Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Author: welland2

  • Democracy Café

    March Café takes place today

    March 2025

    The March Democracy Café takes place today, 8 March, starting at 10:00 as usual in the Library, upstairs. For new people, it lasts 2 hours with a short break. The idea is to discuss a topic suggested and voted on by the people present. We usually end up selecting two topics. You do not have to have a topic (and broadly speaking, half of those who come don’t) but you are welcome to participate in what is chosen.

    Some may have attended our first People’s Assembly last Saturday or you may have read about it in the Salisbury Journal or the Avon Gazette. This is part of our programme to involve people in political debate and decision making. Many feel frustrated by the current system where political parties seem to be dominated by commercial or media interests. If you missed last Saturday, there are two more and the next is on 13th April starting at 2pm. The link above tells you how to reserve a space.

    Members

    Have you thought of joining us? We want to do more and our ambition is to have a Citizen’s Assembly sometime. This is a process where people attend several weekends to debate a topic or problem and this is informed by the presence of experts in that field. The results where this has been tried have been impressive. We welcome those who would like to join us in our endeavours. Wiltshire is proving a hard nut to crack being somewhat stuck in its ways with a ‘we know best’ attitude: but we’re still trying.

  • People’s Assembly

    First People’s Assembly held and was a great success

    March 2025

    [UPDATE: 14 April. The Football Club will now be the location for the third People’s Assembly on 1 June]

    We held our first People’s Assembly on Saturday March 1st at which around 40 attended with a further 10 of us, with spirited debates on some of the key problems which face Salisbury. The idea is part of the Assemble movement and after two more of these assemblies are held, our final suggestions will go to the national event to be held in July.

    To some extent, people have lost some faith in the political process. We have elections and we listen to speeches and read manifestos, but in reality, what we the people think seems to matter less and less. It is media interests – many of them based in America – and commercial firms which seem to call the tune. Elon Musk and his various outrageous and incorrect posts about grooming gangs is a recent example. His statements forced the government’s hand and the Home Secretary has announced an enquiry. So an American has driven policy, not the people who voted for the government last year. The malign role of the Murdoch media has been well aired.

    It is also timely as the struggle to reform the House of Lords continues. This archaic institution which is largely white and elderly, is resisting efforts at reform, reform that is long overdue (long as in centuries). This is just one of the campaigns to encourage the voice of ordinary people to be heard.

    The idea of these meetings is first, to ask people to say what they think the problems facing Salisbury are and second, to suggest solutions. A variety of ideas and problems emerged including concerns about housing issues. People felt aggrieved that developers were able to dodge their planning obligations by not providing sufficient affordable homes. Building homes that weren’t fully insulated was another complaint as was not allowing building on the flood plains. Housing estates going up around Salisbury without infrastructure such as medical centres was another concern.

    More council built homes was suggested. Perhaps the effects of ‘right to buy,’ the flagship policy of the Thatcher era, are now being understood. We should remember that it was originally a Labour party policy but the problem when it was introduced was not allowing LAs to use the receipts to build more homes.

    Transport was a topic of interest and people wanted to see a more comprehensive and realistic transport plan with car free zones, people friendly routes and more cycle ways. More pedestrianisation was also suggested in Salisbury.

    Perhaps a surprising suggestion was for Salisbury to have a College for the Performing Arts which would complement the Playhouse and provide opportunities for young people to gain skills in this important part of our society.

    Most found the afternoon interesting and certainly there was a lot of earnest debate in each of the groups. Some were disappointed at the lack of opportunity to debate or explore some of the problems and the suggestions being put forward. They felt it was a tad rushed and they would have liked more time. Another worry was that some good ideas seem to get lost in the voting process. But hey, Rome wasn’t built in a day. We are looking carefully at the timings and overall timescale and may well alter things for the second meeting to be held on 13 April.

    Another issue which emerged was the status of Salisbury. Being a parish, means it has only limited powers to do make changes. It also meant focusing the debates and suggestions quite difficult since where did the responsibility lie?

    Some photos of the event are below. Clockwise from the left: Mark Potts; plenary session; a speaker feeding back from her group; groups debating their topics; assembling before the event.

    The next meeting takes place on Sunday 13 April at St Gregory’s Hall (SP1 2SF, St Gregory’s Avenue off the Devizes Road) at 2pm. It is free to attend with a parting collection. The third is 1st June at the Football Club. You can come to either or both. To register your interest please leave a note here or contact mapotts53@gmail.com.

    Be part of a new force and make your views known.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: February

    February 2025

    Largest assembly for the Café since its formation

    The room in the Library was full for our café on 8th February and we discussed two quite unrelated topics. But first, it is timely to thank Salisbury Library for giving us this space. Libraries have had a tough time in recent years with one report saying 180 have closed since 2016. We much appreciate them for enabling us to meet there.

    There were a large number of topics suggested (around 16) and the one which won the most votes was How do we get growth, and do we want it? This of course arose following speeches by Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer who have nailed the Labour party’s flag to the growth mast as the solution to the country’s many ills. ‘To believe in growth on a planet with finite resources is either a madman or an economist’ thus spake David Attenborough. The third runway idea seemed to ignore environmental issues which appeared at one time to be an important element of Labour’s policy. But how to change the narrative was the question. The assumption that growth was the answer to problems is almost assumed wisdom without it ever being questioned.

    The idea of a third runway at Heathrow was unlikely to be successful it was thought: interestingly, the reasons didn’t need to be spelled out. Kate Raworth’s book Doughnut Economics was mentioned which included a critique on the very topic we are discussing.

    Tax should be reframed as a social good

    Tax (as ever) was mentioned and the observation that people want services but the moment raising taxes to pay for them is mentioned it was political death. There was no sense of pride in paying tax as a contribution to the public realm. Tax was always presented negatively as a cost not a contribution. It should be reframed as a social good (this was the first time a remark was applauded in the history of the Café!). The results of not doing things (as in not spending on schools, hospitals etc I think was meant) never seemed to be discussed. ‘Living Danishley’ was mentioned – an economy with higher taxes but also higher welfare where there did seem to be higher levels of contentment. One hopes the people of Greenland agree.

    It was pointed out that there were two aspects to growth: the short term focusing on GDP and the longer term which was concerned with matters such as productivity, improvements in which have defeated politicians for decades. We must not lose sight we were reminded of some of the benefits of growth, the reduction in poverty for example

    A fundamental point which seems to escape most politicians, is what matters is that those with assets already tend to gain the most whilst those without assets tend to lose out. Almost Biblical in fact: “for he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.” Which seems apposite in Trumpworld. It was about the distribution of wealth. It was noted that just 62 people own half the world’s wealth. Since much of this wealth was in a tax haven somewhere, it was ‘dead money’. One of the consequences of not investing was the huge rise in child poverty. Estimates vary depending on definitions and whether relative or absolute poverty was meant, but what was clear was a huge rise in the numbers. It was not all right for many with poverty and poor housing common.

    The point was made that GDP (Gross Domestic Product in case you weren’t paying attention in your economics class) didn’t measure everything. In fact it measures income and there are many aspects which make life worth living which are not measured. The Happiness Index being used in Bhutan was an interesting observation (and the link is well worth a look if this is new to you). Another point is that changes in GDP were incremental and often very small amounts of a percentage or fractions of a percent. Distribution (of wealth) was much more significant.

    The book The Spirit Level was mentioned and one of its key findings that inequality hurts all people not just those at the bottom of the heap so to speak. It was noted that the welfare state introduced after the war had been ‘bypassed’ as it was expressed and politicians today don’t promote social responsibility. This was linked to the tax point above. The state was increasingly relying on charities to step in and do the things the state used to do.

    ‘Getting rich’ was the only philosophy

    No Democracy Café is complete without mention of the media. It was suggested that one problem was the media’s desire to glamorise rich people so that wealth was regarded as a good thing in itself. Do we trust social media? ‘No’ was the answer (unfortunately, many do). However, it was pointed out that not all social media was the same and it did allow for a diversity of views. It devoted too much time to discredit reliable sources someone said. The failure by the government to enunciate a coherent philosophy didn’t help it was suggested leaving the idea that to get rich was the (only) way forward. Bad news makes the headlines someone observed. Large elements of our media were owned by foreign oligarchs who were able to control the narrative.

    Overall, a general conclusion that growth by itself was of little value unless more was done to ensure it was distributed more fairly. Ignoring the environment to achieve it didn’t find favour either.

    The second topic was What are the burning issues facing Salisbury and what are the solutions? Transport was quick out of the blocks followed by the numbers of empty shops. A big rise in foodbank use was mentioned and flooding.

    On transport, the related issue of congestion was brought up. Charging people to enter the town centre was suggested. A suggestion to one of the Area Boards a few years ago that the City centre be pedestrianised was not met with enthusiasm to put it mildly. There was a strong car lobby in the City. Attempts to make Salisbury more people friendly didn’t always get far. The Cycling Opportunities Group for Salisbury (COGS) had suggested safe cycle routes for example which did not fully succeed.

    Building houses on the flood plain was mentioned by several and was unsurprisingly, not seen as a good idea. As water levels rise … well you get the idea. At this point it was noted that several of the suggestions were beyond the powers of the City Council to do anything about. It was after all – absurdly – a parish council with very limited powers. It was also limited to the City boundary and did not include adjacent villages or places like Wilton. The Council may well object to housing on the flood plain but housebuilders had huge resources to be able to defy the council and the minister would overrule any objections [that very day, the Guardian reported ministers’ intentions to build thousands of houses on such areas]. Halt Harnham Housebuilding was mentioned. The drivers for change were not local.

    On the topic of housing two matters were mentioned. Many older people lived in large properties and might like to downsize. It was not easy however and the costs of some supported housing were high and uncertain. Second homes were criticised although Salisbury is not such a centre for this. Some places in Cornwall and Wales were plagued by them.

    What the vision was for Salisbury was questioned. What will the City look like (at some future time)?

    What was there to keep young people in Salisbury? What reasons were there for them to stay here? Things like the LGBQ café had closed down for example. Someone asked ‘why should I come to Salisbury?’ With closed shops and an increase in cafés and hairdressers, it lacked excitement they thought. It was observed that in some Baltic states, multiple shop owners had to relocate on the periphery and only small retailers allowed in the centre. However, someone said that the most common question they get asked is ‘where is Marks and Spencers?’

    It was suggested that part of the problem was that Trowbridge felt remote. The Plain was a definite barrier with poor communications. There was an argument for the county to be split into two, north and south (forgive me for adding a link to a piece on this subject).

    The role of private contracts with the local hospital was mentioned. This was a concern and ‘backdoor’ privatisation of the NHS was a worry generally. Trying to find out the true story here is not easy with company take overs and such like. Twenty20 Capital is an ex Virgin organisation and we must be worried that a venture capital entity is taking over the local hospital. Will it follow the usual practice of these companies to strip the place bare and ‘do a water industry’?

    There was some discussion on the College which now apparently did little in the way of further education. It was a result someone said of ‘Ofstedisation’ that is learning which was all about outcomes and outputs. Several issues discussed and we were reminded of the forthcoming People’s Assemblies in Salisbury that attendees might be interested in.

    Peter Curbishley

    Items mentioned:

    Simon Schama: History of Us BBC iPlayer

    The Spirit Level, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, 2009, Allen Lane

    Doughnut Economics, Kate Raworth, Penguin

  • Democracy Café

    Our successful Democracy Café was held again today 8th February starting at 10:00 and finished at noon. A write up will appear shortly.

    If you look at our last post you can see details of the People’s Assemblies we are planning which some of you might be interested in joining.

    Recent posts:

  • People’s Assemblies are coming to Salisbury

    Citizen involvement idea coming to Salisbury

    February 2025

    NOTE SMALL CHANGE TO DATES AND TIMES IF YOU HAVE VISITED BEFORE

    Does Salisbury need a People’s Assembly? We at Salisbury Democracy Alliance think it does and we have been campaigning for one for many years. Our mission is to improve the quality of decision making in the area and to increase the involvement of citizens in such decision making. Our political system is essentially to hold periodic elections and once elected, we tend to leave them to get on with it. We want to improve on that.

    Finally, it seems that we are going to achieve our aim thanks to the support of the national organisation Assemble. They believe our current system is broken with poor decision making at the national level, and capture of government by outside and corporate interests. The first People’s Assembly in Salisbury will be on Saturday 1st March from 2 – 4:15pm at the Quaker Meeting house.

    A second one will be held on Sunday 13th April from 2 – 4:15pm at St Gregory’s Hall, Salisbury.

    The third one will be held on Sunday 1st June at the Football Club, same times.

    At both sessions, participants will discuss what the main issues are facing Salisbury (local or national) and what solutions they propose. These issues and proposals will be fed through to local politicians (The local elections are in May) and after a third Assembly in Salisbury in June, they will be forwarded to the National People’s Assembly being held in July. The National Assembly will have the ear of independent MPs, some of whom are supportive of Assemble.

    If you want to participate in the People’s Assemblies please respond to the email below letting us know which ones you would prefer to attend. You may attend as many as you like. Attendees at our assemblies will also have the opportunity to attend the national people’s assembly to discuss issues facing the country. It is, of course, free to attend the assemblies.

    We believe that this is a way of giving people the time and space to discuss issues and getting people’s voices heard through a deliberative process.

    If you want to participate in one of the People’s Assemblies please respond to this email letting us know which of the two you would prefer to attend. You can respond to this post or send an email to mapotts53@gmail.com. There will be more posts on this topic as time goes on.

    Picture shows a Talkshop we held about 2 years ago which has similar features to this project.

    Go back

    Your message has been sent

  • Annual meeting

    January 2024

    We held our annual meeting on 28 January at the Boston Tea Party and the following matters were discussed:

    – The existing officers of SDA keep their positions. Marks Potts as chair; Andrew Hemmings as Treasurer and Peter Curbishley, publicity and the website.

    – We discussed the Democracy Café which continues to meet and it has been a success. There was a suggestion for a change in format. After discussion it was agreed we would vote for the following months topic at the end of the previous session so that people knew something about what was to be discussed. We would do this once as an experiment. This was a change in the original concept and there might be a problem of people arriving with too much material. One problem is the time between cafés which meant fresh topics would be too late. We will see.

    – We agreed on a presence at People in the Park in May. There was a discussion on doing a role play exercise based on our presence there but it would be too difficult to organise.

    – There was a discussion based on Phil Tinline’s Democracy programme on the BBC. Could we do a similar exercise here in Salisbury? We will explore to see in he could come and give us a talk on the subject as his parents live in Salisbury. Perhaps in the Autumn.

    – We have funds of £212.

    The rest of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of Assemble and there is more on this topic on our next post.

    The next Democracy Café takes place on February 8th starting at 10:00 in the Central Library. If you would like to join us you would be very welcome.

  • Democracy Café – January

    Elon Musk and hope for the future were the two topics we chose today

    January 2025

    Two good debates today on what at first sight might have been dissimilar topics but turned out not to be so. Elon Musk has been much in the news this past week with a number of what some might regard as outrageous remarks. The first question was How should the nation respond to Elon Musk? It seemed from several of his interventions that people were affronted by them and that he was given so much air time and publicity. It was noted for example that in this week’s New Statesman (10 – 16 January) Will Dunn points out that the BBC has devoted 179 articles to him in comparison to only 33 on Xi Jinping.

    Should we separate the man from the issues? It was noted that he has a prescription for Ketamine, a powerful drug not approved by the FDA. He seems to be up most of the night writing his posts on X. It was suggested he is volatile and was desperate for attention. He has a talent for making the political weather with a global reach on his platform. He has altered the algorithms to enable his utterances to gain global attention. The only way to control him was via regulation.

    Recently, he called Jess Philips MP a ‘rape genocide apologist’ and suggested she be jailed for not holding a public enquiry over the rape gangs in Oldham. It was regrettable someone said that there was not a joint political response deploring these remarks about a British politician. Instead, some Conservatives sought to make political capital.

    Musk’s father, Errol, was quoted as saying that his son wanted to ‘improve the world’.

    It was suggested that one response was not to use X (said by someone who admitted not using social media platforms). However, it was noted that many wanted to hear his views and if he was banned from the UK, they would be ‘up in arms’. There were many who admired his wealth. We were reminded that Brazil did indeed turn X off and forced it to pay fines and make changes. The actual outcome seems uncertain however. But how many knew of the Brazil action it was asked? [The inference was that we were not really informed of this by UK media].

    Was the response just about Asian men involved in grooming someone asked [it was not just about that although that seems to have ignited the current row].

    Would we be better off with a benevolent dictator? The problem with democracies was that there was constant change with governments coming and going. The current Labour government seems no better than the previous Conservative one it was claimed. In their defence it was said that it will take some time to rectify the economy. Back to Musk and his volatility was noted. After all, he was recently a Democratic supporter now he was funding Donald Trump. It was suggested that he did not seem to have any core principles.

    We got onto his enormous wealth. It did not seem to make him happy it was said (back to the ketamine for depression). Why does he do it? It was about power it was suggested, he was not interested in society. It wasn’t just Musk it was pointed out: what about Waheed Ali who gave funds to the Labour Party?

    A problem was the extreme wealth of the oligarchs. This disparity had been allowed to develop with more and more going to fewer and fewer people. We now have a situation where wealth trumps democracy. The solution was to remove money from the election process with only supporters’ money being used by the parties. This did not address the ‘Musk problem’ however since it did not involve money to a party [the rumoured donation to Reform does not seem likely now]. Another suggestion was fixed funding for parties.

    Another issue was the power the likes of Musk enjoyed. It was more than just wild statements on X. The case of Starlink and the war in Ukraine. Musk has allegedly deactivated SpaceX satellite access to Ukraine in the Crimean area thus depriving the Ukrainians the ability to attack Russian warships with drones. This is denied by Musk who said that the links were never activated in the first place.

    Why do people want to listen to him or read his views? One possible reason was that he offered straightforward solutions like all populists. Government was complex and a constant balancing act between different demands for funding and how to raise taxes. Populists offered simple solutions.

    In view of the decision by Meta (Facebook et al) to remove all their fact checkers, as well as Musk allowing people back onto X who had been previously banned, the son of one of those present wanted all censorship ended i.e. complete free speech. Freedom of expression was seen as a kind of ‘God’. We did not debate this further but it was clear that not everyone agreed with this.

    ‘Elon Musk would get less traction if we were more sceptical’

    It was suggested that we (the public that is) are partly responsible and the point was our gullibility. Musk would not have the traction if more were sceptical of his various statements. We fawned over our royalty for example.

    Going back to leaving the platform, it was suggested there were two options: quit, or stay and fight. This was in relation to a Labour MP saying he was leaving X. He was part of government and he should confront the issue head on. He was ‘just being a coward’ by leaving it was suggested.

    A point not noted was that Musk was close (at the moment) to Donald Trump and this meant he was considered more influential. British politicians were reluctant to confront him because of that connection.

    Finally, we were reminded that there were similarities between Musk and the Murdochs of yesteryear. He had had enormous influence with Mrs Thatcher and then Tony Blair, both keen to pay court to him and his papers. Oligarchs and megalomaniacs were nothing new … It was pointed out though that it is different today because of the immediacy of the internet and social media, things not available in Murdoch’s heyday.

    The second debate was around What would give people hope? a worthy antidote to our previous discussion. People needed hope and a constructive vision to their lives the proposer said. Elon Musk was a symptom of a lack of belief and a kind of reaction to capitalism.

    The case of Alexei Navalny was given as an example of hope and belief. He asked ‘what was the worst [the Russian government] can do to me?’ and he accepted that. Despite everything, he held true to his beliefs. [Navalny died in a Siberian prison camp on 16 February last year. The cause of death is unknown].

    One person said that what gives him hope is that more people are aware of how bad things have become for a majority of people. More were ‘awake and alive’ to pain and suffering in the world. This was countered by someone who said ‘do they [really] know?’ and if so, do they care? This was followed by several who remarked on the distinction between the national and the local. There were many examples of kindness at the local or community level. On the matter of ‘care’, someone thought there were those who cared and those who didn’t – a kind of division. This prompted the question ‘has the nation state failed?’ The Democratic system does not seem to be working. Was it to do with political parties and the whipping system? [It was said the LibDems do not have whips: they do]. It was remarked that when an MP first enters parliament, the whips will ask if there is anything about their past they should know about? This acted both ways but it did mean it gave them control over a member by threatening to release sensitive information to the media if the member steps out of line.

    This raised the question, do we vote for parties or candidates? The ability of some candidates (and thus many MPs) did not matter so long as they were representing the ‘right’ party. Parties were very similar it was suggested. Just look at the current Labour government and you still see free market ideas, neoliberalism and only this week, more privatisation of the NHS being suggested. When it comes to it can you slip a Rizla between them? We needed more votes going to people or parties with radical ideas. We needed a clearer idea of what politicians stand for. We cannot see this now. Change came from people caring about things.

    Do we need tighter controls on MPs in particular the number who had outside jobs: some indeed with several. Only this week Nigel Farage for example, was shown to have nine jobs in all. Surely there needed to be stricter rules. Also a need for greater integrity.

    This brought up the proposals for more deliberative democracy and citizens’ assemblies something Salisbury Democracy Alliance is seeking to promote in the area (see below). It would allow a wide range of expert views to be incorporated into local decision making and also improve citizen involvement in the political process. So far the response from the County and the City has been lukewarm. There were moves to reform the House of Lords with greater involvement of ‘ordinary people’ with a range of backgrounds (see an earlier post).

    Another point – echoing something said earlier in the debate – was around populists offering simple or simplistic solutions to complex problems. He saw politics as a kind of circle rather than a straightforward set of divisions. There was often agreement over what the problems were. Do we generalise too much someone asked: the Thatcher revolution had failed many thought but what is being suggested in its place? How do we start a new revolution?

    The Southport riots was mentioned a feature of which was the large number of people who turned out the day after the disturbances to clean up and offer support to those affected. This was a hopeful sign. In the context of Elon Musk we debated earlier, not all wealthy individuals were like that and Bill [and Melinda] Gates had used his fortune to enormous beneficial effect in Africa through their Foundation.

    Someone who has just come back from a long trip to South East Asia said what was noticeable was the generosity of the people they met even though they lived in poor conditions. There seemed to be more hope surrounded as they were by family, community and friends, supported also by faith.

    Finally, it was noted that most MPs go into politics for the best of reasons and with good intentions. Once there they can become ‘lobby fodder’ unless they are ambitious and seek to gain promotion in which case towing the party line is essential.

    Did we answer the question? One theme was the need for a closer attachment to basic values. This was not just for politicians. The distinction between local actions and the national was interesting. Indeed, almost to sum up all the points in the two debates, the Southport riots provided a good example. They were whipped up on X with a variety of false and inflammatory statements but followed up afterwards by scores of local people coming out with buckets and brooms to clear up the mess. We must surely take great hope from that.

    The next Café is on February 8th at 10:00.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t. Ian Dunt (2023). Weidenfield & Nicolson.

    Why We Get the Wrong Politicians. Isabel Hardman, (2019), Atlantic Books.

    Who Governs Britain? Anthony King, (2015), Pelican.

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance

    The Café is one part of the activities of SDA. We are keen to improve the quality of government especially at the local level and as we noted above, introduce citizens’ assemblies into the county. We meet from time to time and our next meeting is on 28th of this month starting at 2pm in the Boston Tea Party (upstairs). If you would like to join us in this activity you would be more than welcome. PC

  • Next Democracy Café

    January 2025

    Past event

    Yes, this is the first Democracy Café of the New Year, today, Saturday, 11th January at 10:00 in the Library. With Donald Trump about to become President again in a short while, and with Elon Musk as his assistant, we’re in for a bumpy ride. Talking of Musk—who seems to fill the news these days—his announcement about the leader of Reform was a great surprise: we all thought he was set to donate a vast sum to the party (which it isn’t technically). One minute they’re all posing for a photo, next he wants Farage out.

    At home, things seem to be going spiffingly well for the Labour Party with approval ratings for Sir Keir dropping like a stone. The not quite poor enough elderly have lost their heating allowance and the farmers are still angry. The economy is flatlining. Business confidence at a low ebb it was reported this morning. So lots to discuss: or something quite different (and less gloomy?).

    The Café is part of the Salisbury Democracy Alliance and we are still keen on having a Citizens’ Assembly sometime. Would an Assembly have suggested the £3.2m Fisherton Street works as a way to improve the economy and amenity of the City for example? So far we have received little more than polite interest from the powers that be.

    Would you be interested in joining us in this endeavour? Our next meeting is at the Boston Tea Party on 28th at 2pm. Or have a word at the Café.

    Look forward to seeing you TODAY and a Happy New Year to you all!

    PC

  • Democracy Café

    December 2024

    The question ‘Why don’t socially progressive politics get more traction in the UK?’ with an added thought that could the UK turn into a fascist state? won the vote today. In explaining the topic it was asked why people and the planet don’t matter more than profit? Isn’t what matters is the whole of society not just a select few? Wealth concentration seems just to benefit a minority. The notion of ‘trickle down’ has not worked: inequality has increased year by year.

    One reason is that the wealthy have the ear of government. They are able to stir up fears of progressive policies. Remember the fuss around minimum pay? There was a dangerous combination of power and vested interests. An example might be farmers who have protested a lot recently concerning government plans to widen the scope of the capital gains tax. They own 40% of the land yet contribute only 0.6% to the national income.

    Labour won a big majority in the recent general election yet how progressive are they in fact? The plain fact is that the Tories keep winning and have been in existence for 2 centuries. Labour had to water down their policies to enable them to win it was claimed. They had ‘caged themselves in’ it was said. Politicians played to the media. It was politicians who dominated the airwaves. Rory Stewart’s book was mentioned and his unsuccessful attempts to improve policy making.

    Was it another example of media power. A handful of wealthy owned much of the print and online outlets and sites. Oligarchs were not known to be fans of progressive policies and their publications echoed that. It was claimed that the civil service were ‘not keeping up with the times’ and that ministers could not rely on the successful implementation of policies. A remark very similar to those made by the Prime Minister recently in his ‘managed decline’ speech. However, it was easy to blame the service someone said but were we clear about its value?

    An anomaly was the court system which was clearly falling apart. People are waiting years for justice and cases are abandoned because of the lapse of time. The courts are there to protect the establishment yet they are failing. The judges are a powerful component of the elite yet they have not been able to improve matters.

    Was tax an issue? People clearly want the NHS to be fixed, to get dental care and the potholes to be filled in but they do not want to pay higher taxes. Any politician saying ‘I will do these things but I’m going to put 2p on your income tax’ is unlikely to get voted in. The problem was that people who were already poor would resent paying more. The question was how to tackle the wealth issue and the idea of a maximum income. An aspect of this topic was that the wealthy do not use buses for example and therefore have little interest in their provision or efficiency. (Mrs Thatcher famously never used a bus). Cutting public spending was popular and the president of Argentina Javier Milei was quoted as being an enthusiastic cutter of public spending. (Argentina does have massive economic problems and one of the highest inflation rates in the world. Strange to think as an aside that the country was once tipped to become one of the wealthiest in the world. The name derives from the Spanish word for silver which was found in abundance by the colonists). Back to the plot …

    ‘The message of the rich is always in the ascendant’

    We talk of ‘trickle down’ it was noted but what about ‘trickle up’? It was about the distribution of wealth. Currently, considerable wealth was in very few hands and much of it was invested or went overseas rather than spent. If wealth was better distributed then more of it would be spent thus increasing the size of the economy. Perhaps, sardonically, it was noted that ‘trickle down’ obeys the law of gravity whereas ‘trickle up’ requires a revolution. Well, maybe not so sardonic. The message of the rich is always in ascendant. The same speaker spoke favourably of Marxism.

    The tax point was taken up and the fact that economics was not taught in schools – a point discussed at previous meetings. We needed a more literate society in these matters. There was a need for both economics and politics to be taught. The problem with the latter is that politicians were fearful of ‘lefty’ teachers indoctrinating children – a ghastly thought.

    Scandinavia was mentioned as a society which was more egalitarian and where there was high levels of tax to pay for welfare. Finland was the country with the happiest citizens.

    We got onto neoliberalism and the history of the project. It started in the University of Chicago with the ‘Chicago Boys’ and their first ‘experiment’ was Chile where a revolution was instigated by the CIA to oust President Allende and install President Pinochet. It was all about a small state, low taxes and free market ideas. The UK was next under Mrs Thatcher and it spread thence to the USA. The UK was little more than a vassal state to the US it was claimed yet it was something which seldom appeared in the media.

    There was a brief diversion discussing Syria (Assad had been deposed this week and it was the main feature of news programmes).

    Finally, the protests in Westminster by farmers protesting about CGT. It was noted that despite blocking chunks of the capital with tractors and disrupting traffic, no one was arrested. Contrast with climate protestors some of whom are in prison. Yet no outrage in the media about the disruption. Odd that. Who’s interests are being protected someone asked?

    A concluding remark was to say that complex problems are reduced to binary issues. Then to demonise one part (immigrants for example or the ‘workshy’). We were left with the original question – where is the compelling narrative from progressive politics? This perhaps was a clue to the problem. Society is complex and the problems are complex also. Solutions had to be nuanced and were unlikely to be simple let alone able to fit the binary narrative. This made ‘selling’ them to the electorate challenging.

    The second half debate was on prisons and the question was ‘Why do we go on locking up more and more people and for longer?’ Prisons, and prison overcrowding, are much in the news presently and the new government was forced to release many prisoners early to find space. Is sending people to prison a deterrent? Someone who visits prisons said research has shown that it doesn’t work. By this we meant that the recidivism rate was extremely high. Many came out with crime skills enhanced rather than reduced by better behaviour.

    Politicians like Ken Clark and Rory Stewart were mentioned along with David Gauke and Lord Timpson all of whom in different ways have realised that the system is ‘broken’ and we cannot go on simply stuffing more and more people into already overcrowded gaols. Attempts to reform the system have quickly failed because of various prime minister’s fears of public reactions. This was summarised by the phrase ‘tough on crime’ and all politicians are nervous that any reform will dent their reputation for toughness. The public are fearful someone said (of criminals I assume they meant) and this was driving a lot of media hostility.

    There were good ideas and Lord Timspon, the Minister of State for prisons, was a hopeful appointment. His firm appointed many ex-offenders in their shops we were reminded.

    The current 2024 Reith lectures were mentioned as they discussed aspects of this problem and in particular the issue of evil. It was argued that therapy could change people. People have to want to see changes it was said (quoting Lord Timpson). Some US states – including some Republican ones – were adopting these principles. If the prevailing view however, was ‘lock ’em up’ then change was unlikely: actually, not ‘unlikely’, it won’t happen. If you dehumanise people in prisons (and many were infested and there were two prisoners in each cell in many cases), it was no surprise they came out worse.

    We were fortunate to hear from someone who works with sex offenders coming out of prison. Most had made up their minds not to reoffend. Their work was to help them stay away from reoffending by offering them help and support. They would like some of the experiences fed back to influence policy. It was noted (and almost passed unnoticed) that this work was being done by volunteers. The inference being (I am suggesting) that this should be an organised programme of activity, not something that depends on a small charity which has to scramble for funds to survive. We were reminded that many in prison had emotional problems, were abused as children and literacy rates were low.

    Perhaps we should try the Socratic method it was suggested. Ask the prisoners: is it doing you any good?

    The discussion moved to causes. In a sense, imprisoning people is the end of the line of society breakdown. If inequality is rising and people are living in poverty there is a tendency to criminalise social conditions. We need to explore the underlying causes not endlessly talk about symptoms. If you reduced the ‘input stream’ as it was expressed, you reduced the ‘outputs’ of criminality.

    There was a problem however. The discussion was focused on rational argument. The assumption being that by establishing facts and finding out what worked, policy could be changed for the better. As already noted, some ministers have tried this and come unstuck, as in sacked. Prison policy was fixed on emotional reactions and, as someone said, vengeance.

    It was noted that when John Glen first became MP, he was asked about voting for prisoners in their final year or two of their sentence, say. He did not agree with this. David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, said ‘it made him sick’. It was subject to a long-standing row with the EU.

    Finally, religion made its entrance and Old Testament beliefs. There was the doctrine of original sin although this was a late addition to the Christian faith. The Quakers were in the forefront of prison reform and the Methodists were active in the anti-slavery movement.

    These were two good debates and it was interesting that a key element in both was the issue of how the media treated the various topics. Whether it was around how society is run or the reform of the prison system, if people are bombarded by negative attitudes, if argument is reduced to simplistic notions and the owners of newspapers and social media sites can exert such power, change will be difficult to achieve.

    [Added 6 January 2025] On the question of tax, the following link was suggested https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on Saturday 11th January 2025. Seasons greetings to all our readers!

    Latest posts:

  • Assisted dying

    The Bill raises troubling aspects about our democracy

    November 2024

    On Friday 29th November, the House of Commons will debate the private members bill to allow assisted dying. Views about this are very varied. Some, who may have experienced a loved one suffer at the end of their life, may be in favour. Others, and sometimes for religious reasons, are opposed to it. Still others worry that it will be abused and that it is the ‘thin end of the wedge’. Elderly people are known to worry about ‘being a burden’ and might consent to the procedure for quite the wrong reasons. There may be the occasional family keen to hasten the end of a parent with the aim of securing their inheritance sooner. Medical staff, committed to saving life, may be reluctant to be drawn into doing the exact opposite.

    There are matters both of conscience and practicalities. The latter to ensure that there are watertight procedures to prevent abuse of any kind. Recent medical scandals have shown however, that the profession cannot be relied upon to police itself reliably. Medical people who whistle blow are treated shabbily by the NHS and often driven out of the profession altogether. Our judicial system is less than perfect with miscarriages of justice galore. You only have to say the words ‘Post Office’ to see into a world of corruption, incompetence and the mass failure of our various institutions to do the basic business of acting with honesty and integrity. Dare one mention Archbishop Welby exposing yet another institution failing spectacularly. All around, whether it’s government, police, the judiciary, NHS, Anglican and Catholic churches, there are examples of gross failure to protect the vulnerable, to act honestly, to be open or admit failure.

    Given these facts, it is not too surprising that there are some who are reluctant to put themselves into the trust of such flawed institutions.

    However, accepting that there are many – and by some polls, a majority – who would like this to be law, the question is how, as ordinary citizens do we make our views known? In Salisbury, our two MPs are John Glen and Danny Kruger. The latter was exposed in the Observer for allegedly being a kind of ‘front’ for evangelical Christians who have contributed £55,000 to the campaign against the bill. He is being investigated by the Commons Standards body and we must await their findings. We do not know what Glen’s views are but he is also an evangelical Christian and often mentions his faith as a guiding force in his life.

    Is our democracy working?

    This raises interesting questions about our democracy and how it works in our corner of the world. Both these are likely to vote against the bill (Kruger definitely, Glen probably) on the basis of their religious beliefs. Yet, the recent census shows that the number of people who are Christian is now a minority at 46%. It has declined significantly from the previous census. Those who actually take an active part in the religion is much smaller still.

    Do either of them know what their constituents think about this? I very much doubt it. Although some MPs have honourably and assiduously gone around their constituencies and attended various meetings to find out, I am not aware of either of ours having done this. Parenthetically, if it passes its second reading it will go to the Lords where a collection of bishops will have their say: the same bishops who are part of the deeply flawed CofE. There is at last a move to have the bishops removed from the Lords. [It did pass its second reading. Both Kruger and Glen voted against the bill]

    So the MPs, in all probability, will vote against the bill based on their personal and religious beliefs. In a personal capacity – the same as anyone else – they are free to express their views for religious or any other reason. But they are supposed to represent the constituency and not just the religious people within it.

    Citizens’ Assembly

    These arguments suggest that we should have had a Citizens’ Assembly on this matter. That would have enabled an informed debate to take place and for a wide section of the community to take part. The failure to do so, and an almost complete failure in the media and elsewhere to suggest that such a thing should take place, points to a breakdown in our political process. Not only do our MPs not know what their constituents think about this important issue, but many in Kruger’s constituency will be unaware he is being investigated over the matter. Neither the Salisbury Journal nor the Gazette and Herald have reported it. [Correction: 29 November. both G&H and SJ have now reported it on line.] Glen reveals that the majority view of his constituents was for the bill which passed its second reading today.

    This is an important moment and the Assisted Dying bill is the latest example of people being given the power to decide their own fates and it not being determined by church or state. If the bill falls, it will be a long time before it is put forward again. As citizens of south and east Wiltshire, we are surely entitled to have our views known and taken account of. Instead, we have one MP acting surreptitiously, it is alleged, on behalf of a religious group and another driven by his evangelical beliefs. To what extent are they reflecting the views of those they are paid to represent? The answer I suggest, is not at all.

    Peter Curbishley

    UPDATE, 28 November. Mr Glen devotes his entire column in the Salisbury Journal today to this subject. Although not actually saying he will vote against, the tenor of the piece is that he will. It is based he says on discussions with people and medics and doubts some of which are similar to those mentioned above. He also mentions his own family. He makes no mention of his religious beliefs.