Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Citizens’ Assembly

  • Progress with People’s Assemblies

    First to say, there is progress. Enthusiasm doesn’t always turn into action and although there is a long way to go, things are moving. Readers will recall we gave a presentation to Councillors at an Area Board on 3 July which was for the most part, favourably received. A change in the political composition of the council has helped and is more receptive to the idea of listening to people’s concerns and ideas. There was a feeling previously of ‘you voted us in, now go away.’

    If you are new to this site, we held three assemblies over the spring and summer at which over 100 people attended giving up 2 hours of their time to discussing what they felt was important to the future of Salisbury. They voted for 5 ideas which we presented at the Area Board. A team of 3 went up to the national event called the House of the People to present the results with around 100 others. There is an excellent review in the Byline Times which gives a flavour of the event. Parenthetically, I can recommend this publication which comes out once a month and gives an interesting take on current political issues. It can be deeply critical of some of the media coverage we are served up. They have been extremely critical of the BBC’s coverage of the Gaza war for example.

    People’s Charter created

    The Charter has set out the following five things:

    • Tax wealth by: removing tax loopholes and closing tax havens; ending pension tax subsidies for high-earners; charging the equivalent of National Insurance on investment as income over £5,000 a year; and applying VAT to banking services.
    • Strengthen and enforce anti-corruption laws; prohibit lobbying, gifting and second jobs in politics.
    • A Future Generation Act – Implement a first principle act that ensures all government policy prioritises well-being, sustainability, and nature over GDP for all current and future generations.
    • Immediate total embargo on arms, trade and support for all countries that are in violation of international law, with immediate priority to be given to Israel.
    • Long term decommodification of housing, ensuring renters rights; councils repurchasing disused housing/empty homes/holiday homes to repurpose and build green council housing; enshrining structural laws without loopholes; and implementing rent increase caps.

    Housing was one of the issues which the Salisbury discussions focused on with matters such as planning and affordable homes. Developers fulfilling their planning obligations was discussed (where developers promise x numbers of affordable homes then discover when they get on site that it cannot be afforded because of unforeseen difficulties).

    Local meeting

    Committee members and others met last evening to review progress with those who we hope will lead on some of the projects. To remind you these were:

    1. Housing and issues around quality and affordability
    2. Traffic and transport
    3. A Community Hub
    4. An Environment Centre
    5. A college for the performing arts

    We discussed the performing arts suggestion and one idea proposed was a ‘City of Story Telling’. This would build on the Stage 65 idea and hopefully create a centre of excellence for story telling with an emphasis on encouraging young people. It could tie in with Salisbury’s Cultural Strategy. It did seem to be promising and could link to the Cathedral whose theme next year is ‘Joyful Noise’. It did sound promising but it did not fully address the idea of a college for the performing arts though that might follow in future years. It will take a lot of organisation, a need for fund raising and some good marketing. The government is keen on the notion of oracy at present so the idea should be propitious.

    We then moved on to discuss transport and this is a tangled web if ever there was one. If the road to hell is paved with Wiltshire Council transport reports and plans then there can only be a few yards left before meeting Beelzebub himself. The discussion focused around the idea of 15 minute communities. There is the Wiltshire Council LTP4 plans which, if you have mastered War and Peace, you may be equipped to tackle being 310 pages of plans, 604 pages of assessments and a 15 page plan. The problem it was said was that there was little sign of action. This may change with the new LibDem administration. It was noted that there is £6m of unspent s106 monies which could provide funding for any workable ideas.

    There was discussion of People Friendly Streets which seems to be relevant. It was noted that the issue of transport and related matters was an ideal one for a Citizen’s Assembly or similar exercise. Another matter was Park and Ride which is operating sub-optimally.

    We briefly discussed the Community Hub ideas but the person concerned was not able to make the meeting. It was noted that a hub existed in the central car park in Warminster. We got on to talk about 3G pitches which are lacking in Salisbury. There are prospects however and at least 2 possible locations. The new owner of the football club may be a key influence.

    We finished by briefly discussing citizenship and government plans to reduce the voting age to 16. There will be a need and an opportunity for more schools work to interest pupils in the political process.

    So that’s where we are at present. We did also briefly touch on making SDA a bit more ‘formal’. We are currently an ‘unincorporated association’ by default. We could change to become a Community Interest Company but there are few advantages. It would be advisable to agree a set of rules and procedures and these will be discussed over the coming months.

    Finally, finally – have you thought of joining us? We can do with all the support we can muster especially now things are beginning to happen.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next Democracy Café is on Saturday 9th August at 10:00 in the Library.

  • SDA comes of age

    SDA makes successful presentation to Area Board

    The Alliance was able to report to the Salisbury Area Board on 3 July following the three successful People’s Assemblies we ran in the City. The response was on the whole positive and we did feel that we have made some progress in our quest to improve the manner in which decisions are made in the local political sphere.  We are grateful to Karen Linaker for her help in arranging for our presentation.

    Mark Potts presented the results of the three assemblies noting that around a 100 people attended at least one of the meetings and some all three.  It demonstrated a keen interest by people who were concerned and interested in the future of the City and wanted to be involved in what happened.

    There were two main types of consultation: DAD and EDD he said.  They stood for Decide – Announce – Defend and, Engage – Deliberate – Decide.  Unfortunately, there had been a tendency towards the former where people felt proposals had all been decided and their involvement was just a formality. The Alliance was naturally enough, keener on the second approach.

    The top five

    After the three meetings the top five issues emerged.  They were:

    1. Housing and issues around quality and affordability
    2. Traffic and transport
    3. A Community Hub
    4. An Environment Centre
    5. A college for the performing arts

    A full description of these and a brief report of the final assembly, can be found on this link.

    Mark said that present in the room, were the five ‘champions’ for each of these ideas and he suggested the next step is some kind of engagement with councillors and others. He mentioned the idea of citizen’s juries, another idea being promoted by SDA, which has been successfully used to tackle more complex problems.  It was true they cost money but the cost of getting these things wrong needs also to be considered.  They have the advantage of engaging experts into the debate and engaging a cross section of citizens in the process.

    Responses

    In response to Mark’s presentation, councillors had some questions and comments.

    Cllr Sven Hocking asked how will those who took part in this event or SDA help councillors find the budget.  Mark replied that it was not the role of SDA to try and manage the council’s budget.  We were only seeking to submit ideas.

    Cllr Ricky Rogers said on the housing issue, it was government who decide.  Developers were in a strong position he said.  This was a matter which came up in our debates and is a fair point. 

    Cllr Ed Rimmer was more sceptical.  He thought it better for people to engage in the existing system.  He questioned whether the [five priorities] reflected the wishes of the wider community. Is there not a risk that what is proposed subverts the [electoral] system we have?  After all, the councillors here have been voted in to represent people. How can SDA demonstrate political balance?

    In replying Mark said we were not suggesting our method was better. He stressed people had given up their time.  The point was our method was deliberative.

    Cllr John Wells said he had attended one of the sessions. He suggested some of the ideas should be built into the things they are engaged in already.

    There followed a general debate in which it was stressed that the process was about helping the councillors do their job.  It was agreed that better engagement was wanted and was a good idea.

    Cllr Paul Sample (Chair) said the work was opportune.  There was a review of the Area Boards underway and he welcomed the ideas and energy put in.  “Keep doing what you’re doing – it’s not wasted!” 

    Comment

    After the work put into organising and running the three assemblies, we were encouraged with the overall response we received. There does seem to be a change of attitude among the majority of councillors that admits they do need input from organised events of this kind.

    It is true that councillors (and members of parliament) are voted in to run things but the question is how many of the public would have read their manifestos before doing so?  How do you accommodate changing circumstances?  Are people only to have a say every 4 or five years?  As new problems or opportunities arise is it not best to tap into any local expertise?

    The three sessions demonstrated the degree of enthusiasm and commitment local people had. The point surely was to bottle some of this enthusiasm and use it to change or improve things. Trust in politics is at a very low ebb. People feel ignored and left out. This kind of deliberative approach would surely put a small dent in that thinking.

    The future

    We shall be meeting soon to consider next steps and there will be a post here so subscribe if you want to remain in touch. Why not join us? We need more people who want to play a role in local affairs. As we have debated in several of our Democracy Café meetings (next one on Saturday July 12th, 10:00 in the Library finishing at noon), the role of parties in the local political scene is doubted by many and is seen as an irrelevance. We are not a political party and our aim is to improve how things are run.

    Peter Curbishley

  • People’s Assemblies

    Third Assembly a success with over 40 taking part

    June 2025

    UPDATE: there is an interview with Mark Potts on That’s TV and the link is here (6 June)

    The third of the assemblies was held on Sunday 1st and 42 took part to discuss the suggestions put forward by the previous two. There was earnest debate on all the tables and there were some who were passionate about their topic or what was important to them. We ended up with our top five and these will go forward to contribute to the national debate. We hope some of those who volunteered to go to London will be able to do so to carry the message forward.

    It occurred to me as the afternoon wore on listening to the debates on each of the tables, that where else is there for this kind of debate? Our election process – national or local – will consist of the parties telling you of their plans for the country or the area. You don’t get to debate them unless you are a member of one of the parties and even then, policy is often imposed from on high. If you go to a hustings, as I did last year, the candidates have their say and one or two from the audience get to ask a question, but there is no debate in any meaningful sense of the term. It’s all very ‘top down’ with non party members – the vast majority – being passive recipients of the supposed wisdom of our political masters.

    Yet in the three assemblies, there were six hours of vigorous debate by a wide range of people. A few came more than once but the majority were first timers. Things didn’t quite go to plan as the last event was meant to be a game of two halves: each group to select their top five and then in the second half, to decide on the final five having heard what the other’s thought. Well, we more or less decided on the top five after the first session so the debate switched to suggesting which one or two topics were the most important.

    What are the top five you are eager to discover:

    1. Housing

    Provide more good quality and low energy consuming homes, which are genuinely affordable and some of which will be in public ownership. Ensure that developers provide such homes, fully meeting their planning obligations and including the provision of appropriate and agreed infra-structure. [this is a combination of the various individual suggestions into one piece of text].

    2. Transport

    Produce and implement a traffic plan for the city with youth advocacy, that includes low emission zones, car free zones, people friendly routes, promotes active travel, considers 15-minute communities and free or cheap bus travel, especially for under 21s.

    3. A Community Hub

    Create a community hub for young people and families including 3G sports pitches and activities including life skills.

    4. An Environmental Centre

    Create an environmental centre which provides Salisbury’s residents with information on sustainable homes, travel and living. A permanent, free home will allow Ecohub to provide a better information and advice service to local residents.

    Residents and the environment would benefit from this service as sustainable homes and transport save money while reducing greenhouse gases.

    5. A College for Performing Arts in Salisbury.

    Power

    One of the topics which arose in several debates and in discussions afterwards, was the matter of where the power lies and who is in a position to deliver on any of these. If we take housing for example, why do we not have more affordable homes? Why are new houses going up around Salisbury and elsewhere, the majority of which do not have solar panels and are not built to zero emission standards? Why are we building on flood plains? Why are developers able to promise affordable homes at the planning application stage then amazingly, discover that once on site they cannot afford to actually provide them? These were all things discussed during our three sessions. It is likely that most involved at the local level – officers and councillors – are well aware of these problems yet are largely powerless to do anything about them. It’s about where power lies.

    The government has decided that we need houses – lots of them. They have also stated that one of the major problems is the planning system (full disclosure: I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, now retired). Reform the system they claim and Hey Presto! masses of houses will appear to solve the problem. There are one or two snags though. Firstly, the developers already have 2 or more years of land with planning permissions in the bag but are not building on them. Some people have alleged it is because land is an appreciating asset so it can sit on the balance sheet steadily getting more valuable. It is also alleged that the big builders decide among themselves where to build so as not to depress prices by all building in the same vicinity. To build houses you need services: boring things like drains, a supply of fresh water, electricity, roads and somewhere to send the err, foul water. If local planning committees point some of these issues out, and maybe turn down the application for this or other reasons, the developer can appeal knowing they will get a favourable hearing. The Minister might also call it in and decide for himself.

    So you can ‘reform’ (=weaken) the system and you will get more houses but they will be poorly insulated, packed in together, and without solar panels. Oh and you can kiss goodbye to any affordable homes.

    But back to the assemblies which demonstrated that this is a matter of great concern to people. They are unhappy at seeing huge estates appearing with no doctor’s surgery, sometimes no shop or community space – just rows of lookalike houses. They think it ludicrous that houses should be built on land susceptible to flooding. One of the issues today with our febrile political system is the wide dissatisfaction people have with it. They feel marginalised. They feel not listened to. They say things like ‘they’re all the same’ which is not true but widely believed.

    So maybe this exercise is a small contribution to allowing people more say in their affairs. It has revealed a thirst by people to have their say, not just tick a box at an election and then be forgotten.

    What next?

    We will be contributing to the national event and locally, we want to follow through with the City and Wiltshire Councils. One of our goals is a citizen’s assembly a place where policy matters of moment can be discussed involving experts and local people. We want to move away from the process where people are invited to comment on policies more or less agreed anyway, a kind of tokenism.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next Democracy Café is on Saturday 14 June starting at 10:00 in the Central Library.

  • A House of Experts

    Fresh thinking on how to reform the House of Lords

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Andrew Hemming

  • Democracy Café

    March Café takes place today

    March 2025

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

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

    Members

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

  • Democracy Café: February

    February 2025

    Largest assembly for the Café since its formation

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

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

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

    Tax should be reframed as a social good

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

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

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

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

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

    ‘Getting rich’ was the only philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

    Items mentioned:

    Simon Schama: History of Us BBC iPlayer

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

    Doughnut Economics, Kate Raworth, Penguin

  • People’s Assemblies are coming to Salisbury

    Citizen involvement idea coming to Salisbury

    February 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Go back

    Your message has been sent

  • Annual meeting

    January 2024

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

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

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

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

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

    – We have funds of £212.

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

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

  • Democracy Café – January

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

    January 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

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

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

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

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance

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

  • Assisted dying

    The Bill raises troubling aspects about our democracy

    November 2024

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

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

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

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

    Is our democracy working?

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

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

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

    Citizens’ Assembly

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

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