Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Author: welland2

  • Democracy Café

    Two debates on Palestine Action and climate change

    We were pleased to welcome Phil from Southampton back to the Café who helped set up a café in Southampton but which sadly, did not survive the Covid hiatus.

    Once again, we offer thanks to the Library for allowing us to meet there.

    Nine topics were suggested but winning through for the first half was Should Palestine Action be a proscribed organisation? By way of background, the organisation had mounted a number of protests and the last one was to get into RAF Brize Norton and spray aircraft with red paint. This had prompted the organisation to be proscribed.

    It was immediately claimed that their action at the RAF base did not seem to cross the threshold of the Terrorism Act, 2000. [This said in the interpretation section ‘terrorism’ means, inter alia, intimidation of the public, involves serious violence against the person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life …]. None of these seems applicable – who was terrorised at Brize Norton?

    It was also quickly questioned why other legislation could not have been used, criminal damage for example? Although this might have failed as it was noted the paint did not seriously damage the planes.

    The Home secretary had achieved the ban by linking the Commons motion in with two other decidedly violent organisations leaving MPs limited options to object. The others were Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. This move was described as ‘deeply cynical’. The speed with which the government moved was also noted and the methods used to tarnish the reputation of Palestine Action. This had to be seen alongside the government’s refusal to sanction Israeli politicians.

    Perhaps the reasons behind the speedy action was firstly, the ease with which the protestors had accessed the base and secondly, it highlighted the role of the RAF in the Gaza conflict. They had undertaken around 600 flights ostensibly to help with the location of the hostages – which seemed to have been a spectacular waste of money – but it was suggested to give information to the IDF which they used to identify alleged Hamas terrorists. Clearly the government did not want this to become well known.

    The conversation moved on to protests generally and it was noted this was the latest in a long line of legislation making protest harder and harder. Politicians keen to support the idea of protests as long as they are not effective. It seems sometimes that only direct action has any chance of success. There was a call for people to come together to try and counter some of the mis-information. Suella Braverman’s aim to get minor acts treated as severe has been overruled by the High Court it was noted.

    Protests were a means to gain the attention of the public it was suggested and labelling such groups as ‘terrorists’ was just a convenient label. Was it to do with content someone asked? If it had been to do with Ukraine would the home secretary taken the same action?

    The latest plan by the Israeli government to create a ‘Humanitarian City‘ on the ruins of Rafah was mentioned. This would be to confine Palestinians to an even smaller area than now. It was an attempt at ethnic cleansing. It was noted that the IDF was not happy with the proposal as it was not part of their war plans.

    Was the influence of the US to be detected in the government’s actions? The unquestioning support of Israel was perhaps evidence of that. Was there a fear of offending Donald Trump? The role of money and business also playing a part.

    The singer Bob Vylan and his set at Glastonbury made a brief appearance. Singing ‘death, death to the IDF’ caused a huge storm and a major reaction against the BBC for not pulling the performance. It was noted that young people supported the singer. The ‘Brandenburg test’ was mentioned which said speech which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action‘. This was a case in Ohio. Whether Bob Vylan met this test remains to be seen.

    We were reminded of the Greenham Common protests (and two of those present took part!) where the perimeter fence had been penetrated. CND were effective in raising consciences about nuclear weapons but were never proscribed. Clearly things had changed. Was it the effects of 9/11 someone wondered?

    An interesting debate and it is probably true to say that few if any agreed with decision to proscribe Palestine Action. The lumping them in with two other organisations was seen as deeply cynical.

    The second topic – or should I say a combination of three topics – concerned the climate. Appropriately so as we were basking in a heat wave, the second of the year. The three were have climate protests been subdued? what individual actions can be taken? and is climate change caused by us?

    It was noted that climate protests have dwindled, possibly linked to the previous topic. Government actions were at a lower level it was claimed. Was climate change a result of human action anyway? We have had periods of extreme weather in the past, could this just be another phase? There had after all been an ide age not many centuries ago.

    Climate protests have been effective it was argued. There is a much greater awareness of climate issues today. There are more and more electric vehicles on the road and people undertook much more recycling now. Salisbury Transition City was mentioned. There were concerns that things were not happening quickly enough though. 78% in Salisbury were said to be concerned about climate change.

    It was argued that the weight of evidence and a preponderance of scientists were agreed that human activity has had an effect. There was a lot of research to back this up. There was a worry about ‘greenwashing’ where companies try and persuade the public they are doing more than they really are. Oil companies were also funding institutions which made denialist claims.

    It was pointed out that many years ago, parts of N Africa and the Middle East were once forested long before industrialisation took place. What mattered was heat and a factor today is the enormous amount of heat we produce from running computer systems and the like. Bitcoin consumed electricity equivalent to Argentina to run its calculations. It was suggested that a MIT study showed we should now be entering a period of cooling [I was not able to locate this on MIT’s site]. The biggest contributors to climate problems were agriculture and industry.

    A worry was that climate science was increasingly being ‘weaponised’. Papers were being used to refute basic facts. The US was defunding institutions which were working on climate science. Climate justice and social justice were two equivalent issues and the public were increasingly being moving towards the latter. Issues like cost of living were now top of the agenda.

    The majority wanted climate action it was suggested. We were warned against ‘binary thinking’ and it was a pity this idea wasn’t developed more in the context of the discussion. Basically, things are seldom straightforwardly right or wrong but usually more complex or nuanced.

    Why weren’t we doing more it was asked? Several answers: it wasn’t cheap. Insulation and making homes climate proof would cost billions. It wasn’t popular and by contrst, the popularity of politicians calling for an end to net zero was clear. Perhaps the most significant point was the policy of growth which the government was concentrating on. If the focus was on growth then climate mitigation issues were likely to take a back seat. The issue of climate change and growth was noted. Since agriculture was a major factor in global warming – the methane ’emissions’ from cattle in particular – a meat tax was a desirable objective but was a vote loser someone noted. Another point in the same vein was consumerism which directly linked to climate pressures.

    Maybe a driving force in the future is insurance. Insurance companies were less and less likely to offer cover to properties likely to be affected by flooding for example. Insurance costs could exceed the costs of not doing something

    We were reminded towards the end of Doughnut economics which is about how humanity conducts its affairs in the light of the planet’s finite resources. There was a suggestion that we should be supporting the global south to develop their economies sustainably not follow in the path the West has done.

    Finally, this picture was displayed during our debate. It was submitted as part of the current exhibition but could not be shown because of its political nature. It is by RM Wilde CBE.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on August 9th.

  • Area Board meeting: the follow up

    Group met after the Area Board to discuss future actions

    Last week, we presented the results of the three People’s Assemblies we held over the summer and the response was on the whole, positive. We seem to have the prospect of actual progress now and the group met to discuss next steps.

    The results from our Assemblies will be part of the national response which will be taking place on 20 – 22 of this month in London. Three people will be present from Salisbury.

    We discussed what to do next and the major exercise is the support we can offer to the ‘champions’ whom we hope will lead on the five top wishes coming out of the Assemblies. One idea was to try and ‘match’ a councillor to a champion to try and make sure the ideas don’t get forgotten or sidelined.

    One of the first things we will be doing is organising a meeting of all the champions to plan the next stages and to discuss what offers of help and support they might need. It was emphasised in the meeting that ours is a supporting role but maybe also guiding in some cases.

    We also discussed our own future and the need to consider a more formal structure for SDA: at present we have none. We may opt for a Company Limited by Guarantee or a Community Interest Company and this will be looked into. It will help with the ‘credibility’ issue. We need to be clear about our objectives.

    We looked in general terms about trying to involve others including going into schools if at all possible.

    The idea of a fresh assembly was discussed and it was decided to leave it until the Spring largely because of the amount of time and effort needed to make them a success. One suggestion was for a junior assembly – we’ll see.

    Next meeting is on 15th July at the Ox Row Inn starting at 6:15.

    If you are not a member or supporter of SDA, have you thought of joining us? Best thing is to make yourself know at the Democracy Café the next one this is this Saturday 12th in the Library starting at 10:00. Or put a message below. You’d be welcome.

  • Democracy Café

    The next Café is this Saturday, 12 July starting at 10:00 in the Library as usual and finishing at noon.

  • SDA comes of age

    SDA makes successful presentation to Area Board

    The Alliance was able to report to the Salisbury Area Board on 3 July following the three successful People’s Assemblies we ran in the City. The response was on the whole positive and we did feel that we have made some progress in our quest to improve the manner in which decisions are made in the local political sphere.  We are grateful to Karen Linaker for her help in arranging for our presentation.

    Mark Potts presented the results of the three assemblies noting that around a 100 people attended at least one of the meetings and some all three.  It demonstrated a keen interest by people who were concerned and interested in the future of the City and wanted to be involved in what happened.

    There were two main types of consultation: DAD and EDD he said.  They stood for Decide – Announce – Defend and, Engage – Deliberate – Decide.  Unfortunately, there had been a tendency towards the former where people felt proposals had all been decided and their involvement was just a formality. The Alliance was naturally enough, keener on the second approach.

    The top five

    After the three meetings the top five issues emerged.  They were:

    1. Housing and issues around quality and affordability
    2. Traffic and transport
    3. A Community Hub
    4. An Environment Centre
    5. A college for the performing arts

    A full description of these and a brief report of the final assembly, can be found on this link.

    Mark said that present in the room, were the five ‘champions’ for each of these ideas and he suggested the next step is some kind of engagement with councillors and others. He mentioned the idea of citizen’s juries, another idea being promoted by SDA, which has been successfully used to tackle more complex problems.  It was true they cost money but the cost of getting these things wrong needs also to be considered.  They have the advantage of engaging experts into the debate and engaging a cross section of citizens in the process.

    Responses

    In response to Mark’s presentation, councillors had some questions and comments.

    Cllr Sven Hocking asked how will those who took part in this event or SDA help councillors find the budget.  Mark replied that it was not the role of SDA to try and manage the council’s budget.  We were only seeking to submit ideas.

    Cllr Ricky Rogers said on the housing issue, it was government who decide.  Developers were in a strong position he said.  This was a matter which came up in our debates and is a fair point. 

    Cllr Ed Rimmer was more sceptical.  He thought it better for people to engage in the existing system.  He questioned whether the [five priorities] reflected the wishes of the wider community. Is there not a risk that what is proposed subverts the [electoral] system we have?  After all, the councillors here have been voted in to represent people. How can SDA demonstrate political balance?

    In replying Mark said we were not suggesting our method was better. He stressed people had given up their time.  The point was our method was deliberative.

    Cllr John Wells said he had attended one of the sessions. He suggested some of the ideas should be built into the things they are engaged in already.

    There followed a general debate in which it was stressed that the process was about helping the councillors do their job.  It was agreed that better engagement was wanted and was a good idea.

    Cllr Paul Sample (Chair) said the work was opportune.  There was a review of the Area Boards underway and he welcomed the ideas and energy put in.  “Keep doing what you’re doing – it’s not wasted!” 

    Comment

    After the work put into organising and running the three assemblies, we were encouraged with the overall response we received. There does seem to be a change of attitude among the majority of councillors that admits they do need input from organised events of this kind.

    It is true that councillors (and members of parliament) are voted in to run things but the question is how many of the public would have read their manifestos before doing so?  How do you accommodate changing circumstances?  Are people only to have a say every 4 or five years?  As new problems or opportunities arise is it not best to tap into any local expertise?

    The three sessions demonstrated the degree of enthusiasm and commitment local people had. The point surely was to bottle some of this enthusiasm and use it to change or improve things. Trust in politics is at a very low ebb. People feel ignored and left out. This kind of deliberative approach would surely put a small dent in that thinking.

    The future

    We shall be meeting soon to consider next steps and there will be a post here so subscribe if you want to remain in touch. Why not join us? We need more people who want to play a role in local affairs. As we have debated in several of our Democracy Café meetings (next one on Saturday July 12th, 10:00 in the Library finishing at noon), the role of parties in the local political scene is doubted by many and is seen as an irrelevance. We are not a political party and our aim is to improve how things are run.

    Peter Curbishley

  • What is politics?

    A silly question but with a serious answer

    What is politics? A silly question, maybe, but a comment from Chris Dillow’s blog this week chimed with what I have been thinking of late: “Politicians make mistakes. This is inevitable because society is complex and knowledge is limited. But there are different types of error. Being bad at your job is one type, but another is simply not understanding what your job actually is. By some definitions of political activity, leading politicians have for some time been guilty of the latter.”

    Dillow picks up on issues such as transgender toilets and banning controversial bands as being not politicians’ business, and I think there are more areas where they have turned issues that are not in themselves political, into matters of partisan posing. It is at least arguable that politicians take on areas outside their remit as a form of displacement activity, as dealing with big issues is hard.

    There are many cases where legislation has been introduced to regulate activity unnecessarily (think of all the laws banning protesting activity), which could be better dealt with by following existing law rather than creating new ones. The argument about the small boats could have become much more helpful if politicians had agreed to act jointly instead of holding a bidding war as to who is the toughest. Reform is only the worst offender at inventing an issue and then demanding it be addressed. I am not suggesting that all political issues should be turned into a lovefest, but the present confrontational approach is at least timewasting.

    Political debate should be about principle and policy, how we might order and protect society and improve people’s wellbeing. Anything else is noise. Obviously, whether or not politicians are debating the issues, the issues still exist, but the British are very bad at taking responsibility, so politicians fill the gap (a gap frequently created by the media). Anyone is free to have an opinion, but decision-taking seems now to have been taken out of the hands of the relevant bodies and claimed by others (witness the number of U-turns of late). This is how we end up with a politics of impunity – it’s someone else’s fault, but I’ll apologise anyway, as long as you know it wasn’t my area of responsibility.

    If we could remove some conflicts from the parliamentary field, there would be more time to debate the direction the country could or should be taking. Ethical questions should be eschewed as far as possible unless actual legislation is required (the debate on assisted dying was much praised for its respectfulness and lack of partisanship. This would, I think, be the exception). Abortion, for example, is not a political matter; it is a health matter. “Wokeness” is not a political matter; it is a set of opinions. Anti-Semitism isn’t a political matter; it is bad manners.

    What would be left to the politicos? Economic policy (there is a clear left/right policy differentiation), foreign policy, resource allocation, climate change, food policy, governance – there’s lot to get on with. I would exclude immigration (largely a managerial issue), growth (a misguided aim) and most of welfare (should be dealt with at an appropriate [i.e. lower] level). But you can choose what you think should be the business of legislators; the point is to concentrate their minds on the important things and not to interfere with things which are the task of lawyers, the police or the Health Service.

    As a side issue, this would, in my view, help engage the public better. They would be clearer about who was responsible for stuff, they would recognize political posturing more easily and they would get a better sense of the differences between parties. I’m not asking for a return to ideological warfare, but rather that parties were forced to express their vision, or at least to acquire one. Better that than interminable arguments about BBC presenters.

    Andrew Hemming

  • Democracy Café: June

    June 2025

    A smaller group than usual assembled at the Library for this month’s Café, but the discussion was still diverse and considered. The first topic chosen was “What are the costs and benefits of AI?”

    One member noted that he had written an article back in 2016 on the subject and, rereading it, had found it surprisingly relevant. A review of the piece had some good recommendations.  Most members were of the view that AI had great benefits in terms of saving time on processing but were concerned about regulation.  A dissenting member observed that it was too late for such concerns, as AI had developed way beyond the ability of humans to control it – into the level of “general intelligence”.

    Apocalyptic visions aside, the debate was generally about the possible effects of using the power of AI to increase productivity but remove jobs.  Some found ChatGPT useful, particularly for scientific research; but mistakes can occur, and there were concerns about whether AI could overcome this.

    At a more philosophical level, it was felt that AI would remove free will, or at least lead a trend away from individualism.  The implications for art were considered.

    On regulation, it was questioned whether AI could regulate itself; the more advanced view was that AI would be concerned with its own survival and would evade regulatory interference.  This led on to a discussion of machine consciousness and thus human consciousness and how far we understand either.   Complex questions, but a stimulating debate.

    The second topic for discussion was “Should we increase defence spending to 3% of the total?”

    The consensus was that more spending on weaponry was pointless but the defence of the realm was still important.  The reason for the proposed increase was questioned, particularly the demand from the US that Europe as a whole should take on more of the burden.  Some agreed that we have had defence on the cheap.  There was also some debate about the UK’s role, bearing in mind that we have not always been able to demonstrate that we are a major power nor have much influence in the major conflicts. Our role as a seller of arms was also questioned.  It was generally felt that the Strategic Defence Review was not a useful contribution to the debate.

    Andrew Hemming

    NEWS

    For those of you who came to one or more of the People’s Assemblies, we are pleased to report that we will be able to present the results at a meeting of an Area Board early in July. This could be a big step forward for the SDA.

    Have you thought about joining us? We are working to bring a better way of doing politics in the area and we need supporters. It is free.

  • Democracy Café

    June 2025

    Don’t forget it’s the Café this Saturday 14th June starting at 10:00 in the Library as usual and finishing at noon. Lot’s of possible topics to discuss including the U-turn on heating allowances, Trump’s various antics, the rise and rise of Reform and much more. Or something else entirely. That’s the beauty of the café, if you have a topic, bring it along and see if it gets voted in. It does help to have 50 words or so to introduce the topic if it’s voted for. Some get a bit taken aback to find their topic is the most popular and struggle for words a bit!

    If you’re new here, just scroll through this site to see write-ups of previous ones to give you an idea.

    PC

  • People’s Assemblies

    Third Assembly a success with over 40 taking part

    June 2025

    UPDATE: there is an interview with Mark Potts on That’s TV and the link is here (6 June)

    The third of the assemblies was held on Sunday 1st and 42 took part to discuss the suggestions put forward by the previous two. There was earnest debate on all the tables and there were some who were passionate about their topic or what was important to them. We ended up with our top five and these will go forward to contribute to the national debate. We hope some of those who volunteered to go to London will be able to do so to carry the message forward.

    It occurred to me as the afternoon wore on listening to the debates on each of the tables, that where else is there for this kind of debate? Our election process – national or local – will consist of the parties telling you of their plans for the country or the area. You don’t get to debate them unless you are a member of one of the parties and even then, policy is often imposed from on high. If you go to a hustings, as I did last year, the candidates have their say and one or two from the audience get to ask a question, but there is no debate in any meaningful sense of the term. It’s all very ‘top down’ with non party members – the vast majority – being passive recipients of the supposed wisdom of our political masters.

    Yet in the three assemblies, there were six hours of vigorous debate by a wide range of people. A few came more than once but the majority were first timers. Things didn’t quite go to plan as the last event was meant to be a game of two halves: each group to select their top five and then in the second half, to decide on the final five having heard what the other’s thought. Well, we more or less decided on the top five after the first session so the debate switched to suggesting which one or two topics were the most important.

    What are the top five you are eager to discover:

    1. Housing

    Provide more good quality and low energy consuming homes, which are genuinely affordable and some of which will be in public ownership. Ensure that developers provide such homes, fully meeting their planning obligations and including the provision of appropriate and agreed infra-structure. [this is a combination of the various individual suggestions into one piece of text].

    2. Transport

    Produce and implement a traffic plan for the city with youth advocacy, that includes low emission zones, car free zones, people friendly routes, promotes active travel, considers 15-minute communities and free or cheap bus travel, especially for under 21s.

    3. A Community Hub

    Create a community hub for young people and families including 3G sports pitches and activities including life skills.

    4. An Environmental Centre

    Create an environmental centre which provides Salisbury’s residents with information on sustainable homes, travel and living. A permanent, free home will allow Ecohub to provide a better information and advice service to local residents.

    Residents and the environment would benefit from this service as sustainable homes and transport save money while reducing greenhouse gases.

    5. A College for Performing Arts in Salisbury.

    Power

    One of the topics which arose in several debates and in discussions afterwards, was the matter of where the power lies and who is in a position to deliver on any of these. If we take housing for example, why do we not have more affordable homes? Why are new houses going up around Salisbury and elsewhere, the majority of which do not have solar panels and are not built to zero emission standards? Why are we building on flood plains? Why are developers able to promise affordable homes at the planning application stage then amazingly, discover that once on site they cannot afford to actually provide them? These were all things discussed during our three sessions. It is likely that most involved at the local level – officers and councillors – are well aware of these problems yet are largely powerless to do anything about them. It’s about where power lies.

    The government has decided that we need houses – lots of them. They have also stated that one of the major problems is the planning system (full disclosure: I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, now retired). Reform the system they claim and Hey Presto! masses of houses will appear to solve the problem. There are one or two snags though. Firstly, the developers already have 2 or more years of land with planning permissions in the bag but are not building on them. Some people have alleged it is because land is an appreciating asset so it can sit on the balance sheet steadily getting more valuable. It is also alleged that the big builders decide among themselves where to build so as not to depress prices by all building in the same vicinity. To build houses you need services: boring things like drains, a supply of fresh water, electricity, roads and somewhere to send the err, foul water. If local planning committees point some of these issues out, and maybe turn down the application for this or other reasons, the developer can appeal knowing they will get a favourable hearing. The Minister might also call it in and decide for himself.

    So you can ‘reform’ (=weaken) the system and you will get more houses but they will be poorly insulated, packed in together, and without solar panels. Oh and you can kiss goodbye to any affordable homes.

    But back to the assemblies which demonstrated that this is a matter of great concern to people. They are unhappy at seeing huge estates appearing with no doctor’s surgery, sometimes no shop or community space – just rows of lookalike houses. They think it ludicrous that houses should be built on land susceptible to flooding. One of the issues today with our febrile political system is the wide dissatisfaction people have with it. They feel marginalised. They feel not listened to. They say things like ‘they’re all the same’ which is not true but widely believed.

    So maybe this exercise is a small contribution to allowing people more say in their affairs. It has revealed a thirst by people to have their say, not just tick a box at an election and then be forgotten.

    What next?

    We will be contributing to the national event and locally, we want to follow through with the City and Wiltshire Councils. One of our goals is a citizen’s assembly a place where policy matters of moment can be discussed involving experts and local people. We want to move away from the process where people are invited to comment on policies more or less agreed anyway, a kind of tokenism.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next Democracy Café is on Saturday 14 June starting at 10:00 in the Central Library.

  • People’s Assembly

    Third People’s Assembly held today

    June 2025

    The third People’s Assembly was held today and we were delighted with the turnout of 42 (excluding the team so 50 altogether). There is always the worry when you run projects of this nature that come the day you’re faced with an empty room.

    There was eager debate and we were particularly pleased to welcome several local councillors. This is just an interim post and we will be putting up a more detailed one after our ‘wash-up’ team meeting tomorrow (Monday).

    It is clear however from the three sessions is that there is an appetite for debate and an eagerness to contribute to what should happen to Salisbury. We have been encouraged by the exercise and encouraged to follow up with other similar ideas.

    PC

  • Charter Assembly

    June 2025

    The third Assembly to decide on the top 5 ideas is today at the Football Club starting at 2pm. There may still be places if you want to take a chance!