Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Author: welland2

  • SDA in the market

    SDA will be in Salisbury Market this Saturday

    June 2024

    UPDATE: we have just heard that this event will have to be CANCELLED due to insufficient space. We may be there next Saturday, 29th. Please keep an eye on this site for updates.

    Members of the Salisbury Democracy Alliance will be in the Market this Saturday 22nd June to promote our ideas for a better democracy. The election is in full swing and a feature which has become more and more evident is the lack of discussion about the fundamentals of what is wrong with our country and what is needed to fix it. All parties seem to be pivoting on very narrow points seemingly frightened to even mention the big issues which need fixing. Nobody – aside from the LibDems – is discussing Brexit. Nobody is discussing our dismal productivity and low investment. There is only passing reference to tax avoidance and then with no real substance as to how it will be done since it’s been talked about for years.

    What policies do the parties have for enhancing the democratic process? At election time they are all over the place with a variety of meet the people events. Once elected? Many have said writing to their MP is largely a waste of time with a standard response being typical.

    How are the parties showing that they value democracy for its own sake? Recent legislation with curbs on protests shows a worrying lack of commitment to the democratic process by the current government. Will the new government repeal some of this legislation or just quietly carry on with it?

    What policies do the parties have for including citizens more in decision making? There is no mention* of Citizen’s Juries or Assemblies in the Labour Party manifesto. Despite speeches extolling their benefit, it has not made it into the manifesto.

    You may have other questions as well.

    Essentially, it is an opportunity to engage in discussions with people about democracy and the Election. There will be a sign up sheet in case anyone wants to be added to our mailing list.

    PC

    *if you are able to find it, please comment giving the page reference.

  • Abolishing the House of Lords

    Seminar by the Sortition Foundation to create a ‘House of Citizens’

    June 2024

    We attended a Zoom seminar run by the Sortition Foundation in which they proposed the abolition of the House of Lords and replacing it with something they call a ‘House of Citizens’. They are calling it the ‘858 Project‘ after the year Henry II created juries.

    Trust in the HoL is low among the public at large. The average age is 71, it is mostly white and 71% are men. The majority are ex-politicians and most vote with their party. We are the only country, apart from Iran, where religious people (bishops) have seats in the Lords as of right. Watching a debate is to witness a slow and ponderous process as one after another elderly person totters to their feet to deliver a homily about some arcane subject few outside would be interested in. They are paid a handsome daily attendance fee and there was a scandal some years ago where it was revealed that many signed in and immediately left thus qualifying for their (tax free) attendance allowance but contributed nothing.

    However, Ian Dunt in his recently published book How Westminster Works and Why it Doesn’t puts forward a different view and claims that on the whole, the HoL does good work by correcting and carefully considering shoddy and ill-considered legislation sent up from the Commons. Despite appearances and of course the presence of a number of charlatans and dodgy characters, there is a significant number of members who have solid experience to offer, considerably more than is present in the lower house. Despite whipping, there is a higher degree of independence and willingness not to tow the party line.

    Since we do need a second chamber, how it should be formed needs careful thought. Sortition’s idea of 300 citizens who would serve for a year and paid what an MP is paid might not be the answer. Even informed by experts, their effectiveness might be questionable. For a start, anyone who watches programmes on television with audience participation will note that their ability to ask fundamental questions is generally limited. Vox pops are frequently embarrassing with participants able to say more than they like or dislike various politicians. The assumption that there is this vast pool of wisdom ‘out there’ whereas the HoL and the Commons is populated by fools and knaves is neither fair nor accurate. There are many hard-working and intelligent parliamentarians who work selflessly for the country and their constituents. Unfortunately, they are not usually the ones who regularly turn up to be interviewed on College Green.

    How long will it be before the established parties begin to get their people elected to the House of Citizens? How many will stay the course once the shine has gone off and the need to plough through reports and research becomes part of their duties? And is a year enough? Ministers complain that the frequent moves mean by the time they get to grips with their department, they are moved on often after only a year or so. By the time these citizens have learned the ropes their time will be up. How many people with appropriate skills will be able (or their employers allow) a year to take part in this?

    So an interesting seminar and Sortition are going out to consultation. Saying that the HoL is non-functioning is not altogether true. Booting out the bishops and hereditary peers would be a good first step. There is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater however. We need a second chamber composed of people with experience and dedication. I am not convinced that a House of Citizens is the answer although all praise to Sortition for starting this debate and trying to force it into the open.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: June

    June 2024

    This café took place two weeks into the general election and just after what had become a major faux pas by the prime minister who left the D-Day landing commemorations early to attend an ITV interview. This had produced a blizzard of negative publicity and Rishi Sunak issued an apology. It brings us to our first topic which was what is the purpose of commemorating military achievements and is the purpose achieved?

    Referring to the Normandy landings, it was noted that there are few survivors left and that this was probably the last to be held on that scale in Normandy. How long do we continue with them and what is the aim? One said it was important to say ‘thank you’ to all those who took part and the many who gave their lives. It did also promote the idea of ‘never again’. However, this was also the theme of WWI commemorations – the war to end all wars – yet it did happen again. Incidentally, the invasion planning was carried out in nearby Wilton.

    There were worries about glorification though. There was also concern about only commemorating wars we won, what about the losses and defeats? War was about both. ‘Lest we forget’ is one of the phrases one hears at these events but one speaker noted a memorial to the Boer War in Hampshire has disappeared leaving only a base. This war had a profound effect on British social policy following what was termed the ‘recruits crisis‘ and an initially disastrous campaign yet has now been forgotten.

    One of the central points about the D-Day invasion was that it was a collaborative effort between us, the US, Canada and a host of other nations from what was then the Empire. It was a celebration of what nations did together to defeat an enemy. Referring to Rishi Sunak’s early exit it was noted that in his apology he said “having attended all the British events, I returned home before the international leaders event later in the day”. It was remarked that this had a kind of hint of Brexit to it: the notion of being part of an international commemoration was less important than focusing on the British side of things. This theme recurred later in the discussion with the question on how we get on with our neighbours. We seem happy to celebrate a violent event (however worthy and necessary) but less happy at celebrating peace. Was it because conflicts generally generate media attention? Defeating the Nazis was a simple and easy to understand story.

    On the subject of peace one speaker spoke about peace education and how they had attempted to introduce it into schools. Some schools had agreed but it often didn’t last (parental disapproval?) but they were happy to invite in military representatives.

    The discussion moved on to the question of generational issues. It was suggested that these commemorations are a product of the ‘boomer generation’. Some of them harboured the belief that ‘Britain is great’ and any idea of national service was not for them – the sort of thinking that led to Brexit. In a similar vein, Britain is a much more diverse nation now, how important was D-Day for them?

    There was discussion around the political issues. What did politicians believe? For the veterans it was important to keep the memories alive and it was obvious it affected them deeply. Some became tearful when remembering lost friends and comrades even after all this time.

    We were reminded that WWII was total war and millions were involved on the home front and in factories and other locations, all of whom played a part in the invasion. The commemorations tended to focus on the military side of things.

    But back to the question and whether it has had its time. We tend to skip over the military defeats and it was noted that victors get to write the history. Are we clinging to the wrong things? Part of the answer is that D-Day is still relatively close. We do not remember the battle of Hastings for example yet which had huge implications for the country: a chunk of our language, the pattern of land ownership and our judicial system all derive from that event.

    Surely what was needed was to teach children critical thinking. If more were able to question the background to wars, why they happen and the political or diplomatic failures that often led up to them, then this might lead to greater reluctance by the public for military adventures. We need to understand the politics of war and how they happen.

    The absence of a Russian presence in Normandy was noted for obvious reasons. Yet the eastern front was crucial to the success of D-Day since many German divisions were tied up in the east (or wiped out in Stalingrad) which thus improved Allied chances on the beaches. Despite the problems in Ukraine, there is no commemoration of the Russian contribution which was substantial. There was brief discussion about the numbers and 20 million was mentioned. The figure could in fact be even higher.

    We were reminded by a veteran of the Korean war which followed a few years after the end of WWII yet there was no commemoration of that.

    Finally, despite the solemnity of the occasion in Normandy and the moving speeches, the principal victors of the war who formed the Security Council of the newly formed United Nations, were now the biggest arms sellers in the world, the UK being among them. We cheerfully sell weapons to all manner of states causing untold misery and death around the world.

    We moved onto the second topic is the general election fair? This arose following the row raging during the week about Labour’s tax plans. Rishi Sunak, during the leader’s debate on ITV had alleged that Labour will increase everyone’s taxes by £2,000 and claimed this figure had been produced by the Treasury. It transpired that this was partially true but the figures had been calculated on assumptions provided by the Conservatives and did not make clear that it would be over a four year period.

    One suggestion was that telling lies should be a criminal offence. The problem would be however proving it was a lie and the time it would take to get to trial by which time the election would be over.

    It was pointed out that a lot of fact checking already goes on and this particular misstatement had in fact been quickly corrected. Unfortunately someone noted, the very fact of correction somehow made it more potent in people’s minds – think of the £350m figure on the Vote Leave bus. Untrue but it stuck.

    The importance of hustings was noted the problem being too few attended them.

    The problem of the TV debate was it was about one leader rubbishing the other and the moderator did little to stop them. What did we learn from the debate? The question was asked rhetorically implying not very much. It was suggested that it might be a case of collusion by broadcasters and the politicians. After all, the scrapping made a lot of news which means lots of viewers, never mind the veracity.

    I am not sure we came up with any solutions. We briefly touched on PR but how that would improve the fairness of the debate was not discussed. We also briefly discussed tactical voting and how, for example, to achieve a more ‘green’ set of policies when both parties offered feeble ones.

    Finally, we discussed a third topic because the voting was tied. This was another election issue namely: the advantages of a years compulsory community service for those leaving school. The first point was ‘who pays?’ We could not answer this.

    We quickly got onto Rousseau and the notion of social contract which seems to be lost today in a society more concerned with personal matters. There was value in encouraging community service and the country could not do without volunteers. More young people might volunteer it was suggested but they needed paid work to pay for higher education and somewhere to live.

    Scandinavia was mentioned and the higher tax rates in those countries but with higher levels of social support. Britain was fixated on lower taxes it was suggested and the belief that we were automatically better off with lower levels of tax was widely believed. The connection between low taxes and poor public services did not seem to be understood. Another factor was privatisation and which had eroded the whole system it was claimed. On the topic of privatisation, water was mentioned and that CEOs of these companies should be fined for failing to meet targets not given multi-million bonuses. I suppose we can all fantasise about such things.

    An intriguing suggestion was that all young people should receive training in how to handle a disaster, a fire for example or what to do after a road crash. This could be done by extending the school day.

    One speaker drew on experience of circa the ’80s when we had a variety of training schemes: YOPs; YTS and then young apprentice schemes. Funding – as in the lack of – was a problem and it offered poor education for many young people. It was also a vehicle for mostly poorer children and was not popular among middle class folk. Their children did gap years.

    It might be a good idea some thought but it would need proper funding, and proper supervision by trained people. It would also need a lot of organisation. Previous experience suggests it would be done on the cheap and would offer young people very little of value. Compulsion was not the answer it was agreed. It was also noted that small voluntary organisations are daunted by the bureaucracy of doing things of this nature with all the checks, DBS, and necessary reporting which are costly and off-putting.

    A short debate but it was agreed that more thought was needed and a lot more detail about how it would work for the benefit of young people and also the recipients.

    Three interesting debates all with an election feel to them.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy and elections

    Interesting article on the subject of democracy and citizen’s assemblies in today’s Guardian

    June 2024

    We are in the middle of an election campaign although residents of Salisbury reading this week’s Salisbury Journal may be forgiven for thinking ‘election, what election?’ At least John Glen’s weekly puff piece has disappeared.

    So far campaigning has focused on trivia. The big issues of the state of the economy, the dangerously high level of our debt, our weakened defences, poor productivity, the ever widening level of inequality, and weak investment are not mentioned nor likely to be. Waiting times and the NHS are being discussed but not in a particularly edifying way and of course, the national obsession with not paying more tax is front and centre stage with the £2,000 extra tax row filling the airways.

    All told, a campaign which so far, avoids the big issues and where disinformation and trivia are what minds seem to be focused on. By contrst, an interesting article on democracy which discusses sortition and citizen’s assemblies by George Monbiot, is to be found in today’s Guardian and is a worthwhile read.

    Guardian piece

  • Democracy Café

    Next Democracy Café

    June 2024

    Past event

    The next Café is this Saturday 8 June starting at 10:00 as usual in the Library. I suspect the election might generate at least one suggestion as a topic – we’ll see.

  • Democracy Café, May

    May 2024

    Members of SDA will be at the People in the Park Event in Elizabeth Gardens on Saturday 18th and if you are curious about our activities, about citizens’ juries or about Democracy Café, drop by and have a chat

    A good if unexpected turnout to this café such that we had to scrabble around for seats. The refugee ‘crisis’ and the numbers arriving at our shores in boats, continues to feature in the tabloid media certainly so it was perhaps no surprise that the first question was How would we deal with the refugee crisis? Bibi Stockholm; registration system broken down; wars and people seeking a better life: there seemed no end to the problem of people wishing to come to the UK by any means.

    Which raised the question of safe and legal routes. How does a refugee make it here or get an assessment? The existing routes were closed off leaving getting on a boat more or less the only method. Which gave rise to the first suggestion of an assessment centre in France and those who qualified to be given a warrant to enter the UK.

    The first substantive contribution came via Shami Chakrabarti who said in an interview that the current conventions were no longer suited to the present day. Climate did not feature at the time of their creation [she might have mentioned globalisation similarly]. Also, there was no recognition that we were keen to spread our culture during the growth of conquest and Empire but express surprise when they turn up on our doorstep.

    A point quickly made by several about what a waste it all was: not only the cost of the current system with thousands held in hotels and other locations sometimes for years, but also the waste of talent and skills. Many were qualified and keen to work. We had shortages in many sectors of the economy and instead we continued to see it as a ‘crisis’ rather than an opportunity.

    The question of how many were deported was raised and a figure of 22,000 was quoted but is not mentioned in the media. However, large numbers were Albanians some of whom had been trafficked so that did not represent the problem as a whole. The global nature of the problem was put forward which pointed to a solution to be worked on at the UN. It was not clear many thought this a promising solution.

    Gangs were mentioned and a key target of political ire. Yet recent programmes and interviews have shown how they are highly sophisticated and multi-layered organisations which ultimately relied on the banking system to move the cash around. Yet tackling the banks is never part of government plans it seems. The role of HSBC in moving billions of dollars of drug monies was given as an instance.

    Several mentioned the possibility that this was a deliberate posture by politicians keen to create a ‘them and us’ culture. Seeking to blame outsiders (in this case the gangs and those on the boats) in an effort to take away the responsibility for their own failures. Blaming outsiders or starting wars with them was a familiar political stunt. It was about ‘framing’ the debate one said.

    The hypocrisy was mentioned and as we have discussed in previous debates, people are usually proud of family members who go to a foreign country to work or study, but those coming here for the same reason are treated with scorn and seen as a problem. Could it be linked to our island mentality someone wondered? Another thought that media representation of immigrants as being poorly educated and desperate people (with the implication they should be kept out) whereas many were not.

    An irony was that an analysis by the OBR of the Chancellor’s last budget showed that the forecast growth would come from immigrant contributions both from their output but also their spending.

    It was pointed out there was some confusion around the words ‘refugee’ ‘asylum seeker’ ‘immigrant’ ‘illegal immigrant’ and so on. Perhaps one solution was to produce a leaflet to explain what the various terms meant. We were reminded of debates on this topic at the beginning of the last century and Churchill voted against restrictions at that time. It shows that the question of immigration and movement of people has been with us for a long time.

    Someone thought that Brexit did not help as it changed attitudes in quite fundamental ways. It seemed to enhance nationalistic sentiments. Something has changed she thought. Almost certainly the internet has not helped and aided the spread of harmful attitudes.

    A familiar remark made by people expressing hostility to immigrants and refugees was that ‘we are full up’. This of course takes us back to the housing crisis.

    Well there was something of a tour d’horizon about this debate with philosophical questions about whether it was in fact a ‘crisis’ rather than a wasted opportunity. No one mentioned that the numbers of immigrants in other countries are enormous in comparison the the relatively tiny numbers we experience. We did seem to recognise that attitudes were deep seated and would be difficult to change. The hostility by some politicians and elements of the media – reflecting elements of public opinion – means rational discussion is difficult and the benefits that immigration brings, and has brought, to our society is overlooked.

    And for something completely different for the second half was the question Does climate change matter and do we mind? With more cars on the road than ever, increased pollution and the prospect of hitting 1.5° before too long was ‘frustrating’ the proposer said. The issuance of drilling licences in the North Sea was especially discouraging.

    It was too big a problem and it has the effect of ‘grinding you down’. The oil companies tried to put it on us it was said.

    It was ‘complicated’ someone remarked: can we not use [global warming] rather than try to stop it? The prospect of farming the Tundra was given as an example [if the Tundra melts it will release enormous quantities of methane, a gas more dangerous than carbon dioxide]. Whether in answer to this, it was said global warming increase will be exponential making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and would also see widespread disease spread. Someone added that we must not forget species loss as well. Another point was the chain of connections in wildlife, that is one species depending on the next. The threat to bees was mentioned who are suffering from a combination of a disease, climate and and from organophosphorus pesticides.

    Probably the first time Top Gear has been mentioned in our debates so there has to be a first time for everything. The point it was more than just moving to electric cars but things like integrated transport. In a discussion about long and short journeys, the suggestion that cars are more like Trabants [a basic car in the former East Germany much hated by their users] the point being it would deter people from making long journeys by road.

    Perhaps a better way than forcing us to use Trabants was to use government policy to shape public opinion. So tax inefficient activity and give grants to the more efficient. A good idea in theory but the reaction to Ulez shows that the public has little tolerance of this kind of activity by government. Nothing is joined up someone complained, it all seems to be a collection of ‘micro-problems’.

    We were then introduced to ‘doughnut economics‘ the idea of 3 levels and living sustainably within the ring of the imaginary doughnut.

    Other ideas introduced included the circular economy that is ensuring goods are maintained, reused, repaired rather than just thrown away.

    The question of wealth and inequality arose partly in the sense that those at the top of the economic tree do not have to concern themselves with climate matters since they have the resources to move or mitigate them. But also because unequal societies are unhappy ones and the book The Spirit Level was mentioned. This book and its successor, examined copious statistics to show the more unequal societies the less happy and contented they were. It was a pity that these three ideas were not developed and debated – perhaps another time.

    We ended with a rather sobering thought about children’s lunch boxes and the brand of snack within it was a measure of social class.

    One overriding thought was that we had to ‘own’ the problem that is it isn’t sufficient to see it just as a government problem but for all of us to play a part. A pity again that this was not debated more.

    Two interesting debates and several remarked how enjoyable they were.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    The Spirit Level, Why Equality is Better for Everyone, 2010, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

    The Inner Level, How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-Being, 2018, same authors.

    Too Big to Gaol, 2023, Chris Blackhurst, Inside HSBC, the Mexican drug cartels and the greatest banking scandal of the century.

  • Democracy Café

    May 2024

    This morning Saturday, May 11th, at 10am join us for the May 2024 Democracy Café at Salisbury Library. Come along with your own suggested topic for discussion if you wish or just come along to join in the discussion.

    A summary of previous discussions can be found on our website:

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance – Bringing new ideas for democracy to Salisbury

    On Saturday 18th May we will be taking part in the People in the Park event in Elizabeth Gardens. Come along to visit the SDA stand and have a chat. More information about the event can be found here:

    People In The Park 2024

  • Hugh Grant and our media

    April 2024

    Many of our Democracy Café debates often come back to the role of the media in shaping ideas, informing or concealing information from its readers, bias and generally influencing what we know and believe of the world around us.  The important titles are courted by government politicians and during Tony Blair’s time as prime minister for example, Rupert Murdoch slipped in and out of the back door of 10 Downing Street 28 times.  No notes or minutes of these meetings have been released. 

    The settlement by Hugh Grant of his phone hacking case is therefore of wider importance than just what was published about him and the means of getting the information by journalists.  

    The Daily Mail has enormous influence and again, Paul Dacre when editor was regularly courted, not to say fawned over, in the hope of favourable coverage.  They do not just report the news but seek to control the narrative and to shape policy.  Since the owners are for the most part foreign based, we have a disturbing situation where a handful of foreign oligarchs exert huge influence over policy.  We might imagine that the public votes in a government to carry out our wishes but the reality is that this small handful of men set the tone and decide what we read and what we should know about. 

    Hugh Grant was one of a large number of celebrities, sports people and royalty, who were subject to a wide range of tactics to get private information, who they were seeing, their medical problems and other matters in their private lives. Tactics included breaking into their homes, tapping their phones, blagging their medical records and bank accounts, and buying information from police officers.  Most of this activity was illegal but since the police themselves were compromised, no action was ever taken.  

    As an aside, you might wonder how a person’s medical records can be obtained without their consent.  One way was to employ a recently struck-off doctor say, who knew the language and jargon, who could phone a surgery to pretend to be an A&E surgeon and was treating X and therefore needed to know their medical history.  

    An important aspect of this is the scale of it.  One individual was paying the Metropolitan Police around £150,000 pa for information.  There have been 1,600 claims so far against NGN, publishers of the Sun and the now defunct News of the World.  A staggering £1bn has been paid to settle claims.  For reasons that are not at all clear, the Murdochs are desperate to prevent this ever coming to court.  Some may think that if all this surveillance and hacking had been to track down drug dealers, arms traders and people traffickers then the end might justify the means.  It wasn’t.  The people targeted were pop stars, actors, sportsmen and politicians.  

    Hugh Grant had to agree to end his action because of the legal process where a payment is made into court to settle the matter and if the judge awards damages less than this then the person complaining – even though they have won their case – will be responsible for both side’s costs. 

    This activity of paying off those whose lives were penetrated in this way simply to sell more papers is hugely significant for our legal process and our democracy.  Here we have a group of individuals who committed crimes over more than a decade, and who corrupted the police and the political process, who are allowed, in effect, to buy their way out of any kind of reckoning.  “Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done” a famous judge opined.  What we have is a flagrant avoidance of justice, simply a series of large payoffs to keep it all under wraps.   

    Yet there is very little outrage from politicians about this.  Imagine if a professional burglar went around Salisbury stealing from people’s homes.  When caught, he was able – from the fruits of his criminal activities – to pay into court a sum likely to equal the fine he might receive from the magistrates.  The CPS drops the case because they decide on the balance of probabilities that, even if they win the case and get a prosecution, they will end up paying both side’s costs.  There will be a non-disclosure agreement so the burglar walks away to do the same thing again and again.  People would be outraged if this were to happen (it cannot of course because a burglar cannot avail himself of this procedure).  

    The Fourth Estate as it’s sometimes known, is a key part of our political process.  It works by finding out what is happening and informing its readers accordingly by reportage and commentary.  If however, they become a power in their own right, able to control the narrative, and, by engaging in a variety of illegal activities, to find out the private details of anyone they wish, this becomes damaging to our society.  Who is there to report on them? If the politicians themselves are frightened to discuss this and to propose actions to control it, then this becomes a serious problem for all of us.  Effectively, voting in someone at a general election ostensibly to represent our interests becomes a nonsense: they dare not if it risks offending the beliefs or prejudices of our media proprietors. 

    An example is the prison system.  The system is in crisis.  Rotten and infested gaols; people locked up for 23 hours a day; overcrowding; rampant drug abuse and almost non-existent rehabilitation are just some of the problems.  Yet attempts by ministers to reform the system hampered – no, not hampered, stopped – by a handful of editors who believe that prisons are holiday camps, full of hardened criminals and murderers and vigorously attack any proposals to bring the system into the twentieth century let alone the twenty first.  So instead of a reasoned debate on our prison system and how we might learn from the Dutch for example who are closing and selling off many of theirs, we have paralysis (indeed, how many of their readers even know of the Dutch experience?).  Prison reform is a debate we do not have.  It is unlikely to appear in the general election debates both parties being obsessed with ‘law and order’ and terrified (of the media?) describing them as ‘soft on crime’.  

    Some have a cosy belief in the BBC but this organisation has been systematically attacked, its funding cut and right wing board members appointed to control its reporting.  Although there are some brave journalists, it has been seriously and deliberately weakened.  Members of the various Tufton Street organisations for example, appear regularly on our screens, in radio interviews and as panellists on political shows. One such organisation, the so-called ‘Institute’ of Economic Affairs, is a front organisation for mostly American right wing organisations yet never is one of their people asked ‘who funds you?’ They are allowed to pose as some kind of respectable ‘institute’ without the BBC interviewers ever asking this fundamental question (who funds them is never revealed).

    It may seem a long way from Hugh Grant to prisons.   But they both reflect in their different ways, how a handful of overseas media barons can manipulate the law to their own benefit, control the political process and who used a variety of illegal activities to set about any politician who dared to threaten their hegemony.  The claim now is that times have changed.  They no longer use illegal means to blag, burgle, bribe or steal to get their stories they say.  Then why spend north of £1bn to prevent it ever coming to court?  

    In all fairness to the tabloids, it has to be noted that these publications are read by millions and are piled up in supermarkets and on newsstands. Perhaps ‘piled up’ is an exaggeration, just a handful of copies these days. The public has known of these intrusions but continues to buy and read the results. The proprietors might fairly say ‘we are providing what the public wants to read’. If the public is not repelled by what we do, why should we be concerned?

    What we read and what we see on our screens, substantially shapes what we know of the world.  In Israel for example, the average Israeli knows very little of the destruction in Gaza.  In Russia, few Russians know of the enormous death toll of their men on the front line in Ukraine.  Perhaps in the UK we should be a little more concerned about how we, and our famed legal process, are so easily manipulated by a handful of overseas individuals? Shouldn’t we be a lot more concerned about the integrity and honesty of the media world and their owners?

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café, April

    April 2024

    UPDATE: 16 April. The Humanists are planning a rally on 29th April concerning assisted dying, the second topic discussed last Saturday.

    A good attendance for two interesting and lively debates. Looking at my notes, I think this will be a long post if I am to cover all the interesting points made. The first topic was Is democracy inherently unstable? The question was posed following recent events in countries which are nominally democracies but where autocrats have been voted in, Poland was given as an instance. There was also a rise in populism and the far right. Other factors included people feeling entitled (to hold power was the sense I think) and the rise of social media.

    The first fundamental point to be made was that empires were ‘stable’. Those who had power ensured they kept it and that meant change was restricted. Democracy allowed differing views which inevitably led to instability – was this a bad thing? Democracy was a good thing it was noted if people who got in were those we agreed with. What about when fascists and populists won power? People weren’t so keen on democracy then. One speaker was pessimistic about the future which he thought more Hobbesian citing the events in America by Trump and his supporters on Capitol hill. The point was made that Arab countries had ‘stable government’ but the Arab Spring showed that it masked deep problems i.e. stability did not necessarily deliver good government.

    Another argument was that nations went through cycles so sometimes things worked and sometimes they did not work so well.

    An interesting point about psychology was made concerning choice. A survey (it was claimed) showed that 30% were comfortable with a single system and the presence of too much choice (of candidates and policies) was too much to take in. People became confused.

    Another key point was that when economies are improving and the overall wellbeing of the nation is getting better, democracy is accepted. Once the ‘good times’ are over – a situation we are arguably in today – then people become dissatisfied with the political system. The period of prosperity was largely dependent on the developed world’s extraction from the less developed world of raw materials and resources. They will probably be unhappy with any system in these present day circumstances.

    It was suggested democracy was under threat internationally and that freedom has been reduced globally speaking. The lack of strong democratic input was why the Salisbury Democracy Alliance was promoting citizen’s juries precisely to improve both the quality of decision making and getting more people involved in how decisions are made.

    There was a shift in the argument with the assertion that people wanted to come to the UK because of our democratic institutions. This assertion did not meet universal agreement and most felt people came for the opportunities, jobs and so forth. They had little concern for democracy (they would not be able to vote in any event).

    The tone of the discussion changed at this point and we began to discuss the process itself and the MPs who are running it. Was it the democratic process which was important or the quality of decisions said one? Someone with US experience spoke of the rigidity of a constitution which is extremely difficult to change as times and circumstances change. The UK does not have a constitution and relies on decent behaviour by decent men – the ‘good chaps’ theory of government. The influence of public schools was mentioned – a subject of Simon Kuper’s book Chums which discusses the undue and malign influence of a narrow coterie of Eton and Oxford men

    Although it was true that we can ‘get the scoundrels out’ as Rush Limbaugh almost said it was noted that, although we have a choice at election, once a government is formed, that was it as far as the public having a say over affairs was concerned. Quintin Hogg’s ‘elective dictatorship’ was mentioned which was another reason SDA was keen on citizen’s assemblies. The curtailment of protest and dissent was great concern. Recent acts of parliament were designed to make protest harder and police now had enhanced powers to arrest protestors for a wide variety of infringements. Access to judicial review has also been curtailed.

    The recent issue of legal advice to government concerning arms sales to Israel was mentioned. Why was this not published?

    A positive note was struck concerning the select committee system which was working well. It was an opportunity for MPs to interrogate policy decisions and, now that the whips no longer appointed committee members, they had become assertive in questioning the executive. Members left their politics at the door and there was secret voting. In this vein it was noted that most MPs went in to politics with the best of intentions but quickly became lobby fodder as described in Isabel Hardman’s book Why we Get the Wrong Politicians. Was there a perception problem in fact? that is, a belief that politicians can’t be trusted which was not in fact fair nor accurate.

    Why are so many angry at the current situation someone asked? We are more critical of those in authority now perhaps spurred on by mainstream and social media. Deference of yesteryear has now gone. The threats and personal abuse MPs now endure was unacceptable we all felt. Polarised views and division was generating this anger it was thought.

    An interesting debate where we explored the system of democracy and how it works in practice. The point that however perfect a system might be, it ultimately depended on the honesty, competence and integrity of those who occupied it. A conclusion reached was that instability per se was not necessarily a bad thing if stability meant oppression or the stifling of opposing views. One said that democracy has to be unstable if freedom of expression is to be allowed.

    The second debate was around assisted dying: Should MPs be allowed to decide if assisted dying is the right thing for the country? This concerned the bill being promoted by Esther Rantzen. The introducer – who is a hospital chaplain – was worried that orders might be signed for the wrong reason. Her particular concern was those people with disabilities. Concern was expressed about giving MPs the choice citing their stewardship of prisons as an example.

    It was first pointed out that we had to distinguish between euthanasia and assisted dying – they were quite different. A second point quickly made was that this was not a minority issue since all of us will die – with taxes being the two certainties of life. The importance of having power of attorney organised was stressed. Another key point was that it is no longer illegal to takes one’s own life. Choosing your own death was in a sense a natural progression. The key issue was involving someone else in that decision.

    Several mentioned the DNR, (do not resuscitate) notices in people’s homes and which used to be on hospital beds. It was claimed that medical staff ignore these as they are not allowed to withhold medical assistance. Doctors are under an obligation to prolong life.

    Since we were talking about MPs deciding this, it was noted that MPs have already decided since it was the law at present. We were in effect talking about changing the law.

    Someone of mature years, shall I say, came up with the quote of the day – “If I wake in the morning, I think, it’s another day”. We should accept life as it is he said.

    But back to the basic question of whether MPs should decide issues of an ethical nature such as this. An echo of our first discussion, MPs have to be involved since it is they who change the law. As we have noted, the law had to be changed to allow this to happen.

    One worry was that could be have another Brexit? Could we see the same level of lack of information and disinformation that we saw in the debate about leaving the EU? Most thought not. Essentially, there was no push for a particular answer and the issues were already being widely aired, the opposite of the Brexit debate.

    It was pointed out in MP’s favour that they had wide access to expertise and the House of Commons Library which should help both to be informed and come to a reasonable conclusion. It was also noted that other laws which had a moral component – one thinks of homosexuality, the death penalty and same sex marriages – had been changed. In MP’s favour, we were reminded that they were often ahead of public opinion, the death penalty was mentioned.

    Another aspect was that we were living longer now and in effect, the medical profession had ”hijacked’ old age’. Medical intervention meant people lived on sometimes with poor quality of life whereas in times gone by they would have met their maker. Death was now a medical decision it was said.

    Taking the decision away from the professionals was a concern however and the problem of the ‘slippery slope’ that is, elderly people in hospital feeling unwanted and a burden. They would feel under a kind of obligation to end their lives because of these feelings. On the other hand it was noted that both Switzerland and the Netherlands had forms of assisted dying yet there did not seem to be a string of scandals or the ‘bumping off of relatives’ as it was expressed.

    There was a feeling, expressed by several during the debate, that people should have the choice. Those suffering from motor neuron disease was given as an example.

    A surprising omission in the debate was that religion and religious views did not get an airing.

    These were two fascinating debates and both turned in different ways on our trust of the political class. This loss of trust is clearly a problem since major aspects of our lives depend on the decisions they make. The way members of parliament are chosen, as discussed in Rory Stewart’s book Politics on the Edge for example was depressing. How MPs are treated once elected is also unsatisfactory as described in Isabel Hardman’s book. Should you wish to get further depressed then Ian Dunt’s book How Westminster Works and Why it Doesn’t might finish you off completely. All three books point to a thoroughly dysfunctional system of selection, appointment and treatment of a group of people who are crucial to the decision making of our country. Whichever party gets to form a government, if the system itself is creaking, good results cannot be expected. Allowing such people to decide on life or death is clearly a worry for many.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Isabel Hardman, Why we Get the Wrong Politicians, 2019, Atlantic Books

    Ian Dunt, How Westminster Works … and Why it Doesn’t, 2023, Weidenfeld & Nicolson

    Simon Kuper, Chums, How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK, 2023, Profile Books

  • Democracy Café

    April 2024

    There was a Democracy Café today as usual starting at 10:00 in the Library. If you haven’t been before – and we do get a number of new people coming each time – you can read some of our previous debates on this site to get an idea. You can suggest a topic if you wish and if it’s voted on, it will be debated (be prepared just to say a few words to introduce it if the topic is not obvious). Finishes at noon with a break at half-time. Free but if you can spare a groat or two it would be appreciated.

    PC