Another letter in the Salisbury Journal this week (July 6) arguing that CAs are ‘an investment’
Following on from previous week’s letters to the Journal, this week saw a letter from Mike Hodgson arguing that it was wrong to see Citizens’ Assemblies as a cost.
“I agree with Dickie Bellringer and his assessment of the benefits of Citizens’ Assemblies. He says that councillors and the political parties see CAs as a cost. I see them as an investment, ensuring good planning results in the effective implementation of schemes; not just assessing them in terms of cost, but also in terms of them being fit for purpose and achieving the desired objectives.
“With £18k spent on a CA the People Friendly Streets scheme may not have happened as it did, thereby saving considerably more than the £18k [which would have been] spent. CAs are an investment. An investment in doing the job right in the first place and as such, save money not waste it.
“Councillors seem to assume CA overrides their democratically elected decision-making powers, rendering them redundant. It does not. While councillors fulfil and important elected role safeguarding the people and the people’s purse strings, a CA is an information gathering tool and exercise in understanding the issue in question, the pros and cons,the problems and opportunities.
“As such it is a democratic adjunct to quality decision-making providing high quality information from informed citizens. The final decision will always reside with the council and the councillors, because they are the elected decision makers and are democratically in control of the budget.
“However, as Sir Winston Churchill once said, having good quality information is critical to making good decisions”.
A second letter on Citizens’ Assemblies is published in the Salisbury Journal. We also write to the Area Board on this topic
June 2023
A second letter is published in today’s Salisbury Journal arguing for a CA to be held to consider the future of the City Hall (29 June 2023). There is also a letter arguing for greater involvement by local people and not for consultations to take place when in fact, decisions have already taken place.
The first letter from Mark Potts:
“Dickie Bellringer is right to suggest that the Salisbury City Council (SCC) administration should consider pushing Citizens’ Assemblies back up the agenda [in his letter to the Journal on] 22 June.
“With the future of the City Hall to be decided, SCC needs to be putting pressure on Wiltshire Council (WC) to involve the people of Salisbury in determining its future through a Citizens’ Assembly.
“Regarding the City Hall, Ian Blair-Pilling says that WC is focused on bring a long-term solution to Salisbury. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are fully involved in deciding the future of the City Hall and this is best done through a CA.
“Too often decisions like this that impact on Salisbury have been taken without sufficient involvement of Salisbury citizens. Fully involved does not mean a consultation exercise whereby we are asked what we think about a decision once it has been made. It means something like a Citizens’ Assembly where a randomly selected representative group of Salisbury citizens hear the evidence and make informed recommendations based on the evidence.
“Wiltshire Council can then say that they have truly listened to the people of Salisbury and made a decision based on their recommendations. This is what many other councils around the country have done on similar issues.
“At a fraction of the cost of a parish poll, Citizens’ Assemblies give those who are not usually heard a chance to fully engage with the arguments and influence the future of our city.”
Sentiments expressed in the above comments are repeated in a letter from Anne Trevett. Some extracts of which are:
“The situation around [the] City Hall is complex and the current proposal by Wiltshire Council to develop a splendid new library and cultural centre is not without merit. It could be transformative for Salisbury as it has in places like Chester. But it is also high risk.
[…] “But there is a very real problem around the decision making process and its transparency. The present decision to explore a new building option has been taken by WC’s cabinet and if the discussion in the Salisbury Area Boards is any indication, does not have the full support of local councillors or the community.
[…] “Meantime, discussion of an alternative solution harnessing community energies in a way that has been shown to be hugely successful by numerous voluntary group in our City, from the Trussell Trust and Alabaré to more recently St John’s Place, are dismissed out of hand. Yet these organisation are Salisbury’s glory – example of social enterprise that have been seen as national exemplars of how to get things done.
“Of course, the Council’s own solution will be to put up for “consultation” but only after months and years and massive expenditure on the plans. Not for the first time, I and many others are asking for our views to be considered in the drawing up of plans, not at the very end, at the point when decisions are already taken.”
Both these letters express the concern about the manner of decision making.
Mark Potts has also written to the Area Board in the following terms:
“I am writing to you as Chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) to make the case for a Citizens’ Assembly/Jury (CA/J) as part of the process to determine the future of the City Hall in Salisbury. If you look at social media and read the local newspaper you will know that there is a perception amongst many people in Salisbury that decisions about our city are made by Wiltshire representatives living some distance away from us.
“Whether this is a justified perception or not, it is prevalent and needs to be addressed. There is a perception that Wiltshire Council (WC) adopts a DAD approach to decision making for Salisbury. DAD stands for Decide, Announce, Defend. In essence, WC decides what it wants to do, announces it and invites responses. Then it seeks to defend its position if there are counter views. The problem is that people do not feel that they were involved in the decision making process and it leaves people thinking that the consultation process is little more than a sham. EDD by contrast, stands for Engage, Deliberate and Decide. Engagement has the advantage of involving people in the decision making process from the start giving people an opportunity to contribute ideas with some chance that they will be incorporated, or at least considered. This is precisely what a CA/J enables to happen.
“Many people in Salisbury reference the People Friendly Streets scheme as a recent example of the failed DAD approach. Whilst the rationale behind it had many merits, the lack of involvement of Salisbury citizens in its’ implementation meant that it was doomed to failure. Lessons need to be learned from that.
“From previous conversations with councillors, I am aware that there are concerns about the cost of running a CA/J. We at SDA have explored the costs and we are confident that a CA/J could be run at a cost to the Council of around £20k. I can provide more details on this should it be required. When we consider that the recent parish poll cost double that amount, this does not seem a large amount of money to restore some faith in the democratic nature of decision making.
“I am sure you realise that the City Hall is a building which is much treasured by the people of Salisbury. Its future use is a topic that is being hotly debated. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are given the opportunity to engage with the evidence, deliberate on it and contribute ideas to determine what happens to the Hall going forward. Of course, the final decision rightly rests with the elected representatives, but I hope that you recognise that engaging citizens in the process through a CA/J will further legitimise the decisions that are made“.
A letter was published in the Salisbury Journal on the subject of Citizens’ Assemblies
June 2023
Dickie Bellringer of this parish wrote to the Salisbury Journal who published his letter on June 22nd.
“Ian Curr is right to suggest that citizens assemblies (CAs) ‘may prove the next step forward’ (June 8th).Indeed the current Labour, LibDem and Independent leadership all expressed support for the idea when they were candidates for the election. But then the realities of of a stretched public purse kicked in and CAs have slipped down the agenda, largely because of the cost.
“As I said in may last letter however, Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) expects to be able to deliver a CA for less than £18,000, with the help of local partners and if we got a firm commitment from Salisbury City Council (SCC), then the SDA would commit to raising a significant proportion.
“As of March 31 this year the SCC’s readily accessible reserves stood at £2.01 million presumbly less the cost of the parish polls. Those reserves are about £800,000 more than minimum required by the council’s Financial Regulations. No doubt it makes sense to have in reserve more than the bare minimum, especially in these uncertain economic times. Nevertheless, it seems that the council’s financial position is relatively healthy, which is a tribute to the efficiency of the administration and officers.
“All I ask is that, with £12,000 already set aside in the budget for community engagement and SDA’s commitment to raise money itself, the SCC administration consider pushing CAs back up the agenda.”
A small, but perfectly formed group, met in the Library on Saturday 10 June 2023 and two topics were voted for discussion. It was held after the fairly momentous day in national politics when Boris Johnson had stepped down as MP having received a draft of the privileges committee report which is apparently damming of his behaviour. His honours list was also published with various individuals of dubious merit being ennobled or honoured in some way including his hair dresser which might come as a surprise to those who assumed it was mown rather than cut.
The first topic asked whether Sir Keir Starmer risked throwing out the baby with the bathwater by seeking to appeal to the middle ground. One worry was the decision to deselect the sitting North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll for sharing a platform with Ken Loach the film maker who himself was expelled from the party for his associations with proscribed groups. This worried several people as it seems to be a sign of eliminating anyone who disagrees with the party line.
One theme, which was expressed at several moments during the debate was the lack of vision by the Labour party. Some also thought he (Sir Keir Starmer) was floundering and that he was not a good communicator. Others also wondered if the policies would in fact be put into practice if and when they formed a government. He lacked charisma and perhaps most seriously, did not give people a sense of hope.
Others disagreed most particularly with the idea he was floundering. It has to be recognised that the opposition has so much against it. If it spelt out policies too soon they would either be trashed or taken by the government, witness the windfall tax on the oil companies. There is a need to believe in him it was suggested. The difference between the two main parties was noted: the Conservatives for their loyalty (although that was somewhat doubtful at present) and the Labour party where there were often splits or major differences of policy and direction to be seen.
As ever, we moved on to discuss how the media treat the parties and it was noted that the announcement by Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, that the proposed £28bn spend on green infrastructure would not take place straightaway, was pounced on by nearly all of the media but by contrast, the multiple spending promises dropped by the Conservatives received much less prominence.
The reluctance of the party to take on the media in contrast to Prince Harry’s battle with the Mirror was commented on. There was a different media landscape now with very few young people buying or reading a newspaper. It was claimed that young people were more idealistic and perhaps the point here was that they were not attracted to the tabloid end of the market with its kiss and tell type stories. By contrast it was claimed that the new TV stations such as GB News with its fairly partisan approach was said to be popular with young people.
What a lot of the media coverage lacked was nuance. Few issues were black and white, right or wrong and yet coverage was often cast in an unnuanced way.
To be ‘left wing’ was something of an insult it was noted. A curious observation and poses the question why? It went with ‘woke’ and meant it was an easy insult to throw at someone or a party. Why this should be we didn’t explore and it might be a question for a future debate.
Can an honest politician survive today? Could someone who ‘told it how it was’ and what is needed to fix our economy, society generally, the need for higher taxes and perhaps a tax on property, could such a person ever be elected? Almost certainly not although Mick Lynch was mentioned (who is not actually a politician). Are all politicians doomed to tell lies to get elected and then attempt to do what they think needs to be done afterwards? Which sort of brought us back to Sir Keir – not the suggestion of lying – but the need to steer a careful course, not spell out policy positions too soon for fear of being attacked.
The second debate was quite different. This was the question Julian Assange has lost his appeal, should we be worried? This concerns the extended legal battle against extradition to the US which has been trying to get him to trial for a number of years. It came a day after Donald Trump was charged on 37 counts relating to removing top secret documents from the White House and leaving them lying around in various places in his house in Florida.
The first point was that this was about freedom of speech and the press and Assange has performed a public service by revealing some of the activities being carried out by our governments. He was doing his job as a journalist including revealing some of the appalling activities being perpetrated in Guantanamo Bay. It was not clear if his revelations had done any actual harm.
It was admitted that he was a strange personality and he had been accused of sexual assault in Sweden, charges now dropped. However, there was a principle at stake.
A different view was to ask ‘why are we seeking to override the law in America?’ Surely it was up to the Americans to decide his fate? But what about the Sacoolas case and Harry Dunn? She fled the UK claiming diplomatic immunity following the accidental death of Harry Dunn? The extradition treaty was very one-sided it was noted: the Americans can extradite from the UK but refuse to allow Americans to be sent here for trial. Sacoolas will not come to the UK to stand trial.
Could Assange receive a fair trial in the US? Anyone with knowledge of the American legal system would doubt that.
Governments want to curtail freedom of the press. Around the world, journalists are arrested, abducted or murdered.
However, governments were entitled to hold some secrets. However distasteful, our government engages in espionage with a view, partly at least, to protect our interests and to be aware of countries or other entities which might wish to do us harm. The problem was when this spilled over into unwarranted intrusion of private individuals, in short it was a matter of trust. People’s trust in our government was not high and many no longer had trust in the government not hide secrets we should know about. It was observed that we were supposed to be a society controlled by law but the problem was that the vast majority of us could not afford access to it because of the enormous cost. The quality and impartiality of the judiciary was also called in question.
This led to a discussion of the case of Carol Cadwalladr who had done sterling work in exposing vote rigging in connection with Aaron Bank’s alleged activities and his many meetings with Kremlin officials (which he denies). Outrage has been caused by a judge’s ruling in the latest appeal by Banks that she will have to pay some of his costs which will amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Her journalism has performed a public service yet by some esoteric legal reasoning she is made financially the poorer. Other media did not develop the story possibly because it exposed wrongdoing with the Brexit vote. She was insultingly referred to by Andrew Neil as ‘Carol Codswallop’ among other insults. The judges’ decision was yet another expensive blow to the freedom of the press and the free speech generally.
Final word: a fair trial for Julian Assange was ‘for the birds.’
The second Talkshop was held on Saturday 27 May in Brown Street with two hours spent on debating a variety of issues. The event was run by dividing attendees into groups of around half a dozen who were given a variety of cards upon which were described successful projects that have been run elsewhere in the country or indeed the world. The result was three ideas which could be applied in Salisbury. If there was a common theme it was the need for improved involvement in decision making.
SDA has been promoting the idea of a citizens’ assembly for some time now so far without success. The idea of an assembly is to invite a carefully selected and representative group of people – who are then sorted for demographic balance – to debate, with the help of experts, a problem or proposed policy with a view to arriving at an informed result or recommendation. It has the advantage of involving local people in decision making and in subjecting a proposal or policy to some kind of rigorous analysis before it is put into effect. It has been successfully applied in a number of locations usually with beneficial results.
Cost has been one of the arguments deployed against using the assembly technique and it was coincidental that a row erupted in the City Council concerning a parish poll it held in March this year and there is an article on the subject in the Salisbury Journal (Parish poll will cost city double projected figure, June 1, 2023). The poll is likely to cost £40,000 against an original budget of £18,000. Very few people took part and it is unclear what value was derived from the exercise.
A citizens’ assembly by contrast would cost less than this (and SDA will engage in fundraising to lessen the burden on the Council) and is almost certain to achieve positive results. One of the factors which emerged in the Talkshop, which all authorities have to recognise today, is the high degree of scepticism and cynicism concerning politics both nationally and locally. To an extent, local politics has been unfairly coloured by the goings on in Westminster which hardly needs any explanation here. Scarcely a day passes without some new example of poor policy making, corrupt dealings or serious misjudgement. ‘A plague on all your houses’ is a familiar refrain from many which as I say, unfairly tarnishes the work of local politicians.
Involvement
Part of the problem centres on involvement and participation. There is also an issue when the local authority does engage in consultation about how real that is. There are two forms which have the acronyms DAD and EDD. DAD stands for Decide, Announce, and Defend. In essence, the local authority decides on what it wants to do, announces it and invites responses. Then it seeks to defend its position if there are counter views. The problem is the quality of the original decision and whether it has looked at other options. It frequently leaves people thinking that the consultation process is little more than a sham.
EDD by contrast stands for Engage, Deliberate and Decide. Engagement has the advantage of involving people in the decision-making process at the start which provides an opportunity for people to contribute ideas with some chance they will be incorporated or at least considered. Of course, no method is perfect and policy makers may say it can be difficult for people to contribute to policy making if they are not provided with options and suggestions to begin with. Community events can end up with arguments over small details and an avoidance of more strategic issues. Deliberation is important because it gives participants an opportunity to consider the evidence for and against different options before deciding on the recommended ones.
Talkshop
But back to the Talkshop. The three topics which emerged were: making a more concerted effort to involve those who, for one reason or another, are disengaged with local politics; participatory budgeting and finally ‘forum theatre’ – using the arts as a way to engage local people in decision making. We hope to work on these ideas over the coming months and we are setting up a second event in the autumn to take things forward. We were delighted to welcome three city councillors who took an active part in the morning and the discussions.
Those we spoke to after the event felt it was worthwhile. It was a pity the sudden arrival of warm weather and a bank holiday weekend, reduced the numbers attending. A deep frustration was evident concerning how we are governed now: people do not seem to believe we are best served by the current system.
SDA believes there is a better way and it is within our grasp to make it happen. At least locally, and here in Salisbury, we can do something to get better decisions and demonstrate to residents that they have a role – a real role – in the management of the city’s affairs. There will however, have to be a culture change. Involvement has to mean something tangible and a move away from the DAD (see above) approach we have now. The councillor who proposed the parish poll is quoted in the Journal as saying “you cannot put a price on democracy”. Quite so.
The Democracy Café met in the Library at 10 am on 13 May to discuss topics of the day
After a vote the topics chosen were a composited title for the perceived attacks on our freedoms and how to deal with them, and, secondly, is it supportive or foolish to send long-range missiles to Ukraine?
The first topic generated much lively debate, cantering around the new legislation on the right to protest and its use over the coronation period. Much puzzlement was expressed at the tendency of the populace to accept ever-increasing restrictions on their rights in this area. France was mentioned as a contrast. On the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Public Order Act, it was pointed out that the legislation was rushed through, and that the senior officer at a site can determine if any protest is disruptive and therefore indictable. Indeed, protests are chargeable if they “could” become disruptive, which is a very concerning matter.
It was suggested that we have given away our rights to protest over recent years, partly due to not knowing our rights. “You lose your freedoms as your ignorance increases.” Information is key in defending freedom. It was agreed that there has been an unwillingness to put one’s head above the parapet.
There was discussion of the extent to which freedoms may be justifiably limited for the common good. It was accepted that protests could cause collateral damage, that conflict results in casualties and this has to be recognized.
On effective protest, it was observed that demonstrations rarely result in change and the failure to get anything done can lead to extreme, even violent, action. Successful activists such as trade unions were contrasted with groups like Extinction Rebellion, whose success rate is lower, the large extent of its concern being felt to be a disadvantage.
The talk moved on to the problem of people not having the power of decision-making, and thence to the need for such processes as citizens’ assemblies, such as our own Talkshop.
The second topic concerned the British government’s decision to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles. Up till now, the weapons we have supplied have been defensive, but this marks a change – should we be worried by this?
Much of the discussion centered on the history of the conflict and the role of America, particularly in pushing the borders of NATO ever eastward. There was a general feeling that Russia did have a historic case, causing one member to observe that Putin was getting something of a free pass; views were sanguine about the possible end to the conflict, most agreeing that some form of negotiation will ensue, with parts of Ukraine probably ending up with Russia.
Other aspects of the question that emerged included the use of war as a means of controlling populations and Russia’s possible larger ambitions. A final thought was that, years hence when some sort of negotiation has taken place, we may need to be “foolish” i.e. creative.
Andrew Hemming
Next meeting on Saturday June 10th at 10.00 in the Library
The second of our Talkshops was held today (27 May 2023) in Brown Street and three possible projects may emerge
About two dozen attended this morning’s session in Brown Street and three projects emerged from the 40 or so ideas which were proposed. The idea is that ideas that have worked elsewhere in the country or the world are posed as possible ones for the authorities of Salisbury to consider. It was encouraging that three councillors from Salisbury City Council attended and joined in.
We will then take these raw ideas and see if we can turn them into workable projects for the City to consider or even carry out.
Recent events, particularly in regards to national politics, has left many with a sense of despair. How can the affairs to the country be so badly mismanaged by a group of people who appear so detached from reality and seemingly with little sense of integrity or capability? In a humble and modest way, the Talkshop might offer a means for real and meaningful involvement of the community in the running of our affairs, certainly at the local level.
As we take the ideas forward we will post further details soon. We are grateful for the involvement and help of the RSA.
One disappointment was that we had 40 people express interest in coming to the event but a sizeable number were ‘no shows’ on the day. Bright sunshine and a warm day might just have had something to do with it!
PC
Pictures show members of the Talkshop discussing the topics and reviewing the ideas on flip charts.
Exchange of correspondence on the issue, and cost, of Citizens’s Juries
If there is one thing that is guaranteed to get people agitated is the issue of tax and its related topic, community charge. A key promise by politicians of all shapes and sizes – almost always broken – is that they will keep such taxes low or at least not raise them. They also promise to do this and that policy to improve our lives which usually requires, in some form, er … tax. We will tackle waiting lists (but not raise your taxes), we will sort out the pot holes (but not raise your community charge), we will improve … well you get the idea (but not …).
I claim no scientific basis for the following but it seems to me that people respond to this issue in one of three broad ways. Firstly, there are those that say ‘they don’t mind paying more tax as long as it’s spent on X’ where X is something they favour e.g. the health service. This is the hypothecation view and it has many problems one of which is different people favour different things they want taxes to be spent on. How do you decide?
The second group is ‘I wouldn’t mind paying more tax but they only waste it’. ‘Waste’ here can mean many things but it often means, on enquiry, money spent on things they don’t approve of: in the current climate that will be hotel accommodation for the boat people.
Finally, there are those that believe that lower tax means everyone is better off. It overlooks the simple fact that yes, you can buy some new clothes or go out for a meal or two with the money saved but you can’t buy yourself better roads, a health service, defence and all the other things that make life bearable. Some things just have to be done collectively or they won’t get done at all. Tax is our contribution to a good society.
So this is part of the backdrop to an exchange of letters in the Salisbury Journal. The Parish Poll conducted by Salisbury City Council recently has produced a huge amount of correspondence and in turn led Cllr Charles McGrath (Con) to write on 27 April, complaining about the conduct of the poll which voted for a cap of 5% on the precept. He then says “This is the administration that pledged to make ‘Your voice Heard’ in their Strategic Plan for Salisbury City Council, and once supported the concept of of self-selecting Citizens’ Juries which have cost some councils £40k – over twice the amount of a parish poll” (our italics).
This week (4 May) Dickie Bellringer, a member of SDA, replied […] “I would like to correct a piece of misinformation disseminated by Cllr Charles McGrath in last week’s postbag the citizens’ juries are self-selecting. This is untrue. Citizens’ Juries are examples of deliberative democracy for which residents are selected randomly in order to deliberate on important local issues.
“They can draw on, and interrogate expert witnesses who will provide information.
“[…] Cllr McGrath writes that Citizens’ Juries have cost some councils £40,000 but Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for Citizens’ Juries for many years and, by working with local partners, should be able to produce a Citizens’ Jury for less than £18,000”.
The idea of letting people’s voices to be heard is a familiar one but few are in possession of the time or expertise to make significant contributions. There is a need for advice, and time for people to digest and understand the complex issues around a local economy. The Strategic plan – referred to by Cllr McGrath – is my view flawed in many respects. See the link above. I wonder how many will have read all the reports and supporting material? Whether it’s £18,000 or Cllr McGrath’s exaggerated £40,000, isn’t it better to find a way to sound and achievable solutions than following the path of a somewhat flawed plan?
But the backdrop is always the issue of tax and how much we should pay. Politicians are never able to say that lower taxes do not automatically make you better off. The years following austerity has seen spend on a wide range of public services and local authorities decline precipitately with the results we are now witnessing.
This is the second post about our second Talkshop due to take place today, 27th May starting at 10:00 at 29 Brown Street Salisbury finishing at 12:00 prompt. Most of the places are now taken so if you are interested in coming and taking part, you do need to book straight away. It is free but we ask for a parting collection to help with our costs.
The event is run in partnership with the RSA and we are grateful for their help. This is our second event of this kind and the first help spawn the EcoHub project which is now doing well and has a site in the Market most Saturdays.
The event is part of the Alliance’s efforts to see citizens more involved in the politics of our community and to try and get a higher standard of decision making. We are pleased that some councillors are planning to come which might help secure ideas such as citizen’s assemblies become a feature of how decisions are made locally.
The event will be run much as before. We assemble in small groups of around 6 each and examine a range of cards with ideas where citizens have been involved in the democratic process. After discussion, each group will select 2 or 3 which they think might be of use and relevance locally. During a break, we look at other team’s efforts and come up with some final ideas. It’s both fun and has a serious intent.
One of our aims is to move away from so-called ‘consultation’ exercises where plans and policies are presented for us to look at but where in fact decisions have largely been taken and other options may not even have been looked at.
Interested? Then you need to book up using the following link:
May we please ask that if you do book and are unable to come, to let us know so your space can be offered to someone else. Thanks. See you there.
Photo: SDA
We also run the Democracy Café which meets once a month in the Library. The next one is May 13th and starts at 10:00 am and finishes at noon. If you scan this site you will find reports of our previous meetings and the sorts of things we have discussed.
We are please to invite you to the second of our TALKSHOP events in collaboration with the RSA at 29 Brown Street between 10am and noon on Saturday 27 May. Last year’s event was very successful and resulted in the creation of the Eco Hub who have a presence in the Market Square.
This time we will exploring how we can do politics differently in Salisbury and how we can engage more citizens in our local democracy. Participants will be given examples of how politics can work differently both from the UK and throughout the world and select some ideas that are achievable locally. You can find out more by clicking on the link above.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 