Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Democracy Cafe

  • Democracy Café, May

    May 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Two interesting debates and several remarked how enjoyable they were.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

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

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

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

  • Democracy Café

    May 2024

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

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

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance – Bringing new ideas for democracy to Salisbury

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

    People In The Park 2024

  • Democracy Café, April

    April 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

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

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

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

  • Democracy Café

    April 2024

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

    PC

  • Democracy Café

    There will be a Democracy Café this Saturday, 13th April starting at 10:00 as usual in Salisbury Library (upstairs). All welcome. Finishes at noon and there is a break at 11:00. Come with a suggested topic if you wish or just join in what is voted on.

    See you there.

  • Democracy Café: March

    March 2024

    A dozen members of the group attended this meeting and, after a slightly faltering start, two topics were, as usual, chosen for discussion.

    The most popular choice was consideration of the implications of a Trump win in the American presidential election in November. Concerns were expressed about his possible foreign policy (with regard to Ukraine, trade and Taiwan among other issues) and domestically, particularly his hostility to green matters, and the question of his willingness to leave office.

    The fossil fuels issue was brought up more than once, as was Trump’s attitude to women and worries about how his policies on immigration might turn out. On the other side, it was pointed out that Trump had ejected fewer people than Obama, presided over the lowest inflation for 45 years and the highest employment levels ever. Insofar as there was a debate on his merits or demerits, the prevailing view was that his unpredictability was a problem (a surprising link to Jeremy Corbyn). There was discussion of the polarisation of U.S. society that Trump embodied, notably the weaponisation of general disaffection (that Biden had not managed to utilise) and the fear of the white population of becoming a minority. Observations were made about the possible causes of Trump’s behaviour, as well as disappointment that he had not controlled big business when in power.

    The second topic of the day was “What are British values?” It was generally agreed that there was no answer to the question that would be meaningful, but rather there was an implication that our values are by definition better than anyone else’s. This could be attributed to having had an empire (or mere snobbishness). Our island history meant that we were less affected by neighbours (though it was noted that we were “perfidious Albion”) and more likely to want to be different. It was suggested that one of our virtues was an ability to fix things (notably when in Europe) and a pragmatic approach. We take the emotion out of things. This led on, though, to a debate on the post-imperial development of the UK as a financial centre (with questionable activities) – secrecy became a value along with duplicity. We were brought back to a consideration of the Enlightenment ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity as a code of values, if not specifically British.

    Andrew Hemming

    The next meeting is on Saturday 13th April starting at 10:00 in Salisbury Library. We are grateful to the Library for allowing us to use the space for our meetings.

  • March Democracy Café

    March 2024

    The March edition of the Democracy Café will take place on Saturday, 9th March starting at 10am upstairs in Salisbury Library. Come along for a drink and some stimulating conversation about issues that you deem to be important. A summary of the conversations from the February Café are available to read on our website – Democracy Café – Salisbury Democracy Alliance

    As a postscript to the first topic that we discussed at the February café, Mark Potts, the chair of SDA, is expecting the Salisbury Journal to publish a letter regarding the issues around John Glen in next week’s paper, or on their website. Discussions with the editor have been ongoing.

    Just a reminder that our partner organisation, the RSA, are holding an event in Salisbury Library this coming Thursday, 7th March, to mark World Book Day. Details of the event and registration can be found here – RSA Salisbury: World Book Day – RSA (thersa.org)

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    A good turnout for two debates as usual the first being a bit of a surprise. The New Statesman in its 2 – 8th February edition had made two serious allegations concerning the MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen, in a piece entitled: The Rotten State: How corruption and chumocracy are pulling the British Nation apart (subscription needed). The first debate centred on these allegations and what it meant for the future of the MP and the constituency in the forthcoming general election. 

    The two allegations were as follows: ’[…] the Future Fund, established in 2020 by the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, at a cost of £1.1bn to support British start-ups. The taxpayer has lost almost £300m on the Future Fund, which has given money to the businesses of centimillionaire wife, Ashata Murty, [and] the cabinet office minister John Glen […]’. Mr Glen has shares in a sub-Saharan African mining firm. The second allegation was that Mr Glen attended meetings (which he probably chaired as the City Minister) with the banks to arrange £71bn in loans as part of the Covid recovery. The article suggests that £17bn of this has gone missing according to the Public Accounts Committee. When attempts were made to provide details the journalist was told by the Treasury ‘we do not hold minutes of the meeting’. 

    The proposer of the topic has written to Mr Glen but his answers were somewhat vague. It was up to the Treasury to keep minutes he said. It was quickly noted that this was becoming part of a pattern with large numbers of WhatsApp messages being deleted both in Scotland and in England in connection with the Covid enquiry. It was simply not satisfactory for the business of the country to be run this way with politicians able to delete the records at will or, in the case of Mr Glen, for their to be no record in the first place.

    It was suggested that Covid was an event to enable a large sum of money to be transferred to a small number of people. It was not clear if everyone agreed with this point. The same speaker mentioned Walter Lippmann who spoke about how people were deliberately distracted from the main issue. 

    The fact that there was no mention of these allegations in the Salisbury Journal was a surprise it was suggested. They do not seem to have asked any questions of him or sought a response. Maybe we should all write to the Journal and ask ‘why not?!’ Did it matter who was the MP? someone said. Yes it did and we right to expect a certain standard of honesty and integrity from those who represented us. 

    One speaker said she always got a response when she wrote but many others said they did not. They only got a reply if it was a ‘standard’ one they said. One member had written to him about matters in the Maldives for example which Mr Glen has said he has a special interest in since there was a group of Maldivians who lived in the City. No reply has been received**. Another response was to say as a minister he was unable to interfere in another department. 

    Back to the Journal and it was asked how influential was it? Difficult to answer but it did have a much lower readership which was true of all newspapers it was noted. However, it did give Mr Glen a column each week in which he can tell us what he is doing and as such was a ‘mouthpiece’ for him. 

    There was a brief discussion about the need to improve local journalism and the Trust News Initiative was mentioned.

    The second debate centred on Palestine and ideas around creating a state. The war in Gaza was in full spate at present with a reported 27,000 dead and many thousands missing. The proposer noted that Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, had mooted the idea of a separate Palestinian state. But who would fix the boundaries especially as the Israelis wanted to take more land? Would not be better if the countries of the Middle East held centre stage rather than ‘outside’ countries such as the US?

    One speaker noted that Palestine had been offered statehood in 1948, again after the Yom Kippur war and also after Camp David talks. Each time they have refused. At elections they have voted for Hamas who murdered the opposition and who’s only motive is the extinction of the Jewish State. It was also noted the leadership lived in Qatar. While this may be true, it was noted that Hamas had also been supported by Mr Netanyahu partly to destabilise the Palestinian leadership. 

    This narrative overlooked the significant role played by the US in the region and the powerful influence they had on Middle Eastern politics. The real issue is the relationship between the US and Iran which was a key driver of the politics of the area.

    Several speakers referred to outside influences over history – one even went back to the Romans! Perhaps they might ask in the area ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?’ More recently, Britain took a keen interest because we wanted a secure route for Persian oil through the Suez Canal. Mention was also made of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the role of Lloyd George in seeking Jewish support to get the US into WWI. We played a role in the UN Mandate in what was then called Palestine. There was also the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between France and Britain concerning post-war and post Ottoman spheres of influence in the area. One comment was from someone who served with Army in the area in 1948 in an attempt to keep the peace. He referred to the 900 or so British soldiers who were murdered during this time. Wounds run deep. 

    Latterly, the Americans have held sway. A solution can only come it was said if there was a regional deal. To achieve this some of the Palestinian leadership needed to be released from Israeli gaols. 

    But the overriding series of comments centred on the role of outside influence of one kind or another. The selling of arms by several western countries particularly the US and Britain although Russian and China are involved, can only inflame the situation. The Abrahamic Accords in 2020 were mentioned and the commitment to recognise both sides diplomatically. They were called ‘Abrahamic’ because they recognised Abraham as a common link between the two religions.

    South Africa was mentioned who had launched the case against Israel in the International Criminal Court accusing them of genocide in Gaza which Israel has denied. Could they be mediators? The crucial point someone said was what was needed was a country which didn’t have history in the area. This would rule out USA, Britain, France and some others, all of whom have meddled or had a role in pursuing their interests over the interests of the people who live there. A related factor is possibly a sense of collective and almost atavistic guilt in some of the powers involved especially their bad treatment of Jews over the centuries: their expulsion from York in the twelfth century for example, their expulsion from Spain and so on, not to mention the Holocaust itself. 

    Northern Ireland was mentioned and the decades of the ‘Troubles’. It was eventually resolved by negotiation, pressure on the UK from the US, and a Canadian negotiator. These things can be resolved. In this connection, António Guterres*, the UN General Secretary was suggested as a possible mediator.

    As a final note, the practice of calling someone ‘anti-Semitic’ when they criticised Israel was deprecated. 

    For once, two unrelated debates as different as chalk and cheese (a good Wiltshire based expression). The next meeting is on Saturday 9th March, same place, same time.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Guterres is Portuguese.

    ** Correction 16 February: a reply has now been received and Mr Glen said he will raise the matter with the FCO.

    Books:

    The Palestine – Israel Conflict, 2015, Dan Cohen-Sherbok and Dawoud El-Alami, Oneworld.

    The Balfour Declaration. 2018, Bernard Regan, Verso.

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    The next meeting of the café is this Saturday, 10 February at 10:00 as usual in the Library (upstairs) and all are welcome. If you haven’t been before, have a look at the write-ups of previous cafés to get a feel of what we talk about. The meetings last 2 hours with a short break in the middle. We look forward to seeing you there.

    PC

  • Meeting report

    Notes following a committee meeting

    January 2024

    Members of the committee met on 30 January to review progress and discuss future plans. These are notes (not minutes) of that meeting for general interest. 

    We reviewed the Democracy Café which has been running successfully now for several years and is now in its new home in the Library. Attendance is a regular 20 or so with the occasional new member. We were pleased with the venue and how it was going and one decision was to nominate the facilitator ahead of the meeting itself.

    There was a report from a democracy group in Stroud (Glocs) who are investigating a permanent Citizens’ Jury system along side the council. They are trying to develop a ‘low cost’ solution and one idea is to do the sortition element themselves: this is the process of selecting a representative selection of people for the jury. We discussed this and there are problems in ensuring it is not self-selecting. There are also problems with data protection. Further investigation is to take place and we may consider observing their next meeting.

    We briefly discussed Citizens UK and we will investigate further and in particular about training courses. 

    Citizens’ Juries was then discussed with particular reference to SCC and WC. We need a topic to focus on and one problem is that so many projects are decided elsewhere with little local involvement. For example the Fisherton Street works – where we await the benefits to be revealed – are a government funded scheme. We still have to convince councillors and others of their merit. Too many of them seem to see them as a threat it was noted. WC has a citizen’s panel for the climate but how that worked and the degree of genuine influence was not known.

    We went on to discuss the idea of citizen’s involvement in the planning process and this followed correspondence with the director of planning at County Hall following an article on the subject in the Planner, the journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute. The response had not been entirely negative but the process was too far advanced for immediate involvement they noted. After our meeting, we made fresh contact and the following response was received by return:

    The timetable we have relates to our existing (emerging) Local Plan. We expect this Plan to be adopted in 2025. The next round of plan-making will be likely to begin a year or two later as we are required to update the Plan every five years. The timetable (Local Development Scheme) for the next plan is likely to be updated shortly after we have adopted the emerging Local Plan. That will be the right stage to consider different ways of engaging with local communities to inform the new Plan.

    This looks to be some way off i.e. sometime in 2026 or ’27. 

    We are due to have a presence in the People in the Park event on 18 May. We needed to agree a theme and the materials we need etc and a meeting will be convened to discuss this. 

    We had a brief report on web statistics. The number of visits to the site are steadily improving: 3,115 (2021); 2,715 (2022) and 3,628 (2023). The number of visitors has also improved: from 1,061 (2021) to 1,795 last year (2023). Note we are on Facebook. 

    We are always looking for new members who are interested in trying to improve the workings of our democracy and achieve better governance. If you think you might be interested get in touch. One way would be to come to a Democracy Café the next one of which is on Saturday 10 February starting at 10:00 upstairs in the Library. Or come to the People in the Park event on 18 May in Elizabeth Gardens. Or drop a line here. 

    PC