Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Author: welland2

  • ‘Politics on the edge’

    A memoir of Rory Stewart’s time as an MP and minister

    December 2023

    Politics on the Edge: a memoir from within* is the title of a book by Rory Stewart who was an MP and a minister during the time of David Cameron and Theresa May’s premierships. He stood against Boris Johnson in the leadership election and left politics soon after. 

    It is a well written book and unlike many political memoirs which can descend into self-justification, it is an honest view of the political system, parliament and life as a minister. He does not shy away from his own failings and it is sufficiently revealing to make you realise he was at times a trifle naïve in his views and ways of doing things. He does describe however, a system of government which has many grievous failings and which fundamentally is incapable of providing the leadership which we desperately need as a nation. 

    Early on in the book he describes the process of becoming an MP which can involve years of applying for seats, sitting on local councils or just being a member of the party doing ordinary stuff like delivering leaflets door to door. You have to be liked by the local selection committee which essentially means agreeing with their points of view. There is little interest he writes in whether the candidate has ability in formulating policy, management skills or understanding great issues of state, more how he or she seems to fit in with the local party and understanding the needs of the – mostly elderly – members of the local party. It is a matter we have discussed in our Democracy Cafés, since a local MP once elected, can find themselves as a minister, or even secretary of state, of some department or other yet be possessed of next to no relevant experience of being in charge of a large organisation. Not only that, but they are unlikely to have any relevant knowledge of the department itself and further, may only be there for a year or at most two after which they are either sacked or moved on somewhere else. Since many MPs now go from University to a think tank or into the party apparatus and never doing a ‘real’ job, it is unsurprising that chronic failure is the norm and the only wonder is that it isn’t worse than it is.

    Life as a minister is if anything worse. The civil service would like a minister just to be the spokesman for the department and to speak in parliament when necessary. With echoes of Yes Minister, there is considerable resistance to a minister who want to make changes to the established policies. The chapters on his time as ‘prisons minister’ are particularly enlightening not to say shocking. The system is in crisis. An ever mounting prison population, cells built in Victorian times for one man, now with two, rampant infestation and diminished staff numbers after the Cameron/Osborne cuts means it is a system which is brutalising its inhabitants and failing to rehabilitate those leaving at the end of their sentences. His attempts to effect change are largely unsuccessful.

    On the subject of prisons he discusses the problems of a minister trying to change how something is done. The civil service doctrine is that ministers are about policy formation and getting funds from the Treasury: they should not concern themselves about delivery i.e. the how. But in many areas of our political life the how is the crucial issue. Whether you are talking about schools, health, transport or indeed the prison estate, how policy is actually carried out is extremely important. Having a wonderful set of policies and a chunk of Treasury cash is useless if the system is inefficient, morale is low, or management weak or almost non-existent. The system is almost designed to prevent a minister altering it. 

    Another topic we have frequently discussed is the role of the media. Attempts to get their interest in serious topics and to discuss change are usually frustrated by a focus on trivia, personalities and catchy headlines. He often refers sneeringly I feel to the Guardian which does cover items in depth from time to time, but as a Conservative I suspect he is swept up with criticisms of the party as a whole. He has little time for the Telegraph either referring to one debate where the journalist chose to talk about what people were wearing. 

    His challenge for the leadership essentially as a ‘stop Boris’ candidate is interesting on many levels. It does reveal his naivety as I say, thinking that people would be interested in policy and how things could be changed. He did not seem to understand that the hundred thousand or so Home Counties members who were doing the choosing are not interested in prison reform for example many believing they are holiday camps already. Neither were they interested in the effects of Brexit, only wanting it to be ‘done’ safe in the belief that trade deals with the rest of the world would follow easily.  We discovered this week that there is no chance of a trade deal with the USA [and it is interesting that the papers who sold people this lie made little or no mention of this serious failure which will have damaging effects on our economy]. 

    Johnson with his collection of misleading statements, false promises and downright lies was popular and won the vote easily. We now know the consequences. He and the other candidates, all promised lower taxes, a perennial favourite ploy of politicians. It seems to be the ultimate fantasy and in the various programmes during the leadership race, it was a favourite question of the TV hosts ‘are you going to put up taxes?’ To answer ‘yes’ was an immediate death sentence for a candidate: indeed there would be little point in standing in the first place. The combination of the fantasy belief of being better off with lower taxes egged on by the print media and infantile TV hosts means any kind of serious discussion of this topic is out of bounds. To debate how much tax and who should pay what is never discussed. The billions that disappear to tax havens is also a no-go topic. Since this is at least £30bn a year and probably double that since HMRC has given up on a number of scams, it is a major issue that never sees the light of day. It could possibly be that the people at the top of our media empires have curious tax arrangements themselves and don’t want that particular light to be switched on. So much easier to pillory a benefit scrounger who could never afford to mount a libel action. 

    There seems to be a disconnect between the services we are getting – or not getting like almost a complete absence now of NHS dentists – and low taxes seems to be beyond the understanding of many. The unsafe schools with Raac concrete roofs will not now be repaired until after the election sometime in 2026. Could this be a cynical ploy to land the Labour government (one assumes) with a multi-billion bill while going into the election with the promise of tax cuts? Surely not. 

    As the sleeve note says ‘Stewart learned first-hand how profoundly hollow and inadequate our democracy and government had become. Cronyism, ignorance and sheer incompetence ran rampant.’ 

    It is a book worth reading along with others on our political system today. Both illuminating and depressing the worry is that there seems no sign of a movement for change. At the next election we will have the same dysfunctional set of wannabe MPs, telling us what they are going to do but without raising any taxes to do it (correction: the non-dom tax proposal by Labour which will raise next to nothing). Our local MPs will be re-elected with few problems. The broken system will trundle on as it is today with a different set of characters at the wheel, except locally.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Jonathan Cape 2023

  • Democracy Café

    December meeting debated two topics of current interest

    December 2023

    Two topics won through at this meeting: one about how we might fortify the United Nations and the second what are we to do with migrants? Both are in the news at present. The UN has featured in the Gaza situation and the issue of migrants is front and centre with the news concerning the boat crossings and Rwanda.

    Viewing the current state of the world with the terrible events in Gaza following the attack by Hamas on 7 October, the war in Ukraine and other wars taking place in sub Sahara for example, it was natural to ask whatever happened to the post-war hope of a United Nations able to ‘police’ the world?

    The problem it was pointed out, was that the victors of WWII were not keen on providing the necessary powers to the UN for it to carry out a major peace-keeping role. It was clear the major powers were reluctant to give up their power to allow the UN to step in. In particular, the US was a dominant force and many countries were perhaps unduly deferent to it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example, agreed in 1948, was notable for the reluctance of France and the UK in particular to agree to its universality due to their terrible activities and violations in their colonies, Kenya for the UK and Algeria (France).

    The veto of the principal powers: UK, US, China, France and the then USSR, was discussed. They were able to use this veto to maintain their power and initially at least, prevent countries from joining the UN.

    The discussion moved on to look at reform including issues around the veto. Was it right for this small group of countries – who held their position due to their victory in WWII – should keep this power? How could the UN be reformed? There is a process of reform which takes place and the institution has changed considerably over the years [although most of the sites do not appear to refer to the question of reforming the veto powers]. It seems to illustrate the principle that those with power are nearly always reluctant to give it up. It was suggested that reform should come from outside since the organisation was a ‘closed’ system. It was also noted that the world’s biggest arms sellers were the 5 permanent members. So while they were meeting to discuss how to achieve peace and resolve conflicts, they were busy selling arms to the warring parties.

    Should all countries have the same weight? At present it was one vote per country and the inference in the question was the bigger the country, the more votes they should have. However, it was suggested that the smaller less powerful countries should perhaps have more than one vote to ‘even things up’. The problems of voting power and it consequences were provided by the COP system where any one participant could frustrate the will of the majority leading to feeble results and inaction on the climate.

    The focus on the Security Council and the antics of some countries there, drew attention away from the many positive things the several UN agencies have achieved around the world. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has many disease reduction or eradication achievements to its name e.g. TB; yaws, malaria and smallpox. Also on the positive side, it was noted that the Secretary General, António Guterres, has come out of the Middle East conflict well.

    A more fundamental question was posed: what would the world look like if we didn’t have a United Nations? Would it be a Hobbesian world (nasty, brutish and short)? To an extent the question was left hanging but it did focus our minds briefly on the many benefits of the organisation as against the all too visible failings. If we were to start again, would the idea of assembling 190 or so nation states be thought a good idea today? Will the UN ever be in a position to curb the power of a Putin or the Iranian mullahs someone asked?

    We moved on to discuss the issue of power and whether we should have ‘a people’s UN’ to give voice to those who have been overlooked – the aborigines in Australia were mentioned. Should we adopt a citizen’s jury approach where the views of a wide range of people could be taken account of?

    Does the UN Association still exist it was asked? It does.

    The second half debate was on the tricky subject of migrants, a topic of considerable salience currently with the debate over deportations to Rwanda in full flood at present. Next week is the vote to try and set aside some parts of the Human Rights Act to enable them to take place following the Supreme Court’s decision a few weeks ago.

    It would be fair to say the proposer was not an enthusiast for allowing migrants to stay here, claiming that they pose a security risk and are from alien cultures.

    The first speaker said they completely disagreed. Immigrants add considerably to our society and to the cultural mix. They played an essential part in our economy and filled many vacancies for jobs British people seemed unwilling to do. It was pointed out that without them, parts of our economy would grind to a halt: hospitals would would be forced to offer maternity and A&E; many food products would disappear off the shelves and the London transport system would not be able to function. It was also pointed out that our birth rate was dropping and we needed an influx of young people to do the jobs we wanted doing. Immigration was needed to keep the economy dynamic.

    Many people coming here to claim asylum were escaping from terrible regimes. The government’s plan was to deny the right to seek asylum to anyone arriving here illegally – essentially by boat. It was noted however that there were no boat crossings prior to 2016. They started because all legitimate routes had been closed down meaning that immigrants were forced onto the boats as the only way left. An enormous amount of attention was paid to this issue but much less on the tens of thousands awaiting decisions from the Home Office.

    It was noted that the problem was much worse for other countries which had huge immigrant populations for example Turkey and Jordan.

    We quickly got onto why has this become such a political issue consuming huge amounts of political time and the cause of two recent ministerial resignations. One factor was the foreign own media which presented a regular series of negative stories about immigrants accusing them of a range of antisocial activities. It has to said though that they are supplying a market. On that subject was this week’s edition of Question Time on the BBC. It was in front of a strongly Conservative audience being hosted in Petersfield in Hampshire. The Conservative MP did not get a totally sympathetic audience and there were cheers for comments of a sympathetic nature as far as immigrants were concerned. ‘Very heartening’ someone said.

    It was suggested that immigration was a ‘political lens’ for looking at various problems. There has been significant political failure by politicians failing to look at root causes not just with immigration but climate change as well. In the context of Rwanda, the government has created its own problems.

    The way government treats refugees is very instructive – Tony Benn

    A startling comment was made about Rwanda namely it was a contract of exchange. It has been claimed that for each refugee we send to Rwanda, one will come back on a one-for-one basis. [I have looked into this startling claim and it has been scrutinised by Full Fact. It is not totally true. A ‘portion’ of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees may be sent here but the number is not known. A statement given to parliament said ‘it would be a small number’. Small is relative of course but it is surprising in all the fire and fury of discussions about this topic that this aspect of the deal has not been discussed more.]

    The sheer cost of the Rwanda deal was commented on at an estimated £169,000 per person. Millions have so far been spent with more to come (or is it go?) without a single refugee having gone.

    Then there was the cost of housing migrants here while their cases were reviewed. It was claimed that the government was using hotels in marginal seats for political purposes. According to the Daily Mail, the government is stopping using hotels in ‘battleground’ constituencies (in Mail speak).

    It has been suggested that the Bibby Stockholm be moved from Portland and moored in the Thames opposite the House of Commons for the accommodation of MPs thus saving £4m in second home claims.

    Other points included asking how do we encourage a better debate on this subject and get away from what we see in the media today? It was suggested that sorting the problems in the host countries was much the best way to stop the numbers leaving. It was also noted – in the context of medical staff working in the NHS – that we were ‘stealing’ these people from their home countries thus denuding their health services of valuable skills.

    Danny Kruger, the MP for Devizes, was mentioned in critical terms particularly his comments on migrants and refugees.

    We were left with the intriguing question, if we get a new government, will they reverse some of these decisions?

    We wish all our readers a Happy Christmas and we look forward to seeing you at our next meeting on 14 January 2024.

    Peter Curbishley

    Ken Loach’s film The Old Oak was recommended.

  • Last meeting

    The last meeting of the Café was held this Saturday, 9th December in Salisbury Library. If you haven’t been before – and we do seem to get one or two new members to each meeting – the idea is that we ask people to suggest a topic of a broadly political or philosophical nature upon which we vote and the winning suggestion is debated. Typically we debate two topics in a meeting. You can read the reviews of previous meetings elsewhere on this site to give you an idea.

    A report will appear shortly.

    PC

  • Last meeting

    November 2023

    The November meeting of the Democracy Café was this morning, Saturday 11th as usual in the Library. Two lively discussions and we were pleased to welcome some returning friends and one new member. A write up will appear shortly.

    PC

  • The nature of our democracy

    The revelations emerging from the Covid enquiry pose deep questions about how we are governed.

    November 2023

    Many of our debates at the Democracy Café discussions have focused in one way or another, on democracy and how it might work better. We have debated the first past the post system, proportional representation and whether we need a constitution. Locally, we have discussed Citizens’ Juries and we have tried our best to interest the local powers that be in using this technique to achieve a better standard of decision making.

    However, we are currently witnessing the Covid inquiry take place and although it is a long way from completion and we are unlikely to see the final report before 2026, the early evidence has been profoundly disquieting. The foul and abusive language used in communications, the lack of any kind of planning before – or it seems during – the pandemic, the disorganisation, the shameful misogyny, and a prime minister who was frequently absent, disengaged, or flipflopped all over the place when he was there. The unelected Carrie Johnson appeared to be a key influence. A picture in sum – and added to each day – of confusion and chaos at the heart of government. It seems almost no one behaved in a competent fashion or looked anywhere near being on top of their briefs. And all through lockdown, they were busy partying and consuming large quantities of alcohol, ignoring all the rules they themselves had introduced.

    Many of the key players however – MPs and ministers – were voted for by millions. Boris Johnson is still admired by many and despite his pitiful performance as prime minister and who should by rights quietly disappear into the country, is instead raking in vast sums from a column in the Daily Mail, is about to go on GB News with another vast fee, and is earning huge fees on the speaker circuit.

    There seems to be a gigantic gap between what people believe they are voting for and the reality of how these people behave in government. It has to be asked though, do people care? Clearly, the Daily Mail and GB News think not. The role of the public school types seems to be very evident. As Simon Kuper describes in his book Chums, the pathway of people from public school (and mainly Eton), via Oxford and thence parliament and the Cabinet, the Civil Service or a spad, means a set of narrowly educated and privileged people, with no real world experience or relevant skills is put in charge of our government. It is no wonder things are as bad as they are. Their degrees in Classics, English or PPE leaves them hopelessly at sea when faced with the shear complexity of government.

    This poses a key question. Would a different system of voting or setting up a constitution make any difference? I suggest not. Ordinary people would still be voting for a dysfunctional collection of fuckwits (to use Dominic Cummings’ choice phrase) to represent them. There would be some shuffling around but the same sort of people would be put before us. As Rory Stewart describes it in his recently published book Politics on the Edge, talking with other candidates selected to stand as potential MPs: “No one felt that the party valued them for their personality, their intelligence, or their experience. Nor for their ability to make a speech, to analyse policy or the lead a country. Instead, they were prized for or their ability to protect leaflets from the rain, enter a locked apartment block using a caretakers code, partner with eighty-year-old male members and understand their need for lavatory breaks and protect their fingertips from the sprung letter box and the teeth of a silent dog” (p36). This was not unique to Stewart or just his party.

    As we have said before, an MP is selected by a local committee of party people (except the LibDems) on the basis of whether they like him or her and do they agree with their views. They then, if elected and if they display sufficient loyalty, start to climb the ladder of patronage possibly becoming a minister of something they know nothing at all about before being moved again in a year or two to another ministry about which they also know nothing.

    The system works – or should work – on the basis of competence, integrity and honesty none of which is evident at present. Covid is a lot like the decision to invade Iraq where it was obvious none of these factors was to the fore. As we look in dismay at the roll call of the second rate sat mumbling before Hugo Keith, the Covid inquiry’s barrister, often unable to recall key events, or confessing to having deleted key messages, we have to wonder how on earth we have a system of government so inadequate to the task. It is in fact quite scary.

    Nothing less than radical change will be needed. Not just the system of government but a rethink about where ministers come from, how they are selected, trained and acquire the necessary experience to run our affairs. Can we really not do better than Nadine Dorries, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg or Gavin Williamson? Should we not have some other route to enable someone with true ability to become a minister? What we are witnessing with the Covid Inquiry should be a wake-up call to how we are governed.

    Peter Curbishley

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

  • Democracy Café

    Report of the Democracy Café which took place on October 14th, 2023

    It was good to welcome several old friends back to the café and a new member as well. The meeting took place exactly a week after the incursion into Israel by Hamas terrorists with a huge death toll among Israelis civilians. Israel retaliated by bombing Gaza and troops are massing on the northern border ahead of an expected invasion. The use of the word ‘terrorist’ in the above sentence is itself a matter of dispute.

    The first topic we chose was: to what extent are our opinions about the conflict influenced by the media reporting of it? Everything we know about the recent actions is as a result of what we have seen on TV, read in the papers or seen on social media of one kind or another. The point was made that everything we see and hear is affected by the media which was often afflicted by mis- or disinformation. The main TV stations (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are governed by impartiality rules and make great efforts to reflect all sides of a conflict. It has to be noted that not everyone was impressed by this and were not convinced that there was adequate balance in the reporting. Social media on the other hand was not subject to the same rules and were often the source of various conspiracy theories or disinformation. Some thought the coverage by al Jazeera was superior. There was a problem with paywalls: to read what different papers said meant paying to see the content which made commercial sense but did cut people off from accessing a more diverse range of views.

    The BBC in particular had come in for criticism by some politicians (Grant Shapps MP was mentioned) and by GB News for declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe Hamas people who invaded Israel. Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation in the UK and the BBC has used the word particularly in reported speech. In similar fashion, the lack of condemnation was also mentioned as a criticism. The BBC say the word ‘terrorist’ is loaded and they are reluctant to use it. The point was made that people in Gaza might say that the bombing of their communities is an act of terror (because they have been terrorised). I think the point made by several is that the word is highly charged and it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line.

    The BBC was defended by some however and they said that great efforts have been made to be fair in a volatile and fast changing situation. Someone pointed to the interview by Clive Myrie of a Hamas spokesman they thought was was good.

    Several spoke of the history of the conflict going back to the League of Nations and the mandate given to the British to keep the peace in Palestine after the Great War and the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. One speaker had been there in the Army during this latter period so it was interesting to hear of his first hand experience of these historical events. It was suggested that the animosity between Arabs and Jews was centuries old, others pointed out that during the time of the Islamic conquest, Christians, Jews and others continued with their lives as long as they paid their taxes. There were no pogroms. On the other hand it was suggested that the Jews were treated badly in Yemen. One thing was clear however and that was the Palestinians had received a ‘rotten deal’ as they put it following the events of ’48, what they refer to as the naqba (disaster). It was the rapid increase in the number of Jewish settlers after the war which added to the problems.

    Some media commentators had compared Hamas to ISIS and although there were some similarities, they were not motivated by the same things. It was suggested that some think tanks were a better source of information and Chatham House was mentioned.

    It was accepted that there was a lot of history but the fact remains the modern day situation in Gaza was a pressing issue for the two million or so living there. It had been pointed out earlier that Evan Davies on the PM programme on Radio 4 was reluctant to accept the phrase ‘open prison’ to describe conditions there. It was not to excuse their terrible actions but what are they to do? The world had a responsibility to ensure it did not go on and on. It was shocking that in the 21st century, we are witnessing these terrible events.

    There was general agreement that the uncritical and unbalanced support by the US, UK and French governments was to be deplored and offering to provide military support particularly so.

    It was a good debate particularly so in view of the emotive nature of what has taken place in the past week. It was clear that people recognised the historical factors which led to the current conflict. It is probably fair to say that some thought there was bias in the reporting while others thought that the mainstream media had sought, as best they could, to be balanced.

    The second topic was a complete contrast and was a discussion based on what single thing would you change in respect of our government? The proposer noted the preponderance of public school boys (mostly) in our government and civil service. Although only 7% went to these schools, they occupied by some estimates, 40% of key government positions. Eton school had a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons. Another issue was the high level of investments such people had. What was lacking among them was much in the way of ‘ordinary’ experience whether of employment or life in general. Not allowing the product of private schools into government was not agreed as this would disenfranchise large numbers of people. However banning the paying for education was proposed as happens in several other countries.

    The role of the City of London was mentioned along with the need to bring it fully into the United Kingdom.

    House of Lords came in for some predictable criticism. While the need for a second chamber was recognised, the presence of hereditary peers and the huge numbers of peers was criticised. A better method was proposed involving selecting people based on a representational basis. We might have noted the manner of their appointment and ‘cash for honours’ is often highly questionable. The word ‘bloated’ was used to describe the second chamber.

    The issue of how MPs are selected was brought up. A small panel of local party members choose the candidate sometimes from an approved short-list provided by central office. These people, if elected and if their party formed the government, might find themselves a minister of some kind having never managed or run anything before. Was it any wonder we had government mismanagement on a vast scale? Added to which was the rapid turnover of ministers some of whom only lasted a year or so in post. This brought up the question how did you find ‘decent’ MPs (meaning capable and with appropriate experience) in the first place and more women? It was pointed out that the LibDems did not select their candidates this way and held public meetings to do so.

    It was also pointed out that once a MP became a minister it seemed to reduce his or her ability to act as a representative which is why they were elected in the first place. Writing to the Salisbury MP for example would often elicit the response that as he was a minister he was not at liberty to intervene (in another department). It was a kind of circular nonsense: you elect someone to represent the constituency but they become a minister and thus stop being able to.

    Strong views were expressed about MPs having second jobs: representing their constituents which is what they were elected and paid to do and that should be a full-time occupation, not spending time on a second job.

    There was discussion about the actual shape of the Commons with two sides facing each other rather than a semi-circular arrangement seen in many other chambers around the world – Scotland and Wales for example. It invited exchanges which were little more than shouting matches which put off many people. Someone said they could not bear to watch prime minister’s questions for this reason.

    The voting system itself came in for criticism. A constituency like Salisbury for example is never likely to be other than Conservative despite the presence of many who were not Conservative supporters: they were effectively and permanently disenfranchised. This was an issue supported by Make Votes Matter in Salisbury.

    Other points included do we need a written constitution?

    We did not come to a ‘single thing’ as the question asked perhaps representing the fact that the system was so broken at so many points that no single thing would be enough to fix it.

    The next meeting is on Saturday 11th November, starting at 10.00 in the Library.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Information Anxiety, (1989), Richard Saul Wurman

    Chums: How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK (2023), Simon Kuper

    Why we Get the Wrong Politicians (2019), Isabel Hardman

    Not mentioned but relevant: The Palestine-Israel Conflict (2015), Dan Cohen-Sherbok & Dawoud el-Alami. The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and Resistance in Palestine (2018), Bernard Regan.

  • Democracy Café

    September 2023

    Met during a blisteringly hot day, probably a record breaker for September, and we were pleased to welcome two new members to the fold. The most popular topic concerned the state of the prison estate. The situation in our prisons had made the news this week following the escape of terror suspect Daniel Khalife from Wandsworth prison a couple of days ago where he was being held on remand. Coincidentally, he was recaptured while we were meeting. Many statements about our prisons were made which few could disagree with. We were reminded of Douglas Hurd’s comment that prison simply made bad people worse.

    The rapid movement of prisoners around the estate meant training programmes often went uncompleted making rehabilitation largely ineffective. The high absence rate – said to be 30% at Wandsworth – combined with high staff turnover, meant the proper management of prisoners and their rehabilitation was compromised. The language of some of our judges at sentencing drew some criticism. The majority of our prisoners were from poor backgrounds and often had poor literacy skills. This was not to excuse their behaviour but did seem to point to a range of social issues behind crime. Many were ‘damaged people’ someone said.

    The Nordic model was mentioned several times. The example of the Netherlands was quoted and the fact that the country was busy selling off its prisons and reducing the number of prisoners. That has not led to an increase in serious crime levels which remained largely unchanged. This seemed to demonstrate quite clearly that the notion of ‘prison works’ is fallacious. Other Nordic countries were doing much the same.

    So why did we stick to the prison works model and continue to pack our prisons with more and more people sometimes two to a cell? We have just under 86,000 prisoners in England and Wales and the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe (House of Commons statistics [accessed 9 September]). Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Yet we go on packing our prisons. Why is this?

    The role of the tabloids immediately came up and several thought that it was political suicide to seek to reform the system, reduce the prison population or try other sentencing options. Any politician daring to reduce sentences, and hence the size of the prison population, would likely face immediate screaming headlines suggesting the public would not be able to venture safely out of their homes or be murdered in their beds, followed by the swift departure of said minister to the backbenches or Northern Ireland. To spend money on the estate and to replace Victorian era prisons was deemed almost impossible some thought summed up in the quote “you’re going to spend money on the man who robbed me not on my pension”.

    As ever in these debates, the causal factors are what interests. Politicians follow the tabloids and the tabloids follow public opinion. So why do the public adhere to the idea of more draconian sentences and a desire for vengeance? One answer was a need to educate the public. If the facts of prison life and our high rate of recidivism was made more evident then maybe people could be weaned off the kneejerk ‘prison works’ model. That prisons are ‘holiday camps‘ is still a sentiment expressed including by some politicians. All was not gloom however and it was suggested there was a slight shift in tabloid comments towards victims and away from the criminals. The New Zealand model of confronting offenders with victims was mentioned. But changes in opinion can happen and the example of homosexuality was put forward: where once it was a crime and homosexuals suffered persecution and criminalisation, the Sexual Offences Act (1967) changed the climate considerably in favour of toleration. In the context of prisons it was strange that the Howard League for Penal Reform seldom gained a mention.

    Rory Stewart was mentioned in connection with his attempts, as the Minister concerned, at reform by reducing the number of pointless short sentences and introducing more rehabilitation efforts. He did not last long in post. The privatisation of the probation service by his predecessor Chris Grayling MP was a disaster and had to be undone. Why was not more use made of parole? someone asked.

    It was noted that even in Republican states in the US, positive reforms can take place. A cross-party consensus was clearly needed in the UK to ‘depoliticise’ this issue. Select Committees can also be effective it was noted. So this session did end with a soupcon of hope: that the tide of ignorance promoted by the likes of the Daily Mail – seemingly reflecting public opinion – may not in fact be the majority view and with education attitudes might be encouraged to shift. It was perhaps a topic which a Citizens’ Assembly could tackle? Bringing together evidence and experts is just the kind of exercise which a CA could bring about change.

    So overall, a sense of despair mixed with some optimism that things can change over time the key being sufficient numbers of the public to realise that the current system, in addition to being expensive and inhumane, was simply not working.

    Our second topic was something of an abrupt change and concerned Saudi Arabia and the planned visit by Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to the UK. Should we treat Saudi Arabia as a partner? was the question. The proposer listed the problems of the country: the poor treatment of women and gays; the lack of free speech; the war engaged by Saudi in the Yemen and later in the discussion, the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, allegedly on the orders of MBS. It was pointed out that Saudi has now executed 100 people so far this year.

    The reason for this courtship as someone expressed it was twofold: Saudi was a major purchaser of our arms and secondly, they were a major oil producer which, following problems with Russia, was an important factor. Since arms sales were one of the nations growth industries, good relations with countries like Saudi were important. It was not just arms and oil someone said. Saudi was a kingdom and there were close relationships between MBS and our royal family with gifts of valuable bloodstock between the two.

    In relation to the Khashoggi murder, it was pointed out that the CIA had carried out a number of murders over the years so it was not all one-sided. We claim to have a special relationship with the US so how genuine was the outrage expressed about the Khashoggi murder at the time?

    In relation to arms sales, the UK’s role in promoting arms sales at the DSEI exhibition was noted. Also, it was often said that ‘if we didn’t sell arms, others would’ but a recent report by Campaign Against the Arms Trade questioned that. It reveals that sales of arms by both Russia and China have fallen recently: in Russia’s case because of the war in Ukraine which is consuming large amounts of military materiel, and by China because it is building up its store of weapons probably in preparation for an invasion of Taiwan. Further details can be found on the Salisbury Amnesty site in which these issues are discussed in more depth.

    The nub of this debate concerned government’s role in relations with other countries especially those where human rights were weakly observed or not observed at all. To what extent does – or should – morality be a consideration? We need to sell arms it seems if we want money to spend on schools and hospitals. We need oil to run our economy and to enable us to drive our cars. Saudi has a big role to play in each. Can we afford to adopt a moral position is the key question? As with the previous debate someone suggested we needed to look for that small event which might lead to significant change – a hint of the butterfly effect if you will.

    In sum, and not just in relation to Saudi, there was a real risk to democracy someone thought, perhaps a topic for a future debate. We did agree it was a hard subject.

    Finally, with a little time to spare, we briefly discussed the conviction and sentencing of Lucy Letby the nurse convicted recently for murdering babies in a neo-natal ward in Chester. The proposer made the point it was obvious she was an extremely sick young woman. There has been nothing about a psychological assessment or her future treatment. She will have to go on Rule 43 because of the likely risks from other prisoners.

    There was a call for her to be executed as an ‘evil person’ but this was not supported by those present. There was a risk of starting to find excuses for her behaviour: some people were just ‘evil’.

    Someone with hospital experience said that a feature of neo-natal units is that they are based on team working since premature infants needed constant attention. They thought others must have noticed which in fact did happen to an extent. It was noted that the hospital concerned was more interested in their reputation rather than investigating the incidents properly. Although every hospital was different, it was an example of ‘silo working’. Those who had medical friends did sometimes note the hostility that is sometimes expressed by clinical staff towards managers. There did seem to be a gulf between them and the Robinson programme on the BBC some years ago was mentioned where this hostility was amply illustrated.

    There did seem to be a similarity between the NHS and the prison system. Both organisations needed reform and investment yet did not get more than token activity by a succession of ministers none of whom seemed able, or were in post long enough, to tackle the major issues involved.

    Three interesting debates.

    Peter Curbishley

    Note: a claim about how Vancouver sentenced people was made but we have not been able to verify this.

  • Democracy café – August

    August 2023

    These are the notes of the Democracy Café held on 12 August 2023.

    A number of people were away for a variety of reasons so attendance was low.

    Four topics suggested, two (Citizens Assembly, Stonehenge tunnel) were politely set aside.

    We kicked off with What response should we give to our MP John Glen, given his unsatisfactory response to a letter about the pending legislation on Freedom to Demonstrate?

    Unfortunately, neither the letter (written by one of us regulars) nor JG’s reply was tabled. Since we couldn’t read the exchange in detail, it was hard to provide an effective/cogent rejoinder.

    The discussion brought out many concerns, including: foreign policy outside the reach of local constituencies; the UK’s image/reputation abroad; the particular threat to teachers and solicitors who might face the loss of career if found ‘guilty’ of causing public disturbance; UK status/ credibility within the European Court of Human Rights.

    Having agreed we could not prepare a draft a letter to John Glen, we broadened the debate/airing of concerns and opinions, actually encroaching on some of the stuff that would have come up had we opted for the shelved Citizens Assembly theme, and ideas that were to come up after coffee in the National Autonomy.

    Shifting semantics means that the words liberal (Liberal?) and conservative (Conservative?) cannot be tossed around with confidence.

    The second topic, which triggered another wide-ranging discussion (and the voicing of opinions which varied according to individuals’ depth of research and ‘urge to comply’ vs ‘defiance’) was Should we sacrifice national autonomy in – for example – pandemic preparedness as we collaborate with the World Health Organisation?

    The next meeting of the Café is on 9 September.

  • Democracy Café

    August 2023

    To let you know that the next Democracy Café takes place today, Saturday 12 August starting at 10:00 to be held in Salisbury Library (upstairs). It lasts two hours and it is free to attend but if you do have a spare groat or two to contribute, that would be appreciated. You can see write ups of our many previous meetings on this site. Essentially, you are free to suggest a topic for discussion and we then vote on the suggestions. We tend to tackle two topics typically.

  • Democracy Café: July

    July 2023

    A full house at the July 2023 Democracy Café to discuss two topics, both of which are at the top of people’s minds at present: the state of the two party system and immigration.

    The first topic was around the question How do we get out of the two party system? One of the first comments to be made was that we had an adversarial system exemplified by the knockabout prime minsters questions once a week. Surely it would be better if efforts were directed at how to improve matters (the economy and social concerns for example) rather than spend time on this political theatre.

    Some pointed to other countries which had coalitions which of course we had at the beginning of the last decade. Several of the problems the country has faced recently had a cross party feel to them eg, Northern Ireland, Covid and even Brexit. This indicated that problems were in fact bigger than the parties. It was suggested that with coalitions, minority parties assumed disproportionate power. Some disagreed with this assertion saying they thought it was something of a myth. It probably does depend on the numbers.

    The argument was forcibly put for a written constitution. This led on to the need to separate the government from the House of Commons. The present system meant the governing party and the HoC were almost one thus neutralising the Commons and MPs. The result was it almost became a dictatorship (the elective dictatorship we have discussed previously). The sole purpose of the HoC it was argued was to pass legislation and agree the budget.

    The role of MPs in relation to their constituents was mentioned. Those who contacted their local MP – who in the case of Salisbury was a member of government – were met with the response that he could do nothing because he was barred by collective responsibility. Or they got a anodyne response that was simply the party line.

    With emails and organisations urging the public to ‘get in touch with their MP’, can he or she cope with the volume of material? Was it worthwhile doing so? ‘Yes’ was the response and it can work.

    A dissenting voice was the problem with coalitions was that they tended to be slow. The first past the post system (FPTP) did give rise to strong government it was suggested. There was a tension between authoritarianism and democracy and the tendency of governments is towards the former came up several times.

    The prevailing mood of the discussion so far was the feeling that the ordinary voter was overlooked in the system we have. How could voters voices be heard? What mattered in the process was the swing voter who were critical in some constituencies. As if to counter this pessimistic view the role of protest groups in changing the political climate was noted. The example given was the suffragettes which was true to an extent although the suffragists laboured for four decades without success and it took further two decades for the suffragettes to get votes for women.

    The debate was predicated on the notion of two parties being distinct and with little opportunity for other parties to make headway. However, quite how different were the two parties? If the Conservatives were truly a right wing party then government expenditure would be cut and no doubt other typically right wing polices would be enacted. It was in fact difficult sometimes to see them apart. Indeed, a problem for the Labour party was their policy ideas being taken from them by the government, the windfall tax a recent example.

    Which other countries have FPTP it was asked? Belarus was the answer, hardly an ideal exemplar and which seemed to sum things up quite well. We should not get carried away by claims about the authoritarian nature of the government – we do still have fundamental freedoms. The very fact we were able to meet and have a perfectly free debate would not be possible in other truly authoritarian states.

    People fundamentally wanted to see good decision making. The calibre of those going into parliament – and perhaps more to the point – high calibre people not going into parliament, was depressing. It was still difficult for women to make headway particularly in view of the large number of abuse cases (‘pestminster’) currently being investigated. The culture within politics was discouraging it was suggested.

    How to get change? We do get the politics and politicians we deserve to an extent which pointed to making sure people were educated about the system. This included schools but it seems that civics classes are no more. Whether outside people should go into schools was queried – surely they would import bias? The purpose of such talks was about the system of government, not party policies. Groups like ourselves debating these issues was part of the mix it was noted.

    Conclusions? One thought was that many problems came down to one of two solutions which pointed to two political parties. Historically, the Conservatives represented the owners of capital and Labour the wage earners (somewhat oversimplified) which again suggested a two party system. We were depressed by the quality of the people who represent us but, it is we who vote them in. Would a better educated electorate make a difference? Perhaps. Change was possible however and campaign groups can effect change. The FPTP system has hindered change as we have noted before – UKIP with its 3 million votes but had only one MP.

    The second debate was should we welcome migrants or not? A question of considerable political salience at present. The first problem was defining terms – was it refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants we were talking about? The question was left hanging.

    Migration of one kind of another had been with us since the dawn of time, we originated in Africa after all. Many of those in the room will have some foreign blood. The problem today it was claimed was coloured migrants – we seemed to be reasonably unconcerned about people coming here from America, Canada, Australia and so on, but those stepping off the boats caused fury.

    One curiosity was people expressing great pride with their sons or daughters going to foreign climes and doing well there. But people coming here are regarded with hostility by many. What exactly is the difference? We are proud of our emigrants but hostile to other’s immigrants. A question left unanswered was ‘what criteria should we apply to judge if someone was to be made welcome here?’

    Those who had spent time in the USA said the system was a little different and it was important to gain accreditation i.e. the green card. In the UK it was less clear cut.

    Many people leaving their homes were doing so not because they wanted to but because of war, persecution, climate problems and similar factors. If we were so angered by a proportion of them ending up on our shores – literally in the case of the Channel crossings – then we should do more to improve matters where they live. Yet the government has cut foreign aid. In a similar vein, many were fleeing areas like the middle east – places like Syria and Iraq – where western policies, especially those of the UK and France after WWI, were the root cause of problems today.

    The situation in the health service was noted. The service depended on a vast number of overseas staff many of whom left because of feeling unwelcome during the Referendum and latterly, we were losing significant numbers of clinical staff to Australia, Canada and elsewhere.

    The attitude of Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel, drew almost universal disdain. They were descendants of immigrants welcomed here yet were now vociferously campaigning against those coming after them.

    A view was expressed that immigrants were a cost to the taxpayer. It was pointed out however that if they were allowed to work, they would contribute to the economy and pay tax. So far from being a burden they would be a benefit. There was need of a culture change and to see such people in a more positive light. This might change attitudes. The contrast with Sicily was noted where people buying and doing up properties were welcomed as they were a boost to the local economy.

    We are an island with a very clear border namely the sea. There are countries where borders have shifted considerably especially in eastern Europe for example Poland and Romania. Yet there were still hatreds and enmities suggesting that the problem was connected with culture, ethnicity or language. It was not just an issue of borders and nationality.

    One of the aspects of the political scene was how politicians tried to take the high moral ground: it wasn’t prejudice or animosity towards immigrants they claimed, it was instead a war against the people smugglers. It was a pity more did not recognise this attempted sleight of hand. The smugglers were capitalising on a problem that existed, not creating it.

    Someone had seen a minister claim on TV that we needed immigrants to keep wages down and hence solve inflation.

    On the subject of Rwanda, the country had been used by Israel with the same purpose in mind. They had abandoned it because it just seemed to increase the incidence of smuggling. All those sent there left immediately and attempted to return to Europe.

    To encourage or deter – two opposite policies which mimicked the two party system – which is where we sort of came in …

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on 12 August at 10:00 am and in Salisbury Library