Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Author: welland2

  • Maltings site

    Maltings site sold for redevelopment – but what now?

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance has argued for some time now that with big decisions facing the city, employing the Citizens’ Assembly technique should be considered. We have tried to get the concept incorporated into party manifestos – with some success – but with the proposal to go ahead with the redevelopment of the Maltings, it is looking as though the opportunity to employ the technique with this project is slipping by. That would be a pity.

    The idea of a CA is to convene a carefully and demographically selected group of local people to come together over three weekends and, advised by a range of experts, to consider a problem in depth. What to do with the Maltings and the relocation of the Library would be an ideal project. The advantages would include proper involvement of local people in the project, an absence of any political posturing and ideas and recommendations put forward which have been properly considered.

    It contrasts with what is likely to happen at the Maltings. The sale to Catella APAM already begins to limit the likely options for redevelopment. A quick look on their webpage shows that they are a property company who do a lot of the early development to enable a scheme to be sold on to investors. Nothing wrong in that but their focus will be on viability and making a return. That’s their business. Since Salisbury is not ‘prime’ in property terms it is likely to mean that the returns will be have to be a little higher to sell the project to investors.

    What is striking in the Salisbury Journal article (Council leader’s vision for future as Maltings site is sold, March 3, 2022) is actually the absence of any vision. The quote: ‘Despite “nothing specific” tabled for the area right now, Cllr Clewer added, “I’m sure Catella has its own ideas for the site, we need to understand what it wants to do taking this forward and we look forward to working with them” more or less sums it up (my italics). It will be Catella deciding on what it wants for the site. If the quote is accurate, it represents a depressing state of affairs where, without any clear vision for the site or proper consideration of Salisbury’s wider shopping and recreation needs – and certainly no consultation or input from the citizenry – the site is sold for a property company to basically do what it wants with it.

    So what is likely to happen? Catella will do their analysis of the site and look at rentals and how it can be redeveloped to provide a return likely to be attractive to a future investor. A proposal with a strong commercial emphasis will be put forward and there is likely to be a consultation of some kind at that stage. There will then be several weeks of sturm and drang with letters in the Journal complaining about this and that (‘missed opportunity’ is guaranteed to be said) and Catella may agree to some minor changes. Then to planning and basically it will all be over. Thus an opportunity to think carefully about how the site might be developed to enhance the wider prosperity of the city will have been lost.

    Many years ago, C Northcote Parkinson wrote The Pursuit of Progress, famous for its law about work filling the time available. But he also, if I recall correctly, talked about how council committees would wave through major projects they did not understand but would argue passionately about the bicycle sheds which they did. I don’t wish to be unkind, but I am reminded of this here. This would have been a golden opportunity to set up a Citizens’ Assembly and to develop a vision for the site, a vision where we the citizens would have an input into what could happen. Of course, commercial realities may temper the vision, but simply to sell a key site without any vision and wait for a developer to give you one is, in my view, a very poor show.

    Peter Curbishley

    [These views are not necessarily those of other members of SDA]

  • Democracy Café:

    The Café met in person in Brown Street on 12 February 2022 with a few on line via Zoom as well. Two interesting topics were discussed

    The first topic was ‘Is the Metropolitan Police Service ungovernable?’ This question was prompted by the resignation the previous day of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick who had lost the confidence of the Mayor of London to reform the service. It was quickly noted that she seemed unable to deliver on her promises following a series of scandals the most recent of which were the various sexist, racist and misogynistic remarks and WhatsApp messages to emerge from Charing Cross Police station. The delayed ‘partygate’ investigation in No 10 was another factor.

    There was a wide ranging discussion of the MPS and its role in society. The Met is a ‘mirror of society’ said one and they can only recruit people who represent that society. Are in fact the wrong people getting recruited? This was (therefore) a social problem it was argued not a recruitment one. Since the MPS or any police force, represents the community it polices, it can only reflect that society.

    As to size, if view of the fact that London was a city of 9 million souls, was one force adequate to cope with this? It was difficult for any one person to know what was going on. Was it too close to government? – the delay in investigating the goings on in No 10 might have been a sign of that. The Home Office exerts an influence over the force and someone said (which might qualify as the quote of the day) that it was “law and order by permission of the government” referring perhaps to the recent bills in parliament.

    One pertinent point was the fact that we were outraged by the goings on in the Met was itself a good sign perhaps meaning it showed we cared and that we were free to voice our views. We should maybe remember that many are lucky to emerge alive from police stations in countries like Egypt or Pakistan. It was also noted that in common with other public sector organisations, the MPS had to ‘air its dirty washing in public.’ This meant that any failing in one corner of the organisation would be quickly and widely known.

    This led to a debate about social media (as ever) and that three or four decades ago, a lot of the things we see and read about today would not have appeared. It did not mean that their incidence was increasing, only their visibility, the ‘optics’ as someone referred to them. Once it became widely known, the public then demanded action. Not everyone agreed with this and there was a spirited intervention claiming that incidents of racist, homophobic and misogynistic language and attitudes were rife. ‘Locker room’ banter as it is referred to (with the false impression it was mild in nature) was widespread it was claimed. The Charing Cross incident was not a one off.

    Someone who has worked in the MPS (but not in uniform) said in all the many years he had worked there he had not come across this banter or the attitudes complained of. One problem was the lack of training for the middle ranks – inspectors and the like. It is they who carry through change on the ground and it seemed as though they were not trained to do this. It was all very well for the top people to want to see change but for it to happen, it had to be delivered and it was the middle ranks in between who did this.

    But back to the central question: the governability of the MPS. The problems were emotional and psychological it was argued. On the issue of race for example, the government itself had argued (to much dismay) that institutional racism was not a problem. If it is not admitted then solving it would be a problem. We were in effect asking our police to police our society (meaning its attitudes) – was that possible? Not everything can be criminalised it was noted. Finally, the effects of – indeed the growing effects of – the mental health crisis which meant we were asking our police to look after more and more people with mental health problems.

    The departure of Cressida Dick finished this session which was kind of apposite. It had earlier been suggested that her replacement should not be from the ranks of the police, an outsider in effect*. One thought this a good idea. Referring to the Commissioner, she was it was claimed ‘blind’ to the problems the Met experienced. It was interesting that she did not like the various programmes such as Line of Duty, a hit on the BBC about police corruption. She found the very concept of the programme difficult to accept. However it was suggested, if we vilify our leaders will it not be difficult to recruit new ones?

    Did we answer the problem? Well we thought it was too big a force which is almost certainly right and that is not just big in terms of geography but big in terms of scope of activities. We thought the training of middle ranks was insufficient and that is true of any organisation of size. The rise of social media and mobile phones meant we were more aware of issues which did not mean they were necessarily worse. The service is probably too politically entwined and the Home Office is hardly the last word in openness, efficiency or effectiveness. The politicisation was particularly so with the arrival of PCCs it was noted. So we probably got it mostly right. Is it ungovernable? Not sure we came to a conclusion on that.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg

    The second part of the morning was given to discussing ‘Is the job of Minister for Brexit Opportunities’ a non-job?’ Jacob Rees-Mogg, the holder of said ministerial post, had invited Sun readers to put forward suggestions of Brexit successes. The question occasioned a series of sardonic remarks: should there be a Minister for Refurbishment?’ or one for the ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ or a ‘Minister for Government Entertainment’ (assuming there isn’t one already but with a disguised name). The main question was if there are the opportunities – what need of a minister?

    It was pointed out that the second half of the job description was ‘… and government efficiency‘ which meant the question quickly morphed into a general discussion of government efficiency. There were massive problems with government efficiency (meaning inefficiency) it was argued.

    One opinion forcefully put was that the NHS was not overrun by administrators and several reports suggest that the NHS is far more efficient than most health services around the world and particularly the USA.

    It was pointed out that the government was run by civil servants. Ministers are prone to being reshuffled which clearly has an effect on their motivation and commitment to their particular ministry. Ministers are meant to decide policy, the civil service to carry it out.

    Harold Wilson was mentioned as the last prime minister it was suggested who had a long term vision and the White Heat of Technology was quoted. This was a vision for a decade ahead but unfortunately it did not survive long.

    There was some debate about the quality of ministers and the cabinet. The by now familiar comment was made that far too many senior politicians come straight from university into a think tank or similar organisation, then some kind of parliamentary assistant post before finding a parliamentary seat and onwards to the cabinet. They have no work experience to speak of and little knowledge of ‘real life’ as lived by thousands who will be their constituents. Add in the public school background of many and you have what we have. To get elected it was suggested, it was more important to be popular or a ‘cheeky chappie’ than having a grasp of government, relevant experience or knowledge of the real world. Ministerial appointments were more about promotion, reward and favours rather a grasp of strategic thinking.

    There was some discussion about inequality and JB Priestley’s book ‘English Journey‘ published in 1934 was an early example of someone visiting the deprived areas of Britain. Someone said they had visited the coalfields following the closures and they were truly shocked: abandoned houses, boarded up shops and wrecked miners’ welfares.

    It was then observed that England did not have its own parliament unlike the devolved countries of Wales, Scotland and notionally Northern Ireland. That meant power was too concentrated in Westminster. It was noted however that attempts at devolution and the creation of regional assemblies in England got nowhere. We do need more devolved decision making and subsidiarity. This prompted the question ‘what does it mean to be English?’ Should I be proud to be so?

    Back, as we must, to the question of Jacob Rees-Mogg. Someone thought Brexit was an economic disaster and so opportunities will be hard to find. There should he argued, be an employment benefit now that many foreign workers had left but there was a problem of a skills mismatch. Foreign workers did the mundane tasks and the English did the management. We have now lost that ‘bottom’ layer of people and the home crew are not skilled enough. He might have added they did not like some of the work on offer either.

    We do not of course know what the readers of the Sun will tell Mr Rees-Mogg about the Brexit opportunities which have emerged, but there did seem a lot of discussion about the nature of government and its efficient operation, the second half of his job. The nub of it was the poor quality and narrow – or very limited – experience of those going into parliament and hence onto the government payroll in some form. We wait with bated breath to see what the minister comes up with in that regard.

    Peter Curbishley; Mark Potts

    *Update – it was reported after our debate that the government may well look outside the country for a new Commissioner. Rather like our football teams. PC

  • Meeting

    The Café will be meeting this Saturday, 12 February 2022 starting at 10:00. It will be in our new venue in the former Alzheimer’s building in Brown Street, Salisbury and finishes at noon. Coffee and drinks are available. There will also be a Zoom facility so if you prefer that let us know and we will send you a link.

  • Democracy Café: January 2022

    Sadly, the café had to return to meeting via Zoom

    The latest outbreak of the Omicron variant meant we had to abandon plans for a meeting in Brown Street and return to meeting electronically. Before the discussion started, we had an update on our other activities namely, our attempt to encourage the City Council to consider a citizens’ assembly, which does not look promising at present. The second issue concerns allowing electronic access to meetings which the City Council is also reluctant to agree to. This would enable those unable to attend meetings for whatever reason to listen to the debates. Wilton Town Council has agreed to this but Salisbury City Council … One comment was that lack of involvement was a problem for councils and one they should be concerned about. It was generally felt we should not accept the decision.

    The Café

    The winning topic was Are we all doomed? This question arose from a book by Rutger Bregman Humankind, (Bloomsbury 2021) which, as its title suggests, looked at the human condition and our place in the modern world. There were two dichotomous views: the Hobbesian notion of life being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short versus Rousseau’s ideas where he suggested that the the state of nature was not that bad and that people were self-sufficient, sympathetic to others and fairly peaceful. They are broadly innocent and aren’t capable of being malicious. Clearly, a fascinating discussion had they both been on Newsnight.

    The immediate comment was are we not a too either/or society? and why do we struggle so with nuance? The second point was why was it so important whether we are doomed or not: do we have the right to live forever (as a species that is)?

    Things went wrong it was suggested when we settled and ceased to live a nomadic life. This seems to imply that things were good when we were nomads or hunter gatherers but this may be some way from the truth. This new ‘civilised’ existence showed the unique strength of humankind and our ability to act cooperatively. This idea was questioned however since it has been shown that elephants and ants are among species which also act cooperatively.

    A settled existence enabled the growth of religion and it was the view of one participant (who admitted to being a vicar’s daughter) that Christianity has a lot to answer for with its belief that we are all evil and need to repent. Sin and redemption is a feature of several religions. This led onto the idea that however good or bad we are, we may still be doomed because of climate or a passing asteroid.

    The idea that civilization is simply a veneer was mentioned and Bregman has instanced Lord of the Flies by William Golding (who used to teach in Salisbury). It was pointed out however that the real life example of boys stranded on an island (the inspiration for the story) was that they did manage to coexist. Indeed it was suggested that several examples of evil doing are often fictional.

    The discussion moved onto the idea of the availability heuristic. This was about how we perceive things and how we are poor for example at assessing risk in a statistical sense. For example, the fear of random paedophiles attacking or abducting a small child is an ever present among parents whereas the actual risk is vanishingly small. Part of the problem is that news media focus on bad news ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. This led to a reference to Stephen Pinker’s book The Better Angels of our Nature (Viking, 2011) which argued that we are less likely to die a violent death today than at any time in human history. It was argued that despite this argument, people remain fearful and as a result, inclined to be more violent. It also led to a desire to ‘protect our own’ behaviour seen in the pandemic where we are concerned at our own country’s rate of vaccination but less concerned about other country’s rates. Brexit was also mentioned in this connection.

    A weighty topic and perhaps the time limitation of Zoom meant we did not really give it full justice.

    The second topic was the legal decision concerning the pulling down of the Colston statue in Bristol. Four of those indicted for criminal damage were found not guilty by a jury this week and this had generated a great deal of vigorous debate. Colston was a well known slaver and there have been unsuccessful attempts for years to remove the statue.

    One speaker spoke forcefully for the decision calling it a ‘Magna Carta’ moment and a demonstration of the limits of state power. It was in effect a show trial since only four of those present were on trial whereas there was an extremely large crowd present. It was a good example of common sense by the jury and of the jury system. It contrasted with those countries – the majority – who have a constitution where to a large extent, that flexibility was not available. English law had incorporated Druidic and Saxon law, elements of Roman law – still a key factor in Scotland – to meld it into the system we have today. A written constitution can be difficult to change it was argued.

    Not everyone was convinced by the peon to the English legal system and it was seen as an example of British exceptionalism. There have, after all, been many examples of serious miscarriages of justice over the years. One comment was that if the case had gone to a magistrate, the likely result would have been quite different given the background of so many of our magistrates. Plans to introduce the Police and Crime bill was an example of a government none too keen on free speech and protest. There was pressure on the Attorney General, Suella Braverman, to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal but on what grounds is not yet clear. On the matter of statues, the statue to Lord Pembroke in Wilton was mentioned who’s wealth came partly from slavery it was claimed*.

    There was a brief discussion on the legacy of slavery which has begun to surface recently. The book Empireland by Sathnam Sanghera (Penguin 2021) was mentioned which discussed the continuing effects of slavery in British society.

    Peter Curbishley

    *A book on the history of the Pembroke family is Earls of Paradise by Adam Nicolson (Harper Press, 2008) is a fascinating read.

    The Suella Braverman link is to some investigation I did into her views on the use of torture and also to an Observer piece which examines some of her career claims which have proved difficult to verify.

  • Democracy Café: December

    Report of the Salisbury Democracy Café, December 2021

    Our first hybrid democracy café with face-to-face and Zoom had some teething problems I think it’s fair to say. But I think it will improve as we gain experience and we will be persisting. My notes on the session might a little sketchy because I was also trying to administer the Zoom, but I’ll have a go.

    So, the first question was: What can we do now to effect change? I suppose the question in its broader sense is, if we want to effect change and want to do it now, what options are open to us?  Of course, long-term structural changes, like deepening out democracy with the introduction of citizens’ juries and proportional representation were mentioned. But they take time and lots of patient negotiations and campaigning. What is there for us to do now?

     It was mentioned that many of us feel like spectators – in fact some thinkers argue that our democracy, or representative government, has become a spectator sport. There is a feeling of frustration and powerlessness, although it was pointed out that we should not assume that everyone feels like this. Many people may get annoyed by things that are happening at a national or local level, but that feeling may not last long.

    One idea was that we should try harder to practice democratic skills like debate and learn to spot distraction policies deployed by those in power. It was also pointed out that we should, perhaps, concentrate on positive campaigning rather than being too negative, although it was suggested that you need to pick out the negative, or what is wrong, in order to press for positive change.

    The café heard that change has happened in the past by people taking to the street and demonstrating, and although that didn’t always work you had to take a risk to force change.

    Education was also important, particularly in encouraging people to find reliable news. And it was also suggested that rather than the various political parties working in their silos that they should form a national coalition in order to co-operate for policies that would benefit the country.

    The second question was: What does the extradition of Julian Assange say about UK sovereignty and the UK press? This follows the decision by the High Court that the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to the USA following assurances that he would be humanely treated in prison. One of the fears among opponents of the decision is that is an infringement of press freedom. As Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said in a statement: “Julian’s life is once more under grave threat, and so is the right of journalists to publish material that governments and corporations find inconvenient. This is about the right of a free press to publish without being threatened by a bullying superpower.”

    Focusing on the question of the media it was noted that it is as much subject to cognitive bias as anyone else. Is Assange, for example, a hero or a misogynist rapist? And if you choose one of those one then you are simply displaying your own bias.

    We all know that humans are subject to cognitive – what is sometimes called myside – bias. There are many forms of bias that cloud our judgement including availability bias, a kind of mental shortcut in which we grab at our most vivid personal memories or experiences in order the make decisions. Closely related is cherry picking evidence, in which we pick and choose evidence that best suits our pre-exiting belief. The more interesting question, perhaps, is to what extent, if at all, we can counter these various forms of cognitive bias. Maybe a subject for another café …

    Dickie Bellringer

  • December meeting

    Meeting of Democracy Café on Saturday 11 December.

    The next Salisbury Democracy Café will be held on Saturday 11 December as usual between 10 and noon. What is not usual is that we will be trialling a hybrid café with face-to-face at our new venue in Brown Street (where the Alzheimer’s Society used to be) and those who can’t make it physically on Zoom. Our Pro-Zoom account has lapsed so it will two 40-minute sessions for those on Zoom (see links below) and the rest of us will try to work around those timings. Thanks to Amanda Newberry for allowing us to use the venue’s big screen. Hopefully, everything will work but, well, you know …

    For those who cannot make it physically to Salisbury, the Zoom links are:

    Join Zoom Meeting

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84001448633?pwd=b0dQd3JwTGZXYzJCajU2UWV4K2lSZz09

    Meeting ID: 840 0144 8633

    Passcode: 2AWjZe

    Topic: Salisbury Democracy Café

    Time: Dec 11, 2021 11:00 AM London

    Join Zoom Meeting

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89082246452?pwd=ZU9ZM2srRGdaQnBGZGNncm9GaEplZz09

    Meeting ID: 890 8224 6452

    Passcode: 0ye4Wy

    Dickie Bellringer writes:

    There is also a new article on my blog called The labyrinths of Ultimate Reality, which looks at the range and nuances of this mighty subject and follows on from the last blog that introduced the subject. And I’ve attached a wonderful poem by Emily Dickinson called The Snow.

    The Snow by Emily Dickinson

    It sifts from leaden sieves,
    It powders all the wood,
    It fills with alabaster wool
    The wrinkles of the road.

    It makes an even face
    Of mountain and of plain, —
    Unbroken forehead from the east
    Unto the east again.

    It reaches to the fence,
    It wraps it, rail by rail,
    Till it is lost in fleeces;
    It flings a crystal veil

    On stump and stack and stem, —
    The summer’s empty room,
    Acres of seams where harvests were,
    Recordless, but for them.

    It ruffles wrists of posts,
    As ankles of a queen, —
    Then stills its artisans like ghosts,
    Denying they have been.

  • Democracy Café

    The November 2021 meeting of the Café took place during a tumultuous ten days in British political life with scarcely a day passing without some revelation about the goings on in Westminster. The resignation of Owen Paterson MP following a report into his breaking of lobbying rules on behalf of commercial firms, was quickly followed by revelations about Geoffrey Cox MP, the former attorney general, with the use of his office for private purposes and for spending considerable time working for the British Virgin Islands tax haven for which he received £900,000 in fees. Many other MPs were caught up in the second jobs scandal and collectively 90 of them earn around £4m in addition to their MP salaries. This was against a background of stories focusing on sleaze.

    It was scarcely surprising therefore that the question which jointly won the vote was ‘Is Britain ceasing to be a democracy?’ The first point to be made was the mismatch between what people want in connection with climate change for example and how this is not reflected in government policy. It was linked to the belief that in a safe seat like Salisbury, one’s vote does not count. It was suggested that the only way to get heard, regrettably, was through direct action: Insulate Britain was instanced and historically, the suffragists who argued peacefully for six decades and only achieved success when they took violent action and were renamed ‘suffragettes’, a disparaging term coined by the Daily Mail.

    We were quickly brought up short by the question: ‘have we ever had democracy?’ There is somehow the belief – inherent in the question being debated – that we once had a functioning democracy and now we are somehow losing it. The point was amplified by asking were we being too narrow in our outlook by simply looking at laws and administrative aspects? What about financial matters (highlighted this very week with the revelations about MP’s lobbying and their second jobs) and ownership of the media. If democracy was to mean anything then the lack of democratic control of our print media has also to be addressed. The name ‘Murdoch’ quickly surfaced. Also the presence of so many old Etonians in the current scandals in Westminster. We were also reminded of social media also without any democratic control. The media was in prime position to influence opinion according to the views or prejudices of its – mostly overseas – owners.

    Our attention was then drawn to a range of bills currently before parliament which both individually and collectively will have a deleterious effect on democracy. These were the Electoral bill with its plans for photo IDs, the Police and Crime bill, changing the voting system for mayors to FPTP, and the Judicial bill. It was pointed out that the Police and Crime bill would prevent any lawyer from attending a demonstration of any kind. If such a demonstration was declared illegal by the police or Home Office then anyone arrested would be barred from future practice in the law.

    The politicisation of appointment boards was also mentioned in particular the Electoral Commission. Someone who recently met John Glen (MP for Salisbury) said he dismissed organisations like the Good Law Project as merely ‘lobbying groups’.

    This nibbling away at laws and democratic processes had some parallels with what happened in Germany in the ’30s it was claimed. The Turkish writer Ece Temekuran, the author of How to Lose a Country* was mentioned who discussed the seven steps needed to move from democracy to a dictatorship.

    How can we have a democracy when we still have a Royal Family? Also the House of Lords. It was pointed out that many aristocratic families thought highly of Hitler before the war.

    The concept of ‘techo-feudalism‘ was mentioned, a concept put forward by Yanis Varoufakis. Essentially, that corporations exert power through oligopolistic behaviours which mimic the feudal power structures in the Middle Ages.

    The session ended with a reminder from the chair of the Salisbury Democracy Alliance that we were still trying to secure a Citizens’ Jury in Salisbury. All the political parties with the exception of the Conservatives were in support of the concept.

    The second half of the Café discussed the question: ‘is Britain a corrupt country?’ As in the first debate, this was topical not least because it had arisen at Cop 26 in Glasgow this week with the prime minister Boris Johnson saying that ‘the UK is not remotely a corrupt country’ in response to a spate of recent events which suggested that things might be otherwise.

    There was no shortage of views on this subject. Some who worked in the NHS said that procurement rules were strict yet the government had largely ignored them during the pandemic. The scandal of Track and Trace was mentioned. We had already discussed lobbying and conflicts of interest. Tax havens were inevitably mentioned with Britain’s leading role in facilitating this activity. ‘Buying’ a seat in the House of Lords – another story to surface this week – the going rate being £3m apparently.

    Water Companies and the recent scandal of the pollution of our rivers on a massive scale was brought up. Although they were required to invest in the necessary infrastructure, they preferred to pay the fines and continue to pay dividends rather than meet these obligations. The government seemed reluctant to act – was this a form of corruption?

    This week it had emerged that the fossil fuel companies were present in force in Glasgow at the climate conference.

    Was ‘corruption’ the right word someone asked? Was it not more about entitlement and ‘these rules don’t apply to me?’ Perhaps, but these beliefs are likely to lead to corruption in any event.

    Ministers, senior civil servants and senior military personnel, often retired to take up directorships and consultancies with the very organisations they were dealing with while in office. Transparency International has published a report on what is termed the ‘revolving door’ and articles have appeared in Private Eye from time to time. The scale of this activity is very large and controls almost non-existent. [Two days after this post, an article discussing the scale of the revolving door was published in the Guardian].

    It was suggested that more time should be devoted in schools to engage young people in these issues. More time should be spent on obligations in addition to time spent on what their rights were. School assemblies were an opportunity although they were often concerned with school matters and not so much about the wider world. There were classes on citizenship and there are also lessons on PHSE.

    Finally, the idea of a return to religious values was put forward. The problem here was which religion and that within some religions there were some fairly extreme beliefs: the denial of Darwin’s evolution theory in some American states because of pressure from evangelicals was an example quoted. Some religion’s active involvement and support for slavery in the nineteenth century was also noted.

    Two debates which ranged far and wide. That they were able to do so with so many examples is itself quite shocking. Someone asked ‘are we too tolerant as a nation?’ and it is a legitimate question. Have we become so inured to the failings in our democratic process that we have little faith that things will ever change? Would Owen Paterson and will Geoffrey Cox be turfed out of their safe seats despite their egregious carryings on? Perhaps a religious person at this point might say ‘we can but pray’.

    Peter Curbishley

    [Updated: 15th November]

    *How to Lose a Country: the seven steps from democracy to dictatorship, Ece Temekuran, 2019, Harper Collins.

    Next meeting at 10am on 11 December in Brown Street

  • Democracy Café: October 2021

    The Café was able to meet outside for a third time since lockdown

    Not only were we able to meet again but there were several new members and numbers attending were over 20 again. We discussed two topics from the eight that were voted for: ‘More houses for Salisbury – what are the facts?’ and ‘Global Britain – is it a force for good or a force for the bad?’

    We started with the housing question. Anyone driving around Salisbury, Amesbury and Wilton will have noticed the vast increase in the number of houses and huge new estates opening up where once there were green fields. Both ends of the A345 Amesbury Road have seen almost new townships opening up. The proposer noted that the 2006 – 26 allocation for South Wiltshire is around 10,400 houses and the current level of permissions is well over 11,000. In other words, WC has granted permission for more homes than the government requires it to. This extra building brings with it needs for more infrastructure, schools, roads and medical services in particular. Would it not be better to spend more money, not on new properties, but on refurbishing many sub-standard older properties?

    The issue of social housing quickly made its appearance. Although many new houses were being built, only a small proportion were affordable for those on low wages or for the young. Provision for those with disabilities was also poor. The point was made that the right to buy policy was skewed because the funds were returned to the Treasury and were not available to the local authority to construct new council houses (for rent). It was explained that the funds were originally Treasury funds so rightfully went back to them. The government could have changed the legislation if it wished however but chose not to do so.

    The debate broadened into the language we used. We talk in terms of ‘housing’ not ‘homes’, indeed, in the quote of the morning it was pointed out we only use the latter word in connection with second homes which aren’t homes at all. Should we not consider needs more? The system it was suggested should focus more on these needs rather than just responding to the market. This was part of the purpose of the planning system it was pointed out which is not popular and is being curtailed.

    Back to the issue of refurbishment and one of the problems is that new build does not attract VAT whereas refurbishment does. At 20% this is a serious disincentive. A change in the VAT rules would be of immediate benefit.

    One speaker thought part of the answer might be in increasing the level of council tax on second homes. There were 550,000 of these and around 300,000 on waiting lists suggesting he thought a ready solution. However, not all second homes were where the demand or the jobs were, some councils already charge a higher community charge for second home owners (one speaker knew this because her sister owned such a house in Wales and paid more) and would a higher charge induce someone to sell anyway? It was noted that not all second homes were for personal use but were rented out i.e. a home for someone.

    It was noted that some people are stuck in unsaleable flats because of the cladding scandal.

    Land was mentioned. It was noted that agricultural land might sell for around £5,000 and acre but with the benefit of planning, it could fetch a thousand times more. A key element of the price of a house therefore was the land it stood on. Yet there were no policies to tackle this currently and the last attempt – Betterment Levy – was abolished in 1970. A single owner can reap a huge windfall from a sale of land which adds considerably to the cost of a house (or should I say home).

    The role of finance and the mortgage industry discussed. Britain was fairly unusual in Europe and USA in having such large freehold tenure. The majority rented in countries like Germany. This meant a home became an investment not just a place to live. The result was a very large finance industry which it was argued, shifted power away from politicians and towards the financiers. The equity that people had in their homes also led to issues of inheritance and the expectation that it would pass unencumbered to their descendants.

    On the subject of new build, the fact that new houses were not being built to high enough insulation standards was thought to be shocking. Few of the estates had solar panels fitted as standard, an optimum time to do so when being built.

    In Salisbury itself, the development of several large developments for the retired was altering the balance of the city. There was an absence it was claimed of people in the 20 to 40 age band. They tended to leave and only return in middle age.

    If there was a theme to emerge it was that the market was not serving the people but was determined by the power and will of the developers. Their motivation was of course profit maximisation.

    After a break we tackled the second topic about the meaning of ‘global Britain’. What was our place in the world? Has it been coloured by by our colonial past? Do we as a nation spend too much time ‘in the past’?

    In Asia, the perception of Britain was of a ‘chocolate box museum’. In China, where memories are long, our role in the Opium War and colonial repression is still remembered. Talk of human rights do not readily impress. In Europe, their view of us is bafflement (following Brexit it is assumed). The special relationship with America is viewed as something of a joke. All sobering thoughts. It suggested we should show a bit more humility.

    Globalisation was not universal however. Capital was free to move sometimes at the press of a button, and goods are services could sold around the world with only limited restrictions. People were not free to move on the other hand which meant globalisation have different implications for different people.

    On the other hand, the English language was a huge asset and influence and contributed to our soft power. Our cultural influence was extremely strong as was our academic excellence and scientific prowess which is still admired around the world. We were still a relatively uncorrupt country. Perhaps we shouldn’t talk ourselves down too much: we still have some prestige for tolerance, liberty and human rights.

    Progress on this topic was difficult and we were left with the thought – was it little more than a slogan? Did global Britain actually have any meaning? Perhaps ‘Britain in the world’ might be better but it was less catchy.

    Two interesting if quite different debates and the next meeting is on 13 November at 29 Brown Street, our new home.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café

    Democracy Café meets again today – Saturday 9th – starting at 10:00 in Brown St. We shall meet in the former Alzheimer’s building. We look forward to seeing you there in person.

  • People in the Park

    We had a busy day on Saturday 18 September at the People in the Park event in Salisbury. We were blessed by the weather and a steady flow of people through the day. Our SDA stall was well attended and we ran out of Democracy Café leaflets.

    There was interest in the Citizens’ Jury concept which has received a degree of local publicity in last few weeks. It was briefly debated in the City Council last week. There were many questions: what is it? isn’t it expensive? and don’t we have councillors whom we elect to decide these things anyway (and can ultimately vote out if we don’t like them)? Well yes and no.

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance in action!

    The basic concept is a randomly selected group of people who come together over 3 weekends to discuss a topic of political interest. They are advised by experts in the topic. The randomness is important as the problem is often that ‘consultation’ just means a narrow group of people talking to each other. Many feel excluded and public meetings are often populated by only a small part of the population as a whole. The young are only rarely seen or heard from.

    It is quite expensive. Participants have to be paid, selection costs money as do the experts. Then there is room rental etc. But just think of the huge sums spent by Wiltshire Council on half-baked schemes which get nowhere and on their consultation exercises. Wouldn’t it be better to get a more broadly based set of views rather than from council officers in Trowbridge? Consultation in their terms actually means telling us about their plans. How much credence is given to different ideas or suggestions which are contrary to the political beliefs of those in Trowbridge?

    ‘We elect councillors’ is a frequent refrain so why invent a new (and expensive) system? So how many people engage in lengthy and complex discussions with their councillor on these topics? Very, very few I wager. Councillors over the years tell me that their contact with electors are about holes in the road, hedges not being cut, planning application moans and about fly tipping. All important in their way but hardly strategic topics which affect our futures.

    Finally, the process is considerably more ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’. It can be argued that it is genuinely more informed by randomly selected people who have had having had the benefit of expert advice and which is much more likely to recommend practical and doable projects.

    That is why we believe that citizens’ juries are a superior form of policy making than the current system. One person spoke to me who was dead against the idea mostly for the reasons above. He had been a councillor. As we discussed the idea the conversation slowly morphed into how he found being a councillor unsatisfactory and inefficient and he ultimately stood down. On the one hand he was wedded to the current system but, as time went by, he found it more and more unsatisfactory and left. I suppose the moral is that people are so inured to the system that despite its manifest failings, they find radical change of this nature hard to accept.

    At both the national and local level, the way we do politics is failing us. Surely it is time for radical change?

    Peter Curbishley

    Picture: SDA