Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Climate change

  • Democracy Café

    Two debates on Palestine Action and climate change

    We were pleased to welcome Phil from Southampton back to the Café who helped set up a café in Southampton but which sadly, did not survive the Covid hiatus.

    Once again, we offer thanks to the Library for allowing us to meet there.

    Nine topics were suggested but winning through for the first half was Should Palestine Action be a proscribed organisation? By way of background, the organisation had mounted a number of protests and the last one was to get into RAF Brize Norton and spray aircraft with red paint. This had prompted the organisation to be proscribed.

    It was immediately claimed that their action at the RAF base did not seem to cross the threshold of the Terrorism Act, 2000. [This said in the interpretation section ‘terrorism’ means, inter alia, intimidation of the public, involves serious violence against the person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life …]. None of these seems applicable – who was terrorised at Brize Norton?

    It was also quickly questioned why other legislation could not have been used, criminal damage for example? Although this might have failed as it was noted the paint did not seriously damage the planes.

    The Home secretary had achieved the ban by linking the Commons motion in with two other decidedly violent organisations leaving MPs limited options to object. The others were Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. This move was described as ‘deeply cynical’. The speed with which the government moved was also noted and the methods used to tarnish the reputation of Palestine Action. This had to be seen alongside the government’s refusal to sanction Israeli politicians.

    Perhaps the reasons behind the speedy action was firstly, the ease with which the protestors had accessed the base and secondly, it highlighted the role of the RAF in the Gaza conflict. They had undertaken around 600 flights ostensibly to help with the location of the hostages – which seemed to have been a spectacular waste of money – but it was suggested to give information to the IDF which they used to identify alleged Hamas terrorists. Clearly the government did not want this to become well known.

    The conversation moved on to protests generally and it was noted this was the latest in a long line of legislation making protest harder and harder. Politicians keen to support the idea of protests as long as they are not effective. It seems sometimes that only direct action has any chance of success. There was a call for people to come together to try and counter some of the mis-information. Suella Braverman’s aim to get minor acts treated as severe has been overruled by the High Court it was noted.

    Protests were a means to gain the attention of the public it was suggested and labelling such groups as ‘terrorists’ was just a convenient label. Was it to do with content someone asked? If it had been to do with Ukraine would the home secretary taken the same action?

    The latest plan by the Israeli government to create a ‘Humanitarian City‘ on the ruins of Rafah was mentioned. This would be to confine Palestinians to an even smaller area than now. It was an attempt at ethnic cleansing. It was noted that the IDF was not happy with the proposal as it was not part of their war plans.

    Was the influence of the US to be detected in the government’s actions? The unquestioning support of Israel was perhaps evidence of that. Was there a fear of offending Donald Trump? The role of money and business also playing a part.

    The singer Bob Vylan and his set at Glastonbury made a brief appearance. Singing ‘death, death to the IDF’ caused a huge storm and a major reaction against the BBC for not pulling the performance. It was noted that young people supported the singer. The ‘Brandenburg test’ was mentioned which said speech which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action‘. This was a case in Ohio. Whether Bob Vylan met this test remains to be seen.

    We were reminded of the Greenham Common protests (and two of those present took part!) where the perimeter fence had been penetrated. CND were effective in raising consciences about nuclear weapons but were never proscribed. Clearly things had changed. Was it the effects of 9/11 someone wondered?

    An interesting debate and it is probably true to say that few if any agreed with decision to proscribe Palestine Action. The lumping them in with two other organisations was seen as deeply cynical.

    The second topic – or should I say a combination of three topics – concerned the climate. Appropriately so as we were basking in a heat wave, the second of the year. The three were have climate protests been subdued? what individual actions can be taken? and is climate change caused by us?

    It was noted that climate protests have dwindled, possibly linked to the previous topic. Government actions were at a lower level it was claimed. Was climate change a result of human action anyway? We have had periods of extreme weather in the past, could this just be another phase? There had after all been an ide age not many centuries ago.

    Climate protests have been effective it was argued. There is a much greater awareness of climate issues today. There are more and more electric vehicles on the road and people undertook much more recycling now. Salisbury Transition City was mentioned. There were concerns that things were not happening quickly enough though. 78% in Salisbury were said to be concerned about climate change.

    It was argued that the weight of evidence and a preponderance of scientists were agreed that human activity has had an effect. There was a lot of research to back this up. There was a worry about ‘greenwashing’ where companies try and persuade the public they are doing more than they really are. Oil companies were also funding institutions which made denialist claims.

    It was pointed out that many years ago, parts of N Africa and the Middle East were once forested long before industrialisation took place. What mattered was heat and a factor today is the enormous amount of heat we produce from running computer systems and the like. Bitcoin consumed electricity equivalent to Argentina to run its calculations. It was suggested that a MIT study showed we should now be entering a period of cooling [I was not able to locate this on MIT’s site]. The biggest contributors to climate problems were agriculture and industry.

    A worry was that climate science was increasingly being ‘weaponised’. Papers were being used to refute basic facts. The US was defunding institutions which were working on climate science. Climate justice and social justice were two equivalent issues and the public were increasingly being moving towards the latter. Issues like cost of living were now top of the agenda.

    The majority wanted climate action it was suggested. We were warned against ‘binary thinking’ and it was a pity this idea wasn’t developed more in the context of the discussion. Basically, things are seldom straightforwardly right or wrong but usually more complex or nuanced.

    Why weren’t we doing more it was asked? Several answers: it wasn’t cheap. Insulation and making homes climate proof would cost billions. It wasn’t popular and by contrst, the popularity of politicians calling for an end to net zero was clear. Perhaps the most significant point was the policy of growth which the government was concentrating on. If the focus was on growth then climate mitigation issues were likely to take a back seat. The issue of climate change and growth was noted. Since agriculture was a major factor in global warming – the methane ’emissions’ from cattle in particular – a meat tax was a desirable objective but was a vote loser someone noted. Another point in the same vein was consumerism which directly linked to climate pressures.

    Maybe a driving force in the future is insurance. Insurance companies were less and less likely to offer cover to properties likely to be affected by flooding for example. Insurance costs could exceed the costs of not doing something

    We were reminded towards the end of Doughnut economics which is about how humanity conducts its affairs in the light of the planet’s finite resources. There was a suggestion that we should be supporting the global south to develop their economies sustainably not follow in the path the West has done.

    Finally, this picture was displayed during our debate. It was submitted as part of the current exhibition but could not be shown because of its political nature. It is by RM Wilde CBE.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on August 9th.

  • Democracy Café, May

    May 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Two interesting debates and several remarked how enjoyable they were.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

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

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

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

  • EcoHub project

    Progress with the EcoHub project and news of a gig in Brown Street

    Since Salisbury Democracy Alliance and RSA Fellows co-hosted the meeting in May which was the origin of the Salisbury EcoHub project, we are circulatting the newsletter (below) and notification of our benefit gig at Brown Street on Oct 22nd with the legendary campaigning band Seize the Day (attached).

    The EcoHub project is approaching a key phase in its development, whether to incorporate ourselves as a charity (an Incorporated Charitable Organisation or ICO) or in some other form, which will then enable us to start the search for suitable premises in which to realise our aim of setting up an environment centre in Salisbury. This will provide a place where the people of Salisbury can go for information on climate change and the other threats to our ecological survival, and on practical questions such as “how can I reduce energy bills, or put solar panels on my roof, or where can I go to recycle X or Y?”. Crucially, it will also provide a hub and shared facility linking together the many voluntary groups in Salisbury (including SDA) who are each active in their own various ways in confronting the crises which confront us in the present climate and ecological emergencies.

    We would greatly welcome both SDA itself and as many of its members as possible signing up as potential members of Salisbury EcoHub Alliance as it moves towards becoming an incorporated body to fulfil our aims.

    Salisbury EcoHub Alliance – Newsletter #1

    How was the EcoHub born?

    The population of Salisbury and its surrounding area includes a large number of people who are concerned about climate change and other environmental issues. Many are active in one or more voluntary groups or organisations addressing these matters.

    In May 2022 an open meeting was held under the auspices of Salisbury Democracy Alliance and Salisbury RSA Fellows Network to explore ways forward in collectively tackling these issues in general and the current climate emergency in particular.

    By far the most popular proposal arising from that meeting was to set up a shared premises in Salisbury where members and supporters of these various groups could meet and interact with each other and the general public. Thus the Salisbury EcoHub project was born. This first meeting set up a volunteer working group to produce a Mission Statement for the project, which was finalised at a meeting the following month.

    The project received backing from Salisbury City Council in the form of an offer of a free stall pitch in Salisbury Market to promote the EcoHub and this was incorporated in the Mission Statement, which is attached.

    What have we achieved so far?

    Since these initial meetings, a core group has continued to meet on a weekly basis and to correspond by email. Our first market stall took place on 3rd September and stalls are continuing on a weekly basis, between 9-12 every Saturday (but not tomorrow!). Please visit the stall, or volunteer to help out if you can.

    A general leaflet was produced for use on the stall, and an initial internet presence set up under the wing of the Salisbury Transition City website.

    A benefit gig featuring the legendary campaigning band Seize the Day will take place on Saturday 22nd October at 29 Brown Street: tickets can be booked online here. The flyer is attached – we hope you will publicise it on social media to help make the gig a great success. Printed copies of the flyer can also be picked up from our market stall.

    What are the next steps?

    We have been actively researching suitable formal organisational structures, including that of an Incorporated Charitable Organisation (ICO) using a Charities Commission model constitution. We have set up consultative meetings with established Environment Centres:

    Sarah Mai from Shrewsbury Environment Centre joined our weekly meeting at The Pheasant, Salt Lane

    Swansea Environment Centre organisers joined us by Zoom on Thursday 6 October at 6pm link here

    You are welcome to attend these meetings: please email us on salisburyecohub@gmail.com if you need further details.

    Following this consultation, we expect to reach a conclusion on the best structure to adopt, and to hold a formal general meeting to adopt a constitution and appoint officers (trustees or directors).

    As we become a more formal organisation we will need to develop a membership base. If you would like to become a member, either as an individual or on behalf of your organisation or business, please fill in the form below. This will enable you to vote at formal meetings and help ensure that our organisation is run on an open and democratic basis and can grow into a legal entity that can apply for grants and rent or lease premises. You can find further information on our website at www.transitionsalisbury.org/ecohub, and we will keep you in touch with our progress by email.

    No cost, no obligation. As we are still an embryonic organisation, there is at present no membership fee, and all are welcome to participate. However, we do welcome small voluntary donations to help cover ongoing expenses, and any pledges of additional financial support once the project progresses further. You may withdraw from membership at any time if you choose to do so.


    Membership form

    (Please return this form by copying and pasting it into an email to salisburyecohub@gmail.com)


    I wish to become a member of the Salisbury EcoHub Alliance when it adopts a formal structure, and to be consulted in that process. Please keep me informed of progress

    I hereby give permission for Salisbury EcoHub Alliance to hold my personal data for that purpose.
    Note: whatever formal structure is adopted will be such as protects members (whether individuals or group representatives) from personal liability.

    Name (individual) ………………………………………………

    email …………………………………………………

    Members may join as an individual or as a representative of a group or organisation. If joining on behalf of an organisation, please also complete the following questions.

    Name of group or organisation ……………………………………………………………………………….

    If joining on behalf of a group or organisation, has it formally authorised this? Yes/No
    Is your group happy to be listed as a member of Salisbury EcoHub Alliance? Yes / No
    Can we include a link to your group’s website on the EcoHub website? Yes /No

    Group website link …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..


    Might your group be interested in showcasing itself on our market stall?     Yes/No/ Perhaps

    Seizetheday print (1)Download

  • Talkshop – news

    Meeting held yesterday to take forward the Talkshop discussion

    A couple of Saturdays ago we held our first Talkshop in Salisbury which was very well attended. The discussion was lively and one of the topics to take forward from the ideas suggested was to form an Eco Hub (working title – it may change). This would be a place, possibly, where those interested in tackling the climate emergency could meet, exchange ideas or discuss this extremely important topic.

    The sub group met yesterday evening and 16 attended to begin to flesh out some ideas about how this might be taken forward. One ideas is for a stall in the market place which could take place once a month say. Other ideas were discussed and further work will now take place to put together some proposals and a business plan.

    Watch this space.

    PC

  • Successful Talkshop held!

    A successful Talkshop was held on Saturday 21 May on the subject of climate

    UPDATE 7 June 2022: a meeting is to be held this Thursday 9th June at 29 Brown St to discuss how to take the idea of an Eco Hub forward.

    A press release about our successful event was sent to the Salisbury Journal but they have declined to publish it in two editions of the paper.

    This was the first such event the Alliance has held and we are naturally delighted it went so well. Nearly 30 attended and there was lively conversation throughout the morning. The event came about as a cheaper means to contribute to the climate debate than the Citizens’ Assembly idea which we are still pursuing.

    Participants were divided into groups of half a dozen or so and issued with cards describing successful schemes established elsewhere in the country and some in USA. These were discussed and each table selected three they felt worth pursuing. We then walked around and looked at all the table’s suggestions and after discussion, formed two, new groups to take things forward.

    The most popular suggestion, attracting great interest, was the idea of an Eco Hub for the city. Essentially, a place where ideas can be discussed and exchanged as well as other more tangible ideas such as an Eco Café. A working group has been formed and will meet in a few weeks to discuss how the idea can be taken forward and made flesh.

    Another group discussed a series of linked ideas to make abandoned spaces into places where wildflowers can grow, trees planted or vegetables grown. It might be part of the Eco Hub in future.

    We must thank the RSA for their help in formulating the event and providing the rubric. We must also thank 29 Brown Street for providing the venue. More will be published about this as time goes by so watch this space. We were delighted that a Member from Salisbury City Council was there and took an active part in the proceedings.

    Pictures showing outside of 29 Brown Street and the Talkshop event about to start. Pictures: SDA

    Peter Curbishley

    UPDATE: 14 June 2022. This is the unpublished press release sent to the Salisbury Journal.

    SALISBURY Democracy Alliance held a successful Talkshop event at 29 Brown Street last week after which plans to form an Eco Hub were agreed. A Talkshop is a relatively new idea involving ordinary people in decision making and is a way of doing democracy differently.

    About 30 people attended and were given cards describing a range of successful environment projects which have been established in the UK and around the world. These were discussed in groups and two were finally selected. One is to establish an Eco Hub which will host practical projects and also to provide a meeting place for ideas and discussion. The second project discussed a series of linked ideas to make abandoned space into places where wildflowers can grow, trees to be planted or vegetables grown.

    Cllr John Wells, Chair of the City Council’s Environment and Climate Committee said “I was delighted to attend this event and found the ideas and discussion stimulating and interesting. I look forward to working with the Hub on projects relevant to the Council’s policies.”

    The Alliance were helped by the RSA, the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce who provided much useful advice.

    Mark Potts, Chair of SDA said ” we were delighted with how the event turned out and it was gratifying to see so many people engaged in eager debate about this important topic.” A meeting has been arranged between several of those present to take these ideas forward.

  • Future meetings

    We must apologise to those of you who have sent messages and have not received an answer. The menu field used to have a red spot to alert us to a message but for reasons unknown, it has stopped so we were not aware of people writing in. Apologies.

    Nearly all were asking ‘were we meeting’ and the answer is ‘yes’ and we are doing so at 29 Brown St in Salisbury. The Democracy Café meets at 10:00 on the second Saturday of the month so the next meeting is on June 11th. If things change then we will post something here as quickly as we can. With summer coming (brilliant sunshine as I type this) we are meeting outside but we can repair inside if it become inclement.

    This Saturday 21st May we are holding our first Talkshop event so you need to register quickly if you want to come. Details in a previous post.

  • Consultation on Climate policy

    In response to a proposal by Wiltshire Council to consult on their climate policy, the following letter was published in the Salisbury Journal on 9 September 2021.

    [The Journal] reported that Wiltshire Council has launched a consultation on its Climate Strategy (Consultation on council’s Climate Strategy now live, 2nd September). Although engagement with the public is always to be welcomed, we question however whether this is the best way to get a proper and balanced view on this important subject.

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance has argued that a much better approach would be achieved by using a citizens’ assembly. This method selects a truly representative group of people who then meet over a period of three weekends and, advised by experts, discuss the topic in some considerable depth.

    This method has been applied very successfully in several parts of the UK and among its most notable successes have been in Northern Ireland.

    The problem with the consultation proposed by Wiltshire Council is that it will attract the ‘usual suspects’ and those with vested interests to protect or promote. It also limits views to those put before them by the council and hence might inhibit new thinking.

    Climate – as we have seen around the world in recent months – is a hugely important subject and merits a properly organised citizens’ assembly which will provide a genuine and informed contribution to policy formulation. Importantly, it will demonstrate proper involvement by citizens and counter any belief that this is another set of policies which the council is imposing on them.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: August 2021

    The two chosen topics were: Do humans have the will to tackle climate change? and, What impact does concentrated ownership have on local newspapers?

    Two of the problems highlighted early on were, firstly, the sheer scale of climate change such that it seemed too big for us to process and the other brought in the issue of short termism in our political system.  But it was suggested that part of the problem was the framing of the topic. It was often portrayed in a binary way – either we will save humanity or there will be catastrophe, whereas climate change can be mitigated and the damage limited.

    An allegory that proved to be popular suggested that there were three monsters with government in the centre flanked by business and the media, all three wallowing in the mire of money.

    On the other hand, it was also thought that you needed to tackle the problem from both ways, from the individual and from the power dynamics of the three-headed monster.  The participants’ attention was drawn to Drawdown which analyses problems associated with climate change and the solutions – only two of which out of the top 20 were things that we could do as individuals.

    It was suggested that we needed to engage more people in the issue and one way was through deliberative democracy and, in particular, Citizens’ Juries, which is something that Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for for many years.   One topic that could benefit from such an approach was the ill-fated People Friendly Streets.

    Another way of engaging people is through and online tool called Pol.is which enables open ended feedback from large numbers of people and is used very successfully in Taiwan.

    The second question revolved around the fate of local newspapers and the impact of their ownership by a small number of giant corporations.  The Salisbury Journal, for example, is owned by Newsquest – the second biggest newspaper conglomerate in the UK, which itself is owned by the giant USA-based Gannett.

    It was suggested that if you looked at public information as a market square, then before the internet papers like the Journal would have occupied the entire square. But since the advent of the internet and the reduction of journalistic standards created by the business model, that dominance has been eroded to the extent that the Journal occupies just one small stall and the rest of the space is taken up with various, often overlapping groups on social media.

    One of the major problems associated with this, it was pointed out, was the lack of independent, trusted provision of credible, unbiased information and facts, of the sort once provided by local newspapers but now under threat by their diminished status and capability.

    One solution to this could be the creation of groups like Salisbury-based The See Through News Newspaper Review Project. It was pointed out, however, that a deeper problem was the philosophical and cultural undermining of the concept of truth itself, particularly with the rise and dominance of post-modernist thinking. Nevertheless, work like the project was vital as part of the fight back to truth – along with deliberative democracy and Citizens’ Juries.

    Dickie Bellringer

  • Talkshop event

    Talkshop climate event planned

    We are planning – on Saturday 14 March – to hold an event called a ‘Talkshop‘. This will focus on what the City might be able to do the mitigate climate change.  Some of you may recall that we were hoping to run Citizen’s Assembly but we were unable to secure funding for what would have been a much more expensive event.

    Talkshop is a much shorter exercise and involves people, in groups, looking at various ideas to help reduce global warming in the City.  There are suggested ideas which will be issued on the day but you are free to suggest your own of course.  To give you a taste of the ideas, one is from Todmorden called ‘Incredible Edible’ and where a handful of people starting growing food to share and there are now 70 sites around the town.  Oxford has set up Climate Cafés to enable people to drop in and chat about how to improve the climate.  Successful apparently. 

    This is in place of the normal Democracy Café which would have happened on that day but otherwise, the time, 10:00 am and the place, the Playhouse are the same.  It is free.

    We are hoping for a good turnout but it is just possible we will have too many in which case you will be invited to stay as an observer.  If you do decide to come, please be prompt!  It is run to a tight timetable and latecomers will find it difficult to catch up.  

    Don’t forget it’s the normal Democracy Café tomorrow, Saturday 9th February 2020 at 10:00

     

     

  • November’s Bemerton Heath Democracy Café

    CLIMATE change and deliberative democracy were on the menu at November’s meeting of Bemerton Heath Democracy Café.

    The question revolved around whether a Citizen’s Jury in Salisbury would enhance democratic engagement in combatting climate change.

    It was explained that Citizen’s Juries consist of a randomly selected cross-section of the community that then becomes part of the democratic decision-making process – as is happening in Test Valley Borough Council.

    There was some scepticism at first about the idea but after rehearsing some of the challenges posed by climate change, it was suggested that Citizen’s Juries may be part of the answer.

    The deliberation moved on to the recent demonstrations by Extinction Rebellion. Opinion was divided between whether its actions were counter-productive because they often antagonised ordinary people going about their business, or vital because they high-lighted the threat to the future of the planet in a way that lower profile action did not.

    The café is held on the first Saturday in the month at St Michael’s community café in St Michael’s Road between 10am and noon. For more information call Dickie Bellringer on 01722 323453 or bellringer11@btinternet.com