Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Author: welland2

  • People in the Park

    Enthusiastic responses on our stand at the event

    May 2025

    People in the Park is an annual event which takes place in Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury and this year’s was very well attended. A sunny day people were out in numbers throughout the event. SDA had a stand there focusing particularly on the People’s Assemblies the third and final one of which takes place on June 1st at the Football Club.

    We had a great deal of interest in the chart we displayed which had the top ten things people wanted to see changed in Salisbury. You can see from the chart that a lot of stickers were attached to the various ideas by visitors to our stand. There does seem to be a hunger for involvement by people who sometimes feel left out or marginalised by the existing political system. Perhaps it is one of the reason Reform did so well in the recent elections – winning many seats in Wiltshire for example – because people’s concerns do not find their way into the mainstream party’s thinking. Not always fair of course and it remains to be seen how well Reform actually performs now it has a bigger presence in the political firmament.

    Among the ten top suggestions, several concerned housing where people said they wanted more affordable houses and flats. They were also concerned at developers not meeting their planning obligations, often claiming as Shelter notes, that once on site they carry out viability assessments which show – amazingly – that they cannot build all the affordable units they promised.

    We also had more people sign up for our third People’s Assembly on June 1st including a number of local councillors. There are still spaces and if you are interested please contact Mark Potts mapotts53@gmail.com or leave a note here. See a report on the second assembly.

    Thanks to SDA members Mike, Andrew and Mark who manned the stand. Main picture below shows the large number of spots on the options chart. Mark and Andrew pictured.

    Our next Democracy Café takes place in the Library on Saturday 14 June. Previous write ups of these are elsewhere on this site.

  • People in the Park

    SDA will have a presence

    May 2025

    We shall have a stall in this years People in the Park event in Elizabeth Gardens, Salisbury today Saturday 17th May from about 10:00 for the rest of the day. We will have the results of the first two People’s Assembly meetings on display so if you wish to contribute you can.

    The final meeting will be on June 1st at the Football Club and you are welcome to attend. The aim is to whittle the ten current suggestions down to 5. It starts at 14:00. If you would like to come please contact mapotts53@gmail.com or of course let us know at the People in the Park event.

    Hope to see you on Saturday.

    PC

    Report for Charter AssemblyDownload

  • Democracy Café

    VE Day celebrations provided one of the topics for this months Café discussions

    May 2025

    Once again we must thank Salisbury Library for allowing us to use their space for our debate.

    The 8th May is Victory in Europe Day and was celebrated this year with a high level of publicity. Only a handful of those who fought in the war remain now. The question posed was should we continue to celebrate VE Day? The first comment was that millions died and the war should never have happened. Politicians knew what Hitler was up to in the ’30s and should have acted sooner not wait until war was inevitable.

    Perhaps we should say ‘commemorate’ not ‘celebrate’. It was important to remember and to learn some of the lessons. A Quaker perspective was that we should remember all the dead of all the wars. It was noted that one of Hampshire’s parks was the site of a former hospital for the thousands injured in the Crimean War. Now all that’s left is small plaque in the ground the memorial having been removed some years ago.

    The claim was made that the celebrations are an ‘unfortunate political act with the purpose of maintaining imperialist and militaristic attitudes’. It had echoes of ‘keep Britain strong’. It fed some of the myths about ourselves someone thought, the erroneous claim that ‘we fought alone’ was strong. The reality that we were helped by many nations who provided soldiers and other support. It was also true that the contribution by Indian and Caribbean people had largely been written out of the histories. We were reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s quote ‘There was never a good war or a bad peace’ (1783).

    The contribution of the Russians to the war was noted who were our allies at the time. They are not invited to the UK celebrations for obvious reasons. How was Germany celebrating these events it was asked? [They do seem to have a modest ceremony]. Germans were present at the Paris events. The EU was sanctioning two European politicians who went to the Russian celebrations in Moscow. The contrast with the Moscow ceremonies was remarked on where the parades consisted of weaponry and had a militaristic theme. Would there be a day when we and the Russians could celebrate together? That seems a long way off at present. Maybe the centenary could be held in Strasbourg with all the combatants there …

    The myths about the war might have contributed to the Brexit decision by those who may not have fully appreciated the role played by other nations in the conflict and the ultimate victory. Some believed ‘we liberated them [the Europeans] so they should be grateful’ was a belief it was suggested.

    There was nothing wrong in being proud of one’s country it was suggested.

    A recurrent theme, stated by several, was the importance of remembering. These terrible conflicts which cost millions of lives and left millions more wounded, should not be forgotten but the precise nature of how they should be remembered was unclear. Several were unhappy at the jingoistic nature of the VE Day celebrations and the ‘capture’ of the event by politicians, royalty and the military. Should we just have Armistice Day? Dunkirk was mentioned which had been a major disaster for the BEF and resulted in a huge loss of equipment and men. Yet somehow it has been transformed into a celebration and the ‘Dunkirk spirit’ was part of the nation’s folk law.

    Finally, the role of the UN was raised as an instrument to act as international policeman. This had been one of the intentions following the failure of the League of Nations. However, it was pointed out that the US which had become the supreme power after the war and did not want a UN able to interfere or ‘police’ its affairs. We do not take international law seriously was a sobering thought.

    In the second half we debated the notion should voting be made compulsory? One of the problems of our debates which are introduced without prior preparation is that most do not know the background facts. There is a detailed discussion of this topic in Wikipedia and since Australia was mentioned, they have had the system since 1924. There are around 20 countries which have it. Chile also has this system it was noted.

    The topic arose because of the recent local elections (and one parliamentary by-election) where it was noted that the Reform candidate won on a 20% turnout in a local constituency. With so few voting was it time to make it compulsory? The point was made that it is our responsibility as citizens to take part in the selection of those who run things.

    The right to vote was hard won over many decades. The suffragists and the suffragettes were mentioned.

    The problem was that many thought that their vote would not make any difference. Although enormous attention was paid to the voting process and elections, we were reminded that parliamentarians and the government itself were subject to sustained and well funded lobbying. MPs were not always transparent about the degree of outside influence they were subject to or represented. All MPs should declare their interests in all debates and not rely on various rules which allowed them not to do this. In media interviews, interviewees are never asked ‘who funds you?’ leaving voters in the dark about the role and influence of lobbying and vested interests.

    The MP for nearby East Wiltshire, Danny Kruger, is currently being investigated by the Commons authorities for allegedly not declaring his involvement and funding by a religious organisation opposed to the Assisted Dying bill.

    It was inevitable it was suggested that MPs came with a set of beliefs and views which they could hardly leave at the door of the House of Commons. Perhaps it was a cynical view but the point was made that any politician bent on a career in politics had ‘sold their soul’ so was there any point in a deep dive into their background and beliefs?

    If compulsion was introduced then various changes would have to be made. What about people who did not have mental capacity? What about people who were living abroad for an extended period?

    It was noted that many did not vote because they thought none of the parties or candidates would make any difference to their lives. So there would have to be a ‘none of the above’ is compulsion was the norm. We should not overlook the fact that low turnouts were a measure of people’s frustrations. The low level of voting by young people was troubling and it was suggested that they felt ‘screwed over’ by the current system. However, voting was one of the few times we could make our views known.

    One issue with local politics was they were strongly influenced by national events. So people tended not to vote for who was the best candidate locally but to express displeasure at what the government was doing. So many may have voted locally for Reform for example with its strong statements on stopping the boat crossings, about which they could do next to nothing locally as it was a national – not to say international – issue. An increase in independent candidates would overcome this in part it was suggested. Frome was mentioned and someone noted that in Cornwall there were attempts to organise locally to solve local problems.

    Many asked what would be the sanctions for not voting?

    The next meeting is on June 14th.

    Peter Curbishley

    A reminder that the third People’s Assembly takes part on June 1st at the Football stadium starting at 2pm. If you’re interested in coming please contact Mark on mapotts53@gmail.com or leave a note here.

    Would you like to join us on the committee? We are trying to improve the standard of political decision making including the introduction of citizen’s juries.

    Latest posts:

  • Democracy Café

    May 2025

    It’s the Democracy Café meeting this Saturday, 10 May starting at 10:00 as usual and finishing at noon. It’s in Salisbury Library and we are grateful to the Library for allowing us to use the space for these meetings. If you want to get a flavour of the debates see reports elsewhere on this site. You can come with a topic you would like to hear debated or just see what comes up – your choice.

    The elections last week, and the rise of Reform, is making waves at present. Is this a protest against the two-party system? Do any of the parties have answers to the Nation’s problems? Wiltshire Council is no longer Conservative dominated – surely a seismic change. Lots to debate!

    We hope to see you there.

  • Second People’s Assembly

    The Assembly received many positive responses and was a success

    April 2025

    The second People’s Assembly was held last Sunday (13th April) and although there were fewer people in attendance, the changes we made meant it worked well. The responses from attendees were uniformly positive. The venue was larger and better appointed (St Gregory’s Hall) and the additional space meant people could move around more freely and there was less ‘noise’ interruption from neighbouring tables.

    A large number of problems were put forward and many focused, in one way or another, around housing, transport and community services. Following the experience and feedback from the first meeting, we made changes to the timings which gave more time to debate, and introduced Post It notes for the first half which helped enormously. Indeed, participants responded well to the revised arrangements. Comments included several who said ‘well organised’, others said how it was ‘enjoyable’ how the discussions were ‘respectful’ and the solutions suggested were ‘thoughtful’. They liked the venue and praised the facilitation and how the discussions were mediated.

    It was clear people enjoyed the experience. There is a desire to take part in local politics and for their voices to be heard. But too often, people are presented with party politics and their views are overlooked or ignored.

    The five solutions

    1. More genuinely affordable housing was needed particularly council built properties. A familiar issue and which is subject to a lot of political debate. The planning system comes in for criticism all too frequently, although not in this instance.
    2. The need for an Environmental Centre. At present the Salisbury EcoHub has a presence in the market place on a Tuesday and does much to inform people about environmental issues and the climate crisis. There is need of a permanent location for this vitally important activity.
    3. Free or low-cost transport for young people. Presently, it is the older members of our society who enjoy free transport but there is also a need for the young. The cost of travel to college/school can be prohibitive for some and can affect where they decide to go.
    4. A community hub for young people and families including 3G pitches and activities.
    5. Finally, a call for stricture measures to ensure developers build good quality and safe homes. This is similar to one of the results of the first Assembly where there was a demand for developers to meet their planning obligations.

    The third Assembly will take place at the Salisbury Football Stadium on June 1st starting at 2pm and finishing soon after 4pm. It is free to attend but there is an opportunity to make a contribution to our costs. To secure a space please email Mapotts53@gmail.com.

    Care to join us? If you have an interest in local democracy and would like to help us promote ideas such as Citizen’s Juries, you would be very welcome. SDA runs the Democracy cafes which are held on the second Saturday of every month.

  • Democracy Café: April

    Two topics discussed of current political interest

    April 2025

    The Café took place days following Donald Trump’s announcement of a range of tariffs which has caused ructions in world markets and threaten to destroy the way the international economic system has worked since WWII.

    But the winning topic was of a domestic nature and concerned a government bill which aim to introduce a system of reports which in their wording: ‘[…] is to prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council’s Imposition guidelines, reinforce equal access to pre-sentence reports and support consistency in application across all demographic groups‘. The worry was that there is not currently a ‘level playing field’ and that certain groups – ethnic minorities, people from religious minorities, and women – suffer differentially in the justice system.

    This had become politically sensitive with some politicians claiming that white people would suffer from this treatment if it became law. It would create a two tier system they maintained and white people would accordingly suffer. It was argued that courts needed to take everyone’s circumstances into account in relation to sentencing. The book The Devil You Know was mentioned in this connection, written by a psychiatrist who interviewed people who committed serious crimes to try and understand their stories and motivations. She gave this year’s Reith Lecture series.

    Objectors said that it risked introducing a two-tier system and one politician said it was ‘blatant bias against Christians’ and ‘straight white men’. It was noted however that there was already a two-tier system with a disproportionate number of black men in prison. It was also noted that since the ending of legal aid, there were many who could not obtain justice at all. Another change which has taken place in recent years was victim statements. These were introduced to remind the courts that there were people who had suffered greatly from a criminal act.

    A case was mentioned of someone who had entered the country illegally, held for 7 years without charge [I could not find a reference to this]. How can the legal system justify this?

    It was argued that the legal system has arisen from a power structure which was essentially Christian in nature. Not everyone agreed with this: many of our laws were based on common law going back centuries. We were also reminded that early Christians were extremely violent in the promotion of their beliefs.

    Digression

    At this point we digressed from the topic in hand and the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt was mentioned. She was the lady arrested and eventually found guilty by the court in Bournemouth for breaching the Public Spaces Protection Order by standing outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth holding a sign saying ‘Here to talk if you want to’. She was fined £20,000 and given a conditional discharge. These are the bald facts of the case as widely reported. It was suggested however, that this was an attack on the freedom of expression. It was also suggested that Tossici-Bolt was on the other hand a ‘front’ for American evangelicals. The US funded organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) did indeed help fund the case but I could find no evidence that she acted for them. Readers would need to refer to their website to understand the nature and activities of this organisation. [They also have an extensive Wikipedia entry].

    It was questioned whether she had been warned before her arrest? She had indeed been asked to move by the police but refused. She had also been offered a fixed penalty notice but she declined it, hence her arrest. The Americans had commented on the case as an example of the lack of free speech in the UK. She is free to speak and campaign but to do it outside the PSPO.

    There was discussion about the extent of Christian influence on our laws. It was noted that historically, people believed they would go to hell (in the literal sense) if they lied in court for example. Christianity has strongly influenced our culture and beliefs it was argued and it was noted that in the US, God and religious beliefs were a powerful influence. It has driven their views on abortion for example [see the reference to ADF above who funded the overturning of Roe v, Wade] The benign nature of early Christianity was questioned however as they were extremely violent in promoting their beliefs in the early centuries.

    We were reminded of Lord Acton’s quote ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

    On the struggle for power, Magna Carta was mentioned which concerned a very narrow group of people namely the King, the Barons and some property owners. The word ‘woman’ only appears once in the document. This prompted the comment concerning the present day and the farmer’s protests (being property owners I think was the link though not all farmers own their land). Despite causing disruption in London concerning their protest about the capital gains tax changes introduced last year, none had been arrested. This was contrasted with the arrest of women in a Quaker meeting house in Westminster who were planning a protest.

    But back to the question and it was said surely, it is better to be informed about people (during the judicial process) than simply to continue with the policy of locking people up? Someone who had been a social worker said he was often asked to produce reports by the courts but he did not think this was for everyone. We have too many in prison and this contrasted with the Nordic countries and the Netherlands who were reducing their prison populations. However, the role of the media and its allegations towards any politician advocating such ideas was that they were guilty of being ‘soft on crime’.

    Overall, there was probably agreement that it was better for courts to be informed about defendants and their circumstances rather than just rely on punishment.

    For our second debate, we looked at the proposition: was what has happened in the US [Trump and the tariffs etc] a blessing in disguise? We had a somewhat Hollywood view of America and some of the realities of life there did not always reach our screens. The health service for example: we have seen several TV series showing heroic doctors – Dr Kildare and ER for example – whereas around 20 million Americans had no access to health care. Someone who had lived in America said that she had received excellent service in the US whereas she has been waiting months for treatment here. Someone else who had worked in the US said he knew of someone involved in a motorcycle accident which damaged his leg, but who did not have Medicaid, was taken to a hospital where they simply amputated it, no attempt was made, it was suggested, to save it which might have happened if he did have medical insurance.

    The economic effects of Trump’s actions were mentioned and how there had been some ‘bragging’ about the economic effects especially from those who had profited from the stock market gyrations. One suggested it was a ‘clever business deal’.

    Brexit was mentioned and the idea that we could stand on our own since leaving and this looked a little fragile now in view of Trump’s actions and tariffs. We should form closer links with Canada and the EU. We should also be supporting the UN and the ideas of accountability and the rule of law. Gordon Brown had suggested using the IMF and the World Bank in the process of building a new world order. The problem however is that both institutions are American controlled. Removing the dollar as a reserve currency was another suggestion which is something China and a clutch of other countries like Brazil and South Africa is trying to do. It was noted that Iraq, then the largest oil producer, wanted to tie its production to the Euro and this might have been part of the motive for the Iraq war. Since the stated reasons for the war (Iraq’s alleged programme to produce weapons of mass destruction and links to AL Qaeda were both wrong) this theory is not altogether outlandish.

    How feasible was detaching ourselves from the US it was asked? The US has cut aid to WHO and its own US aid programmes but other countries had not stepped forward to fix the breach. We were closely linked militarily with bases around the country. We had very close links between the intelligence services particularly the NSA and GCHQ. We also made components for American aircraft such as the F35. Detaching ourselves from these relationships would be both difficult and unwise. We were reminded of the Five Eyes programme.

    History goes in cycles it was noted. The US has a constitution (which the UK hasn’t) and Trump was facing many legal challenges. The Washington Post was mentioned but we were reminded that it had been acquired by Jeff Bezos who had prevented it from endorsing the Democrats at the election. We must be aware of US firms seeking investments in key areas such as Palantir. They were looking to acquire NHS data and the worry was the government would sell this off cheaply for short-term gain and to the detriment of the long-term health of the country. Allowing such firms to have access to the NHS’s data is a huge risk. The other concern was tax and major US firms like Amazon make massive profits in the UK yet managed (quite legally) to pay next to no tax since the transactions take place in a tax haven.

    How will it all end? Even if Congress decides to stand up to him, the results could be violent since many Americans feel he speaks for them. We were reminded of the massive gun ownership in the States. Attention was drawn to the film Civil War which was a kind of imagined scenario of what an insurrection could look like in the States.

    It was noted that two US Supreme Court justices were reported to be quite angry over recent events and ignoring established government protocols. It has centred around the Court’s demand that Kilmar Abrego Garcia be retrieved from El Salvador. It showed that Trump can be resisted.

    The gradual decline in international law prompted the thought of what happened in the 1930’s in Germany where the Nazis gradually built their power by denigrating the law and gradually reducing rights along the path to power. Was there a risk of similar things happening in the UK?

    Did we debate the question? Not really. Perhaps we are too close to it and the events too raw for notion that it might be for the long term benefit of the UK to forge closer links with like minded nations. We were warned that the idea of forming a closer link with China had serious risks.

    Books mentioned:

    The Devil You Know, 2022, Dr Gwen Adshead, Faber & Faber Ltd

    The Darkening Age: Christian Destruction of the Classical World, 2017, Catherine Nixey, Macmillan

    Next meeting on May 10th. The next People’s Assembly takes place on June 1st at the Football Club starting at 2pm. Booking is done by contacting mapotts53@gmail.com. It is free but a small contribution can be made if you wish. [UPDATE: 15 April] We’ve just held our second on 13th and a write up is now posted. There is a report of the first here.

    Rating: 1 out of 5.

    Have you thought of joining us? We are trying to improve the standard of democracy and governance in the area and would welcome anyone with similar interests to join us.

    1748786400

      days

      hours  minutes  seconds

    until

    People’s Assembly

  • Democracy Café

    Next Democracy Café

    April 2025

    Write – up soon. The last Democracy Café was this morning Saturday, 12 April starting at 10:00 as usual and finishing at noon. In Salisbury Library, upstairs (there is a lift). Lots to discuss with the momentous events following Trump’s election and the imposition of tariffs which have shaken the world order. What should our relations with the US be now? Are they ‘friends’ anymore? There will be many attending on Saturday or reading this who have links over the pond: I can think of many in my family circle who are living/working in the US. Should we impose tariffs?

    And what about Europe and the dreaded ‘B’ word no one dare mention not least in the Labour party. Should we be thinking of a closer … no, no, don’t go there – too terrifying a thought.

    You see summaries of previous cafes on this site and the last one here.

    Local elections are coming up and although they are ‘local’, many will use them to express a view of the government. What should the issues be?

    Which brings me neatly to the second People’s Assembly taking place on Sunday 13 April (yes the day after – we are gluttons for punishment) at the St Gregory’s Hall in St G’s Avenue (off the Wilton Road, by snaky bridge). Attendance is looking good but there may still be places so contact mappots53@gmail.com if you would like to come. Starts at 2pm and finishes after 4. Free with a parting collection. See a report on the first Assembly. There was also a report in the Salisbury Journal.

    Hope to see at one or both events.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Second People’s Assembly

    Plans progressing for the second assembly

    March 2025

    Following the success of the first People’s Assembly, the second is being planned for April 13th starting at 2pm and finishing some time after 4pm. The first assembly went well and attendance was good. We have received good coverage in the local media. Issues concerning timings have been addressed so we hope this assembly will work just that bit more smoothly. Numbers are good with over 50 so far but we suspect some will not come so there are spaces. If you are interested you need to contact Mark Potts on mapotts53@gmail.com to book your space.

    The event is free but there is a parting collection. You’ll note that 13th is a Sunday and we have chosen this to enable people who work or have commitments on a Saturday to take part.

    There is disabled access and there is parking on site or in the road. It will take place at St Gregory’s Hall in St Gregory’s Avenue, SP2 7SF. The avenue is off Roman Road which runs between Wilton Road and Devizes Road on the West side of the City.

    This is a golden opportunity for you to come and make your views known.

  • A House of Experts

    Fresh thinking on how to reform the House of Lords

    As a long-time supporter of the idea of citizen’s assemblies, I have felt conflicted by the current argument about the future of the House of Lords.  While the present structure of the Lords is clearly untenable, we must be wary of replacing it with something that might turn out not a whole lot better.  For a continuous second chamber, I suggest we need to think from scratch what would be the best option rather than trying to squeeze an existing concept into the same hole.

    The organisation Assemble want a House of the People (presumably an anti-political entity).  Others have suggested an elected house based on a form of proportional representation, or a house representing the regions in some form, or a random body of people like a jury.  My concern would be how much are they bringing to the table? It’s all very well to say that ‘politics is broken’, but where does that leave you?  If we want a complementary House of Ex-Lords, surely it should bring in those unrepresented by the Commons?  I don’t mean the underprivileged, who need better representation, which can only come from a better working democracy rather than a replacement body.  My view is that we need greater expertise.

    MPs have to learn about a lot of things on the job. The fact that so few of them have experienced work in “normal” jobs before parliament only makes the situation worse. Also, of course, government and opposition parties will adopt stances based on political criteria rather than objectivity or close study of the issues.  So, to have a body of people on hand who know stuff could only be beneficial.  It would also obviate the activities of lobbyists, as they could be scrutinised at source.

    So the House of Experts I would envisage would be something like up to 500 people who are specialists in their fields.  They would serve for, say, 6 months (on sabbatical?) and being replaced by persons with similar qualifications, to cover those areas where legislation is problematic (probably all of them!).  It would mean that, instead of the current situation where politicians declare their aims of fixing a problem in five years, say, the detail and difficulties and realistic solutions would be in the open debating chamber rather than muttered by people who lack the resource to influence what happens.  

    Since the chosen members would not be parti pris, debate would be a more constructive, Habermasian procedure than the antagonistic Commons (to be fair, the current Lords and proposed citizen’s assemblies also aim to do that).  Selection procedures would be up for debate: one possibility would be choosing by geography (different areas might have different approaches to issues).  It would also be useful to have overlapping knowledge areas debating in the same place (e.g. climate change and farming).

    An obvious question that arises concerns the authority such a chamber may have. Is it purely advisory, or can it legislate, in which case by what right?  My feeling is that it should be essentially advisory, but that the Commons would have to have very good reasons for going against the advice of the Experts.  I would not expect the new House to be able to initiate legislation.

    So where does that leave our cherished citizen’s assemblies?  In a better place, because I believe they are more suitable for specific (and maybe local) issues than as a national body (think of a CA deciding foreign policy).  It was originally felt that their value lay in resolving political impasses, and I would expect there to be a future in that line of business.  This would also, of course, do away with the problem of maintaining such bodies, as they would be entirely ad hoc.  Even better, it would stop complaints that we are trying to take over from the politicians!

    Andrew Hemming

  • Democracy Café: March

    Café took place following tumultuous events in USA

    March 2025

    The Café started with a short introduction by the facilitator reporting back on the People’s Assembly which had been run the previous week. Around 40 attended, 50 all told, and the event secured good coverage in the local media. The next event is on 13 April and to secure a place contact mapotts53@gmail.com. We were also delighted to welcome a visitor from Horsham in E Sussex who is thinking of setting up a café in that town.

    We are grateful to Salisbury Library for their generous offer to use their space for our meetings.

    The Café took place in the week following the unseemly meeting in the White House between President Zelensky of Ukraine and President Trump and his team.

    The first question which won the vote was would we agree to a return of conscription? Conscription ended in the UK in 1963. Some saw it as having benefits for our youth: imbuing discipline in young people although it was noted that politicians were keen for it for other people’s children not their own. What was the difference between national service and conscription someone asked: there probably isn’t in reality. Were we desperate enough yet for this someone asked?

    The previous government had talked about a form of national service for school leavers. The problem was a hotchpotch of programmes for young people with little coherence for those who did not go to university, the less able and those with special needs. Someone felt that education had failed young people. Many parents don’t like their children going to school it was suggested and there had been a rise in home schooling. Echoing a discussion last time, there was little attention paid to the teaching of values they thought.

    A Quaker insisted that there was a right to object. He felt there was something of an obsession with military matters. In this context, it was noted that the nation faced threats which were not of a military nature eg cyber attacks, financial and bacteriological threats. We should be alive to these just as much as recruiting for the armed services. It wasn’t all boots on the ground. Someone who was a conscientious objector spoke of his service in an ambulance unit. Should we not aim for societies to live in a world without wars? It didn’t matter how you killed: what was the difference between a soldier in the field and someone sitting in front of a screen thousands of miles away pressing a button? Both had effects on the individual. Julian Assange and Wikileaks had revealed the extent of killing at a distance mainly by the US.

    The Quaker approach was questioned: what do they do to defend themselves? They did have a right to react (in reference to the Ukraine invasion) was the answer. The example of Einstein was mentioned who was in the US when Hitler came to power and decided not to go back to Germany. At that point he renounced his pacifism. After Hiroshima (which his discoveries in physics helped bring about) he became a pacifist again. The point being that people can change their minds.

    The government’s change of focus was introduced (the decision to reduce overseas aid funding to put more money into defence to reach 2.5% of GDP). We were never asked about this it was noted. It was suggested that it was a debate our leaders wanted us to have, to create enemies, even suggesting it was our leaders were the real enemies. The thinker and writer Prof. Mearsheimer was mentioned in the context of Ukraine (by now we had drifted away somewhat from conscription) and a lengthy essay on his thinking is available here. You will note that many do not agree with his views. Jeffrey Sachs was mentioned and his views about the eastward push of NATO and the idea that Americans had taken over the role the British Empire had in earlier times. His speech to the EU is a recommended read. Both suggested a need for our own foreign policy (divorced from the US was implied). The impetus behind the creation of the EEC, which was partly to end the centuries of wars which had taken place between European nations, has been forgotten it was said.

    It was suggested that every war since Vietnam has been a war of choice. This related to the references in the previous paragraph about America’s role in the world.

    Back to the plot and the problems within the armed services needed addressing. Issues of bullying and sexual harassment were common. This touched on the problem of retention of people within the services. The process in the Nordic nations and Switzerland where all able bodied men and women are required to do some kind of military service, Militärdienst (Switzerland). A recent referendum there voted 73% in favour of maintaining conscription.

    In relation to Ukraine, why weren’t we talking the language of diplomacy someone asked? The democratic process had been undermined at speed by the actions of Donald Trump someone said. There had been no time for the parliamentary process to have its say. The speed was deliberate it was suggested, the process of ‘flooding the zone’ (©Steve Bannon). It was a question of getting used to uncertainty.

    Well, we didn’t really answer the question! Conscription arose in times of war and that is unlikely as far as the UK is concerned. It might arise in connection with troops being sent to Ukraine a matter we did not directly discuss. Since the armed services have seen funding fall to seriously low levels and the standing army was at a very low ebb, maybe conscription might be needed. The debate circled around events in Ukraine which led us to part two …

    The second half kicked off with the question is the Trump approach to Ukraine the only practical one? There was a review of the current situation. Biden’s leadership saw no prospect of an end to the fighting; Putin has too much as stake to give up now especially after recent events; Trump is providing a solution which is not what Ukrainians want; he is forcing – or trying to force – Zelensky to concede. Debate.

    The similarities to the ’30s was mentioned and the policy of appeasement. A lot depends on Putin’s intentions someone thought: will he be satisfied with what he’s got (the implication being he won’t be)? Thousands have died but Trump’s way is giving Putin all the cards. We returned to some of the points in the first half debate. We were led to believe ‘Russia bad’ ‘America good’ but both had imperial ambitions as the above references will attest. The eastward push of NATO was a factor in recent events although it was noted that these new members wanted to join for their protection.

    Trump’s approach was purely transactional it was noted with an eye on securing mineral deals in Ukraine – no doubt at favourable prices – for American mining companies.

    Putin was fundamentally different someone noted, he was a liar and did not stick to agreements. The Minsk agreement was referred to which demanded nothing of Russia and was a precursor to the 2022 invasion. Remember the Novichok attack in Salisbury. At this point, Craig Murray’s take on the Skripal’s and Navalny was brought up, essentially disbelieving the received narrative of Putin ordering assassinations. We were reminded of the Katyn massacre of Polish soldiers carried out by the NKVD in WWII.

    It felt wrong it was said, that is to allow Russia to get away with invading which might lead to further actions in places like Moldova and the Baltic states.

    A bit of Russian history was mentioned namely that they were late to democracy. Attempts in the late nineteenth centuries to install a democratic system failed until the eventual October revolution took place. They had a sense of inferiority and this, it was suggested, was a factor in their thinking. They had been frequently invaded by Napoleon, Hitler and by western ‘White’ forces after the revolution. Ukraine had its own history and previous domination under the Tsars led to the policy of attempted Russification, suppression of the language and deportations of thousands of members of the intelligentsia.

    There was discussion, frankly difficult to summarise, around the eastward push of NATO being a factor, the role of the CIA and a quote by Kissinger ‘to be a enemy of the USA is dangerous, to be a friend, fatal’.

    The two debates circled around the same topic really and that was Ukraine. But we did discuss the changing perceptions of the USA brought into stark focus with the recent statements and actions from the White House. The USA was effectively an empire and had carried out a range of activities around the world to destabilise nations or leaders who tried to resist their power (see the books mentioned below). This power was used for the benefit of American firms, a factor plainly evident in Trump’s approach to Ukraine. So there is nothing new in his attitudes. This was forcing an urgent rethink of policy on defence and ultimately much else in Europe. Perhaps people were beginning to recast their view of America? Maybe we will see conscription …

    Next meeting on 12 April.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    The Racket: a rogue reporter vs the American Empire, 2024, Matt Kennard

    The New Rulers of the World, 2016, John Pilger

    Would you like to join us? We are a small team and would welcome anyone interested in democracy and people having their say. Next café is on 12th April and that would be a good moment to have a word.