Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Democracy Cafe

  • Democracy Café: January

    January 2024

    It was probably not surprising that the Post Office scandal should be one of the chosen topics for our first café of 2024. After two decades, the persecution of nearly a thousand subpostmasters (male and female) burst into public consciences with the transmission of an ITV drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office. Despite extensive coverage, someone noted, in Private Eye, Computer Weekly, the BBC on the radio and on Panorama, and the Guardian, the scandal had failed to excite public interest to any degree and certainly not in parliament. 

    The government has suddenly woken up following the outrage highlighted in the ITV drama and was proposing a law to offer mass invalidation of the sub postmasters’ convictions. This will be debated in parliament next week (w/c 15th). The question posed therefore was what are the implications of the government’s proposals to carry this out? Would it set a precedent which might have unfortunate consequences for our constitution? This had generated a lot of concern for example from Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general. 

    One comment was this was an example of ‘heart over head’ and perhaps it would be better to let things quieten down before pushing through legislation which could have momentous effects. To counter this it was noted that the people affected had already waited two decades for justice during which a number have died without having been exonerated and four had taken their own lives. 

    The basic question was ‘what instrument do you use to put things right?’ People were convicted on bad evidence. A problem is that there were some who had defrauded the Post Office who would also be exonerated. It was suggested that the bills of attainder – not used since 1820 – might be a mechanism however, this was used to dispossess (attaint) people of their rights and property not to put it right. 

    The important role of whistle-blowers was introduced. Such people received little support and took enormous risks by revealing corporate wrong-doing. There were several comments which noted the failure of some many elements of the state apparatus to deal with matters of this sort. The judiciary had failed, partly because the corporations could fund an army of high powered lawyers whereas the defendants were individuals with few if any resources, but secondly for allowing the Post Office to sue on the basis of a loss of money but offer no evidence of actual theft. It was simply a system which was hideously unfair and unbalanced. 

    But to the main point of the debate: the dangers of parliament overturning the judicial process. It was noted that we have a dual system and a separation of powers which has been supremely important in protecting our liberties. The example was quoted of Boris Johnson and his attempt to prorogue parliament which was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. More recently, the government had produced a bill to say that human rights in Rwanda were satisfactory and it was a safe country when the Supreme Court had decided that there was significant evidence it was not. Both were examples where the government had acted in defiance of the law and reason. Passing a new law – however well intentioned – risked giving powers to the legislator we may come to regret. 

    Anger was expressed at the ‘system’ as a whole i.e. the entire paraphernalia of governance. Parliament, government, MPs (with a few honourable exceptions), much of the media, the courts and the legal process, all had played a part allowing the scandal to proceed. Putting things right was being done at a snails pace. Someone described the judicial element as ‘rotten’.  Nobody has apologised and nobody has – so far at least – been held to account. It was noted that legal aid has all but disappeared leaving the ‘wronged individual’ powerless against corporations and other well resourced organisations able to swamp courts with batteries of lawyers. 

    Better scrutiny was needed it was suggested and taking the prosecution rights away from the Post Office needed to happen. Independent investigation was sometimes needed. However, this would require the CPS to be better resourced since it would, like the legal system as a whole, be unable to handle the increased case load. Indeed, if the subpostmasters were to continue using the legal route, the under resourcing would result in yet more years of delay. The contrast with aircraft safety was noted. Pilots have long had the ability to report problems (like near misses) anonymously thus avoiding career risks. Also, major accidents are thoroughly investigated independently. 

    Needless to say the Horizon system was mentioned and the fact that Fujitsu has failed to account for itself. This led to a discussion of large IT systems and their part in this scandal. Large IT projects were inherently flawed it was suggested. Specifications were constantly changed. And we have AI to look forward to …

    As to causes, the bonus system for directors and others at the Post Office was a factor. Basically a reluctance to admit problems – especially systemic ones – which might be costly and hit profits and hence bonuses. Also a belief in the infallibility of IT systems. The contrast between commercial and government IT systems was noted. The former were more incremental: they were introduced and subsequently modified in line with consumer involvement and interaction. Government IT projects tended to be huge and introduced in a ‘big bang’ which meant problems and glitches were present from the start. 

    Did we come to a conclusion on the main question? Truthfully, no. The subpostmasters had suffered a serious misjustice and people wanted it to be put right – and quickly before yet more of them die. But allowing the government to side-step the judicial process was a worry. There was an overriding feeling that so many parties to this scandal had been found wanting and had failed lamentably, that to give them yet more powers was a cause for concern. 

    The second half was around the topic of arms sales and why do we continue to sell arms to a variety of countries? [the implication being they were dubious countries]. 

    The introducer of the question noted the sales of arms to Ukraine, and Israel (a large number of other countries could be named) and that these sales seemed to be an accepted fact and no one seems to question it. One person said they were conflicted: although they were against many aspects of arms sales, supplying Ukraine which was under attack seemed different from supplying Israel and their bombing in Gaza. It was noted that an Israeli arms company, Elbit Systems, has a number of plants in the UK, one in Bristol and another in Portsmouth.

    It was pointed out that countries have a need to defend themselves and thus a need to develop arms and armed forces to use them. The issue was about selling them. Campaign Against the Arms Trade*, CAAT has long campaigned on this issue. It was pointed out that the government does have controls on what arms are sold to what states in a system of licensing and end user certificates. However, in recent years, more weapons are being sold under ‘open licenses’ where these controls do not exist. 

    The contrast with Northern Ireland was noted and the prolonged period of violence during the Troubles. Despite bombing attacks in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, the conflict was eventually resolved, not by bombing the Republic, but by negotiation and dialogue leading to the Good Friday agreement. 

    Psychological factors are frequently ignored. For example, the feelings in Russia which has endured a series of invasions from the West over the centuries of its history, about the expansion of NATO up to its borders. This was part of the motivation for the invasion of Ukraine. 

    The paradox of the world’s biggest sellers of arms were also the members of the UN Security Council was pointed out. So while they were debating issues of ceasefire in Gaza in the UN, they were busy supplying weapons to the world. On the topic of weapons, the question of small arms was sometimes overlooked. It was these weapons which caused so much misery in the world especially to women and children who were almost always the biggest sufferers in these conflicts. The problem here though was that control of these sales was almost impossible since there were many producers of Kalashnikovs around the world. So although we might wish to clamp down on UK sellers and brokers, they can be sourced easily from other countries. If we don’t sell them, someone else will. 

    It was pointed out on the other hand that arms sales were part of wider government policy issues and British interests for example oil and arms supplies to the Saudi government. Supplying weapons to the Saudis was it was argued, in our interests. It was noted that arms sales came with conditions. 

    It was perhaps unsurprising that Israel emerged in this context with the war in Gaza in full spate. It was noted that after bombing a refugee camp, it was claimed that the ‘wrong weapons’ had been used. [We did not discuss this but there are a number of articles available on line concerning the use of what are termed ‘dumb weapons’ i.e. unguided munitions which are less precise than the guided ones. It is these which have caused so much collateral damage]. It was also claimed that Israel was using weapons from US stores in the country. 

    How significant were arms sales to our economy in any event? [Comparable figures are quite hard to obtain and what are or are not arms sales is ambiguous. One estimate is £86bn making the UK the second biggest supplier of arms in the world and the GDP (2022) was £2.27tn. So sales are just under 3.8% of the economy. It is claimed that there are 135,000 people employed]. It was suggested that if we ceased to sell arms to the world it would not be of great consequence to our economy.  

    There was discussion about whether international development was a better use of our resources. This was reduced from 0.7% of the economy to 0.5% around 2 years ago. This was part of a wider discussion about removing the anger and helping countries to improve their water supplies for example. It was noted that many countries did not sell arms. 

    The issue of morality was introduced which the subtext to the topic being discussed and that there were people trying to develop a better world. Arguably, we did not discuss this adequately – perhaps a topic for the future. 

    A surprising comment was the fact that Costa Rica has no military force. It is one of only 21 states in the world not to have one.

    Finally, we could not have a democracy café without mention of the media and it was commented that we have need of more neutral reporting. Two sources were mentioned: Bylines and Declassified. 

    Peter Curbishley

    *Disclosure: the writer is a member

    Books mentioned:

    The Blunders of our Governments, Anthony King and Ivor Crewe, 2013, Oneworld. A large section is devoted to IT failures and one of the points made is the irrelevance of parliament in the process. Decisions were made by ministers and civil servants and parliament told later or not at all, p361f

    [Not mentioned but relevant] The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, 2011, Andrew Feinstein, Hamish Hamilton.

  • Democracy Café

    January 2024

    TODAY

    The first Democracy Café takes place today, Saturday 13th January starting at 10:00 upstairs in Salisbury Library as usual. All welcome and you can get a feel of the sorts of things we discuss by looking at reports of previous meetings on this site. The year, an election year, has got off to a tumultuous start with the Post Office scandal filling the airwaves as we speak. So plenty to discuss! See you there.

    PC

  • Democracy Café

    December meeting debated two topics of current interest

    December 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The way government treats refugees is very instructive – Tony Benn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

    Ken Loach’s film The Old Oak was recommended.

  • Last meeting

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

    A report will appear shortly.

    PC

  • November 2023 Democracy Café

    There was a good turnout at Salisbury Library for the November 2023 Democracy Café. The two-minute silence to mark Armistice Day was preceded by a discussion based on the question:

    Do we have the right to protest?

    The first comment was that technically we do not have the right to protest. We have the right to assemble and to express ourselves, two rights which are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, which, according to Liberty, gives us the right to protest.

    Discussion ensued on what is meant by protest? It was suggested that it takes the form of fairly passive forms of action, such as writing letters to the local newspaper or to our MP and more active forms, such as attacking infrastructure. These more disruptive forms of protest are more contentious and it was mentioned that there is a danger that the use of such tactics can turn the narrative away from the issues that are being protested towards the tactics themselves. This could be counter productive for the protestors, especially as the media can play a major role in influencing the narrative as has been seen with Just Stop Oil. The purpose of protest, it was suggested, is to cut through but there is a danger that in doing so the message is lost, which is why Extinction Rebellion have moved away from illegal methods of protest. The counter argument proposed was that illegal protests have in the past influenced important legislative changes. Two examples given were illegal actions taken by the suffragettes and the gay rights movement.

    The discussion turned to the importance of the right to protest in a democracy. It was suggested that it is just as important in a healthy democracy to defend the right of those supporting right wing causes, such as the EDL, to protest as it is to defend those supporting causes which we might be more supportive of.

    There was some dismay about the lack of impact of protests in effecting policy change and reference was made to the march of one million people to protest against the invasion of Iraq in London in February 2003. This protest march was one of 800 held in cities around the world and was recorded in the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the biggest ever held. It did not immediately impact the main protagonist’s approach. However, it was suggested that it influenced government’s future approaches to similar situations as it demonstrated that mass support for invasions could not be taken for granted. Similarly, protests about gay rights took many years to bear fruit in terms of influencing public opinion and eventually law making.

    After the break another topical issue was discussed in answering the question:

    Does a country have the right to do anything in the name of its’ own defence?

    It was pointed out that in the UK before we had a Ministry of Defence we had a Ministry of War, which is perhaps a more honest reflection of the role of the ministry.

    There was some discussion about what is meant by “defence”. One suggestion was that defence is a more passive act whereas offence is more active. Then, it was suggested that attack can be seen as the best form of defence and a military response to a credible threat can be a defence. It was pointed out that if such an attack is over aggressive it can lead to further enmity and spark further conflict in the future. Several references were made to the current conflict in Israel/Palestine in this respect. 

    If a military response as a form of defence is pursued then what are the boundaries within which combatants should engage? The just war theory is a tradition of military ethics, part of which concerns the moral conduct of participants within war. This suggests that there are two main principles which are proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality regards how much force is necessary and morally appropriate to the ends being sought and the injustice suffered. The principle of discrimination determines who are the legitimate targets in a war, and specifically makes a separation between combatants, who it is permissible to kill, and non-combatants, who it is not. Failure to follow these rules can result in the loss of legitimacy for the war.  

    Discussion turned to the framework of international law which limits the actions of a nation state when engaged in its’ own defence. It was suggested that in the absence of an international body capable of enforcing the framework, it was not an effective limit. It was pointed out that the United Nations has been unable to act to prosecute those accused of crimes against humanity in nations such as Syria. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that the state of nature is the “war of every man against every man,” in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. Hence, he argued, in his book the Leviathan, the need for a governing body which would achieve peace through a social contract. Is the UN capable of playing that role, or is it too weak?

    The discussion moved on to consider whether war was always wrong with the view expressed that war can be useful in leading to the resolution of conflict between states, as with the second world war and the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. It was suggested that the current and ongoing conflict in the Middle East may have been avoided if the war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine in the 1940s had been allowed to play itself out. Some questioned the premise that war can be an effective way of resolving disputes.

    Two good discussions which were highly appropriate for Armistice Day.

    Mark Potts

  • Last meeting

    November 2023

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

    PC

  • Democracy Café

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Other points included do we need a written constitution?

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Information Anxiety, (1989), Richard Saul Wurman

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

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

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

  • Democracy Café

    September 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Three interesting debates.

    Peter Curbishley

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

  • Democracy café – August

    August 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The next meeting of the Café is on 9 September.

  • Democracy Café

    August 2023

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