate the question, what problem does a written constitution solve? I suppose it is fair to say we circled these questions in our debate. We were reminded that we do have a constitution of sorts and that is Magna Carta. Later we had the Great Reform Act. The same speaker noted that Germany’s constitution was written by the Allies after the war. Chile was given as an example and the country, post Pinochet, is engaged in constitutional reform following a period of unrest. Consultations, rather like citizens’ assemblies, have taken place with a wide range of groups including minorities and native Americans. It is about to finish and to be voted on by the people.

    Other influences were discussed. These included the old favourite, the media, but also the judiciary and the role of a small group of public schools. If we do have a written constitution, who will police it? The Judges? Apart from the fact they are drawn from a very narrow section of society, who appoints them? They could rule on what was legal, but not necessarily the right thing which was more a matter of judgement. It was noted that Russia has a constitution but it has effectively been ignored by Putin. The media, as we have discussed on many times before, wield enormous power yet are run in the main by individuals who live abroad. It is they who inform the people so it is vital that this duty is carried out as fairly as possible and that the information they provide is as honest and balanced as possible. Are they doing that? Any system – written or otherwise – would require a well informed citizenry.

    On this point, it was said that it would be important that any such constitution was available for schools, by implication that it would be written in a plain fashion and jargon free. Someone with young children said they were looking at surveys on line which asked questions about their beliefs and ideas on various issues of the day. This then suggested a political party which most fitted those beliefs. Encouraging, and a shift away from just looking at personalities.

    Human rights should be at the heart of any constitution, a sensitive issue at present with the government bent on abolishing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights. This point was not really pursued.

    Finally, we got onto discussing the role of the monarch. After a discussion about King Charles who had argued he could not be tried for treason since he was the king (so could not commit treason against himself I think was the point), we got onto the role of the current Queen in the light of the events of this week. Some commentators had apparently opined that Her Majesty should not be ‘dragged into’ the row over Johnson’s will he/won’t he? shenanigans this week. What then was the point of the monarch? Why have one when it could be argued, there was a pressing need for some kind of final arbiter?

    In the second half we moved on to our second question which was the psychology of leadership. It turned out to be closely linked to the first debate. It started naturally enough, with the question of Johnson’s personality. People voted it was said, for politicians like Johnson, who had charisma: the word ‘machismo’ was mentioned. Keir Starmer’s problem was that people thought he lacked it.

    This led to a general discussion about personality. To sum up this point, people simply voted for people with a likeable personality. They were not turned on by ‘men in grey suits’ (interesting – we do not have a phrase ‘women in grey skirts’). It was also noted that Johnson was lucky in his opponents: Corbyn and Livingstone.

    There has also been a move towards TV debates which favoured those who were good at this kind of activity (products of Oxford University perhaps where they have a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons). But were they the right people to run things? A highly regarded prime minister was Clem Atlee for example would have been extremely unlikely to get anywhere near No: 10 in today’s climate of celebrity politicians yet was an extremely effective and highly regarded prime minister.

    At this point the idea of psychometric testing was introduced. This led onto a discussion of teams and the point that a good team has a variety of personality types. There are various models and tests surrounding this to establish an individuals best place in a team according to their personality.

    Various disasters in the armed services had led to a thorough appraisal of leadership and a variety of tests and training to determine leadership skills. Young recruits for example are given various tasks in a group to see how they perform and one of the centres is based in Westbury.

    Back to our parliamentary system and the difference is immediately obvious. An MP is selected, not on leadership skills or how they would perform in a team but on how they performed in front of a selection panel. That was often influenced by whether the candidate was seen to be ‘one of us’. Once in parliament they might be selected to become minister following, in some cases, a brief period of ‘training’ as a PPS. There was no training offered for this ministerial role and it is immediately apparent that many individuals are simply not up to the task. Indeed, many who were appointed did so on the basis of their loyalty to the leader not necessarily on their abilities or relevant experience. Since many MPs nowadays were career politicians and many never have had what might be referred to as a ‘real job’, there was precious little of that experience anyway. Is it any surprise then we get the results we do? It’s a wonder it’s not worse in fact. Why cannot the system sort out ‘flaky’ people someone ruefully asked?

    Will there be a reaction to the cult of personality following the departure of Johnson? There were many angry people on both sides of the political divide.

    We ended with a comment by the journalist Peter Oborne who, speaking at an event in Salisbury some years ago, was asked about Johnson and his reply was ‘he is not a team player’. Greg Dyke was quoted as saying he would ‘not allow [Johnson] to run my bath’.

    Two interesting discussions broadly about how our country is run. We have a hotchpotch of a system based on the concept of good chaps who do the right thing when appropriate. Recent events tested this to the limit so maybe we do need some kind of constitution. The people who run it are not selected on their management or team skills but on loyalty to the party and to its leader. There is precious little training in ‘how to be a minister’. Three dysfunctional bits add up to a dysfunctional whole.

    Peter Curbishley

    Readers might like to read the book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman (Atlantic Books, 2019) which gives an interesting and quite sympathetic picture of an MP’s life.

  • Democracy Café: June

    Numbers were a bit down for this meeting which is probably to be expected on a nice June day. It didn’t inhibit our discussion however which was on the topic of should there be a different way of selecting our prime minister? This referred to the votes by members of the Conservative party on whether to keep Boris Johnson as their prime minister following the magic number of MPs who had submitted letters to Sir Graham Brady and the vote of no confidence in him.

    The point made by the proposer was that the prime minister represented all of us and was the prime minister of the country as a whole. Should it just be left to, in this case Conservative MPs, many of whose futures depended on party patronage or who were on what is termed the ‘payroll vote’ that is were part of the government in some form? The example was given of John Glen, the Salisbury MP and a Treasury minister, who claimed in the Salisbury Journal that he had ‘no discretion’ in the matter. This puzzled some as it was a secret vote.

    Some alternative suggestions were made and discussed including allowing the public to sue or involving the court system generally. People were not generally impressed by this partly because of its cumbersome nature and, who selects the judges? It was pointed out that the House of Commons as a whole can have a vote of no confidence which is likely to lead to the prime minister resigning and even the fall of the government. It was also pointed out that Boris Johnson is still very popular with the public and that many think that ‘partygate’ has been overdone. Many liked his style of leadership which was itself a worry. Involving the public in prime ministerial appointments brought us dangerously close to being a presidential system. We didn’t get the normal response of ‘do you want to have a president Blair?’ at that point but someone did quietly mutter ‘Donald Trump’ which serves as a terrible warning (Trump I mean although …).

    People still felt the current system intolerable but quite what to do about it was less clear. The role of the media (as ever) came into the discussion and their role in influencing public opinion either way. Big money interests support the Conservatives on the whole it was said.

    A general question was posed at this point: how do you select a leader of any group or organisation? Who selected whom should be the facilitator of this very meeting? If we didn’t like him how would we go about changing him? A profound question.

    We moved on to talk about the parliamentary situation as a whole and in particular the current two party system. Although ‘first past the post’ was not specifically mentioned, it was the point behind the comment that the winner takes all process encourages people who can cope with it. Those who might be more collaborative in their approach are discouraged by the party warfare – or should I say warfare between the parties. The two party system was thought not suitable for today’s world it was thought.

    A quirk of the system about voting for the prime minister was that it would only be the voters of Uxbridge and South Ruislip who get to vote for him (or not) in a general election.

    Towards the end of this session, the point that most politicians are not in it for the money was made (although this had not been suggested or inferred).

    Part two of the session moved on to whether at the local level, politicians should not be aligned to a national party. Salisbury was slightly unusual in having a party system – other councils in the area for example Wilton, weren’t. That we do was at the behest of Labour and LibDem leaders it was claimed.

    One of the advantages of people standing with a party label is that the public knew broadly what they stood for. It was a kind of short hand for their likely beliefs. On the other hand, it is likely to lead to assumptions by the public about how a politician will vote which might not always be true. It was also suggested that it also encouraged people to vote. Whether this was the case was challenged with the example of Frome in Somerset where a non-party approach had led to an increase in voter participation.

    It was pointed out that a great deal of council expenditure was determined by government policy and spending limits. Much expenditure was non-discretionary, social services and highways for example. The degree of discretionary expenditure was relatively small and declining: reductions in the support grants also imposed restrictions. One of the councillors present said that in fact most of his fellow councillors across parties, wanted the same sort of things but the disagreements were more about how.

    The second part, which touched on the same sort of areas, was the suggestion that Wiltshire should be split into two counties, north of the plain and south of it. The two halves of the county were very different (the saying ‘as different as chalk and cheese’ referred the two farming types in the county). The two parts looked to different areas: the north more towards Bath and Bristol and the south towards Southampton and Winchester. People living near the borders between counties often lost out because of the postcode lottery. There has always been a simmering resentment in Salisbury that Trowbridge was remote and that they was overlooked. However, it was noted that people in the north of the county similarly resented what they saw as Salisbury getting a bigger slice of the cake, so where did the truth lie?

    Those who wanted something like the District Council back were less keen to have social care back as well it was said.

    Why was voting for, and interest in, local government so low? One answer was that people often do not understand its importance. Well, couldn’t councils do more to explain it better? It was pointed out that some councillors had established surgeries to which no one came. When there was a local issue then perhaps then it was appropriate for councillors to engage with electors.

    Both topics shared a sense of frustration with the political system both national and local. For some, the failure of Boris Johnson to resign was outrageous although, as was noted, many thought the whole story was overblown and they were happy with his performance. The system relied on basic integrity and once that failed, the flaws in our uncodified system became all too evident. Many people were disengaged with local politics and part of this was a lack of understanding of its importance and the limitations on its powers.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Talkshop – news

    Meeting held yesterday to take forward the Talkshop discussion

    A couple of Saturdays ago we held our first Talkshop in Salisbury which was very well attended. The discussion was lively and one of the topics to take forward from the ideas suggested was to form an Eco Hub (working title – it may change). This would be a place, possibly, where those interested in tackling the climate emergency could meet, exchange ideas or discuss this extremely important topic.

    The sub group met yesterday evening and 16 attended to begin to flesh out some ideas about how this might be taken forward. One ideas is for a stall in the market place which could take place once a month say. Other ideas were discussed and further work will now take place to put together some proposals and a business plan.

    Watch this space.

    PC

  • Successful Talkshop held!

    A successful Talkshop was held on Saturday 21 May on the subject of climate

    UPDATE 7 June 2022: a meeting is to be held this Thursday 9th June at 29 Brown St to discuss how to take the idea of an Eco Hub forward.

    A press release about our successful event was sent to the Salisbury Journal but they have declined to publish it in two editions of the paper.

    This was the first such event the Alliance has held and we are naturally delighted it went so well. Nearly 30 attended and there was lively conversation throughout the morning. The event came about as a cheaper means to contribute to the climate debate than the Citizens’ Assembly idea which we are still pursuing.

    Participants were divided into groups of half a dozen or so and issued with cards describing successful schemes established elsewhere in the country and some in USA. These were discussed and each table selected three they felt worth pursuing. We then walked around and looked at all the table’s suggestions and after discussion, formed two, new groups to take things forward.

    The most popular suggestion, attracting great interest, was the idea of an Eco Hub for the city. Essentially, a place where ideas can be discussed and exchanged as well as other more tangible ideas such as an Eco Café. A working group has been formed and will meet in a few weeks to discuss how the idea can be taken forward and made flesh.

    Another group discussed a series of linked ideas to make abandoned spaces into places where wildflowers can grow, trees planted or vegetables grown. It might be part of the Eco Hub in future.

    We must thank the RSA for their help in formulating the event and providing the rubric. We must also thank 29 Brown Street for providing the venue. More will be published about this as time goes by so watch this space. We were delighted that a Member from Salisbury City Council was there and took an active part in the proceedings.

    Pictures showing outside of 29 Brown Street and the Talkshop event about to start. Pictures: SDA

    Peter Curbishley

    UPDATE: 14 June 2022. This is the unpublished press release sent to the Salisbury Journal.

    SALISBURY Democracy Alliance held a successful Talkshop event at 29 Brown Street last week after which plans to form an Eco Hub were agreed. A Talkshop is a relatively new idea involving ordinary people in decision making and is a way of doing democracy differently.

    About 30 people attended and were given cards describing a range of successful environment projects which have been established in the UK and around the world. These were discussed in groups and two were finally selected. One is to establish an Eco Hub which will host practical projects and also to provide a meeting place for ideas and discussion. The second project discussed a series of linked ideas to make abandoned space into places where wildflowers can grow, trees to be planted or vegetables grown.

    Cllr John Wells, Chair of the City Council’s Environment and Climate Committee said “I was delighted to attend this event and found the ideas and discussion stimulating and interesting. I look forward to working with the Hub on projects relevant to the Council’s policies.”

    The Alliance were helped by the RSA, the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce who provided much useful advice.

    Mark Potts, Chair of SDA said ” we were delighted with how the event turned out and it was gratifying to see so many people engaged in eager debate about this important topic.” A meeting has been arranged between several of those present to take these ideas forward.

  • Future meetings

    We must apologise to those of you who have sent messages and have not received an answer. The menu field used to have a red spot to alert us to a message but for reasons unknown, it has stopped so we were not aware of people writing in. Apologies.

    Nearly all were asking ‘were we meeting’ and the answer is ‘yes’ and we are doing so at 29 Brown St in Salisbury. The Democracy Café meets at 10:00 on the second Saturday of the month so the next meeting is on June 11th. If things change then we will post something here as quickly as we can. With summer coming (brilliant sunshine as I type this) we are meeting outside but we can repair inside if it become inclement.

    This Saturday 21st May we are holding our first Talkshop event so you need to register quickly if you want to come. Details in a previous post.

  • Democracy Café, May 2022

    Report of the Democracy Café which took place at 29 Brown Street, Salisbury on Saturday 14 May 2022

    In the usual way, members suggested topics for discussion and then voted on which they preferred.

    The first topic to be discussed was “A United Ireland?” – is the possibility of a united North and South of Ireland in the near future a prospect that should be greeted or feared?  The view of most members was that there was little to be said for the state of Northern Ireland continuing as it is, now that Sinn Fein has become the largest party in the North.  There was discussion of the colonial basis of the Unionist settlement and a feeling that unification was inevitable eventually.  The success of the Alliance Party was encouraging in indicating a move away from the old sectarianism, but members cautioned that the religious divide had not gone away. Implications for the UK as a whole were also debated.

    Changes in the South have also been beneficial to the tendency to unity, as the power of the Catholic church has lessened, and the fear of the Protestants in the North of becoming second-class citizens has faded. Their continuing desire to be seen as British was still a source of puzzlement, although an emotional attachment to the UK was recognised.  What happened to the Protestants in the South after 1921?  Some left for England and elsewhere but many stayed and seem not to be a second class community in the Republic. 

    One of the encouraging factors some thought were the attitudes of young people who were born after ’the troubles’ and the Good Friday agreement.  Joint education is important and a move away from sectarian schooling should be welcomed.

    Members also debated what was the actual contribution of NI to the UK, and what would be lost if it left.  The feeling was that the effect would be marginal.

    The second topic under discussion was “Is war (particularly the Ukrainian conflict) all about propaganda?”  The proposer was struck by the claims of the Ukrainian head of military intelligence that the war would be over by the end of the year, there would be a coup in Russia, and that Russian might was a myth.  This was reported with little indication that the claims were questionable, so is the Ukrainian side as guilty of propagandising as the Russian?  Scepticism was expressed at the detail level in the Ukrainian claims of military hardware destroyed.

    When war is declared, truth is the first casualty.  Attributed to Samuel Johnson

    It was noted that, certainly in Russia, the propaganda is directed at the home audience.  On the other side, the Ukrainians have a very good propaganda machine, which has encouraged them to fight harder.

    The observation was made that it depends who is speaking.  Propaganda has nothing to do with the truth, although it might contain truth.  But the information has to be believable, which implies an element of truth, unlike with a conspiracy theory.  How one weighs the individual items of information one is fed is problematic.  We were reminded that the word itself derived from the Italian and the propagation of (Catholic) faith.  It’s modern meaning assumed that it was at best one sided.

    It was noted that in war it is highly likely that even the top military will not know what is going on, so truth is not always easy to find.

    It was commented that it was only possible to validate much of the claims with modern technology; without it the debate we were having would have been impossible.

    As a positive conclusion, the debate moved to discussing the trend for young people to not have any truck with party propaganda while remaining politically aware.

    For those with an interest in this can follow the course run by Future Learn on this topic. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/propaganda

    Andrew Hemming

    This post has had 3 likes

  • Tackling the Climate Emergency

    Past event
    Event Run by the RSA and Salisbury Democracy Alliance  

    A Climate Emergency has been declared by Salisbury City Council and they are looking for local people to come up with ways of addressing it. We invite you to this event where you will find out what other cities are doing and have the opportunity to come up with ideas that could work in Salisbury or build on what is already here. The resources that we will be using and the methodology have been provided by Talkshop (www.talkshop.org), one of the partners of Salisbury Democracy Alliance. This is a golden opportunity to contribute to an important debate.

    Saturday 21st May 10.00 – 12.30 (Doors open at 9.30)

    29 Brown Street, Salisbury

    This event is being run by the Salisbury RSA Network and Salisbury Democracy Alliance (the same body that runs the regular Democracy Cafe here at Brown Street, part of The Chapel venue).  The SDA website is www.salisburydemocracyalliance.org. The Salisbury RSA website is https://www.thersa.org/fellowship/get-involved/rsa-networks/salisbury-network

    Places are limited and in order to book in to the event go to: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/tackling-the-climate-emergency-tickets-315205386797

    UPDATE: 5 May. Still a small number of places left.

  • Democracy Café

    The next session of the successful Democracy Café will be tomorrow Saturday, 9 April, 2022 starting at 10:00 for 2 hours (with a break). Attendance is free but if you can drop a groat or two into our collecting bins that would be appreciated. Also avail yourself of a drink of coffee or whatever as the host lets us use the facility for free – it all helps. It’s at 29 Brown St (the old Alzheimer building).

    We are moving forward with our plans to hold a Talkshop in May and no doubt there will be an update at the meeting.

  • Democracy Café: March 2022

    Just over 20 people attended the café in Brown Street with a handful on line via Zoom. Better microphoning improved matters but there were still a few technical hitches. The meeting took place about two weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this issue popped up several times during our debate.

    The first topic was about gender balance and should there be more balance in our national institutions? A common theme emerged in the discussion was that of culture. For example, the first point to be made is that two of our cabinet ministers at present are Priti Patel and Liz Truss, neither of who inspire much in the way of confidence. Indeed, Patel is under fire at present because of her dilatory approach to Ukrainian refugees, few of whom are able to make it to the UK. Do we want more women like this? The riposte was immediate: we are quick to criticise poorly performing female cabinet ministers but what about failing or inadequate male cabinet ministers? One thinks of the dismal performance of the past education secretary who has recently been knighted and what about ‘failing Grayling?’ Secondly, who appointed them but, a man, namely Boris Johnson. The culture point however was that men created a system which leads to people like Truss and Patel. This was not developed but it was implied that women who succeed in these roles have to assume male characteristics and behaviours to do so. The overall (poor) quality of our politicians was noted.

    It was argued that one of the key differences was the differing life experiences between men and women. It meant those in power – predominantly men – simply do not have the experience or personal knowledge of what it is like to be female in our male dominated society. Issues of safety in our streets, being out at night, the attitudes of police towards women and so forth were unknown to them. It applied to those with disabilities and people of colour it was noted. However, what about Margaret Thatcher? When she was made prime minister, it was widely thought she would bring a female perspective to the role but the opposite was the case. No woman was appointed to her cabinet and she took little interest in social issues although she never quite said ‘there is no such thing as society’. The issue of better involvement and decision making was part of SDA’s desire to have a Citizen’s Assembly in Salisbury and the Maltings development, Fisherton Street and the Library were cases in point.

    Back to Priti Patel and co, the point was made that women had to work a lot harder to get anywhere. The discussion moved onto women’s role in childcare which was generally different although the point was made that more men were giving up careers if their wives or partners were doing well. It meant that when they (women) re-entered the workforce after their children had grown up they had had less experience of outside activities (and thus were disadvantaged I think was the point). The need for more, and more affordable, childcare was emphasised the absence of which was a real impediment to women (mostly) being able to integrate into the workforce.

    Someone with a background in education said that men were largely missing from primary school teaching. This led onto a discussion about women being more about nurturing, but, it was counter argued, wasn’t this more about culture than some intrinsic gender difference? It was assumed to be so therefore it came to be. The younger generation have different attitudes and are generally more flexible about these supposed roles. Another view was that it all went back to hunter-gatherer days when men were the ‘protectors’ and although it wasn’t quite clear protection from what: one assumes it was wild beasts. Some women might feel that now wolves and bears have gone it’s men they need protecting from …

    Baboon behaviour was put forward to challenge our views of gender stereotypes. Apparently, male baboons establish positions around the outside of the flange whereas the females cluster in the centre. But, when real danger appears, the male baboons run away whereas the females fight to the death. As if by chance, a new book has just been published entitled: Bitch: A Revolutionary Guide to Sex, Evolution and the Female Animal by Lucy Cooke published by Doubleday. The Guardian review ended by quoting the author saying ‘Much of the distorted science [we] have been taught was shaped by the values of a certain kind of man. To change that … we need more diverse scientists: “a mixture of sexes, sexualities, genders, skin colours, classes, cultures, abilities and ages”. ‘Only then, it seems, will we be able to see the female experience in nature for what it is: “variable, highly plastic”, and “refusing to conform to archaic classifications”. Issue 24, 12 March 2022.

    There were many during the course of the discussion who doubted whether there were great differences between males and females. A lot of it was a kind of cultural overlay: women’s roles were set out for them, how they should behave, what they should wear and what they should do: ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ for example. Women then had to conform to these norms and stereotypes which had then become self-fulfilling. Women should stay at home and look after the children which meant that they were suited to nurturing: basically a circular argument. Meanwhile men were off fighting those pesky wolves and bears. I hope this is a fair summary of what people felt.

    Part two was a discussion around Ukraine and the effects on nationalism. Parallels with the World Wars was obvious. Powerful anti-German feelings were evident in both wars with German homes and businesses attacked as if all Germans were complicit. It was noted that all Germans (in Germany) had to tread carefully once the Nazis came to power – it was more or less obligatory to join the Hitler Youth for example.

    It did seem though that so far at least, people were distinguishing between ordinary Russians and President Putin. Russians were not all being tarred with the same brush. The attacks on Germans during the wars was not being repeated. It was recognised that Russians were largely being kept in the dark because of the tight media and internet control exercised by the regime. The wildly improbable narrative that Ukraine is being led by a Nazi regime was nevertheless believed by many Russians apparently.

    The interesting point was made that sanctions will be hurting ordinary Russians whereas the effects on the elite will not occur for some time.

    Back to the question: isn’t the Ukraine war making us more international in our outlook? It had stiffened NATO, Finland and Sweden were both considering joining and the UK was aligning itself closely with Europe. Whatever happened to Brexit?

    The point was powerfully made about what exactly is a ‘Nation’? Just considering that part of the world, borders have changed over the past 100 years. Poland has moved east and then west, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had gone altogether and whatever happened to Prussia? Czechoslovakia had been created and was no more. Millions lived in countries who spoke languages other than the national language: Polish was spoken in west Ukraine for example. The idea of a nation as some kind of fixed immutable entity was a nonsense. They were like lines drawn on a beach, when the tide of history came in, they were no more.

    It was noted that Russia had never (in recent times) been successfully invaded although they had suffered terrible privations, as in the siege of Leningrad. Ukraine on the other hand, still had memories of the German invasion. Ukraine also suffered a terrible famine purposely engineered by Stalin. Russia also think it was they who won the second World War which they call the great patriotic war. Someone said we need to do more to understand Putin’s standpoint.

    The discussion moved onto refugees which in an eerie way took us back to Priti Patel. Other European nations were welcoming refugees with open arms whereas the UK is … not. There were some who doubted whether they were still proud to be British. Even the Daily Mail is criticising the government although we do have to note that the paper has spent years and thousands of column inches reviling refugees and immigrants.

    A three stage response was suggested 1. fight or flight 2. us and them and 3. thinking about ethical values.

    Finally, and certainly hopefully, was the question, are young people less nationalistic? The answer seemed to be an emphatic ‘yes’ and instances were quoted of various offspring who had married people from other countries and that this was not seen as exceptional.

    Two interesting discussions and a recurrent theme was the differing attitudes between the generations which should give us hope for the future.

    Peter Curbishley