Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Democracy Cafe

  • Democracy Cafe: November

    November 2022

    We had two lively discussions at our meeting on 12 November 2022 and it was good to see a higher level of participants again following the dip in numbers after Lockdown. The first topic was around the Stop Oil protests who had caused disruption to the M25 recently. The question was around protest and breaking the law. The proposer of the question said there were two main responses: those who were sympathetic or empathetic to the cause (and one assumes the protest) contrasted with those who didn’t who thought they were pathetic people and ‘snowflakes’.

    The discussion started off with a debate about climate change itself and the statement that ‘feelings are not facts’. Gas was essential, it was claimed, for the production of fertilizer, the lack of which would result in the deaths of millions for want of food.

    We returned to the issue at hand and the fact that if we feel those in power are not listening then we are entitled to take action. However, it was argued, we have to accept the penalty for any civil disobedience involved. In response to the charge about ‘feelings not being facts’, we operate on an emotional level as well as factual and that this was a legitimate part of our response.

    Civil disobedience was the cornerstone of our democracy. The series of bills the government was currently pushing through parliament for example the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill, represented it was claimed an attempt by government to curtail such protest. The act when it becomes law will mean lawyers and teachers for example, taking part in demonstrations, risked losing their jobs should they be arrested. One person thought that we were slowly moving towards a totalitarian state especially when the new Justice and Courts act has made challenging government decisions a lot more difficult. There were many restrictions in place around Westminster which further prevented the show of dissent.

    The point was made that the media are particularly bad at reporting peaceful protests. It was also pointed out that whereas there was considerable coverage of the highly visible M25 protests, the daily ‘under the radar’ lobbying by corporations which takes place in parliament – but which was extremely effective in securing for them advantageous treatment of one kind or another – was seldom reported. Another example of peaceful protest was a visit to the local MP by a group of local Amnesty members to raise concerns about the collection of bills which will have the effect of curtailing or inhibiting protests. It was doubtful if this had much of an effect. The role of the media was stressed because only if they were concerned did the public become aware of the problem.

    It was noted that the suffragists formed in the 1866 with the specific aim of campaigning for votes for women peacefully or ‘respectfully’ as they expressed it. Their campaigns yielded nothing and in 1903, the suffragettes were formed who campaigned, sometimes violently, to get them and this was agreed in 1928.

    Back to global warming and it was claimed that people concerned about this were not able to come up with the relevant facts. To claim that ‘scientists say’ was not convincing since many of them depended on commercial funding of one kind or another which called into question their impartiality. It was also pointed out that it will be the poorest in the world who will pay the price not the affluent West. Claims of climate disaster of one kind or another have been made for many years it was said but they seldom happened. An example was that Manhattan would be under water by the year 2000.

    The role of economic ideology was suggested as a reason for a reluctance to act on things like climate reforms. The prevailing ideology was neoliberal, and protests were seen as a cost to doing business and thus damaged the economy. It was claimed that our local MP, Mr John Glen, as a treasury minister, was dictated to by commercial interests. It was pointed out however that he was the MP for all his constituents.

    Finally, the ‘straw man’ argument was noted namely, M25 protests preventing ambulances getting through. This was often claimed but protesters specifically allowed emergency vehicles to pass.

    These highly visible protests raise great passions and many are angry at the disruption caused to daily life. People wanted protests to be other than disruptive. The problem was that they then became invisible and the media would take no notice. Since government was in hoc to business and commercial interests and lobbyists, was this the only way to make the voice of protest heard? Demonstrations were not welcome by the current government hence the slew of legislation designed to outlaw any form of protest seen as a nuisance or an inconvenience.

    Our second topic was whether the idealism of post war in connection with the NHS and education been overtaken by capitalist thinking? Education for many decades after the war was free but in recent years it has been replaced by fees certainly at the university level. Free education for adults has gone. Chunks of the NHS are being privatised. It was claimed that these services were being ‘contaminated’ by the profit motive.

    Why do we have education (for the masses) at all it was asked? The answer, it was claimed, was because the industrial and commercial world needed people for its workforce. This was part of the answer it was true although the push for better education came sometime after the height of the industrial revolution. Increased concerns about superior education – particularly technical – in Germany and USA was also of concern to governments of the day. Another factor was the after-effects of the Great War and the depression. There was a wave of social welfare reforms after WWII with the creation of the health service following the Beveridge Report and the 1944 Butler Act (Education). While it was true there was a fear of civil disturbance by government, there was a number of research and other reports published concerned with how people could lead better lives and fulfil their potential. It did seem that there was a degree of idealism in those post war years.

    The debate moved on following a challenge that the premise of the question implied that capitalism was a bad word. The problem was not that capitalism was bad per se but that it was focused on the profit motive. Money dictates what happens someone said. The problems arose if profit became the sole driving force. There was the neoliberalism belief that the private sector was superior to the public and this has led, in education, to the academy movement. It was the profit motive which made them superior it was claimed. The proposition was difficult to test however since few statistics or analyses were available. Academies did not have to follow the national curriculum so comparison was difficult. Nor did academies have to employ qualified teachers.

    Britain’s education system was once admired around the world which was not the case today. Finland was mentioned as having an excellent and much-admired system. There were no private schools there and all teachers were highly qualified.

    The problems of capitalism was highlighted by the privatisation of the water companies. Little investment had taken place and instead high dividends had been paid out. Rivers had become polluted by sewage discharges and vast quantities were poured into the sea. But, many of those self-same dividends went to pension funds etc so we all profited to an extent. Unfortunately, the activities of a few rogue enterprises tainted the whole sector – not all firms behaved like the water companies. There was a spectrum of companies from the ‘toxic’ to the ordinary firms.

    It did seem to be agreed that something had been lost. The idealism of the post war years has been replaced by a focus on private firms and commercial interests whose pursuit of profit was not always for the benefit of the citizen. There was, in a sense, a link to the first debate and the influence corporations have in the parliamentary process. Private firms had been able to influence policy across a range of areas. People were becoming more and more concerned at the lack of progress on climate change and there was also considerable disquiet at the state the NHS was now in. Was the introduction of laws to inhibit and criminalise protest because government was beginning to realise that corporate led policies were no longer working nor popular? A debate for another time perhaps.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books of interest relevant to the discussion:

    Taking Rights Seriously, Ronald Dworkin, 1997, Bloomsbury

    23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang, 2011, Penguin

    NOTE 1. One of the proposed questions we did not debate was the claim that Pfizer did not test its Covid vaccine before release. This was apparently based on a European Commission hearing on 11 October involving the firm. The claim is misleading it appears and readers may like to read this report by Full Fact which explains the context.

    NOTE 2. We may be changing venue in the future but our next meeting on 10 December will be in Brown Street at 10:00 as usual. Details in due course.

  • Democracy Cafe – October

    The cafe resumes after a hiatus following the Queen’s death. Two topics were discussed

    Following the death of the Queen last month, Prince Charles became King Charles III and this resulted in the first topic: Do we need a king? Closely related, was the news that the King would not be going to Egypt for the next COP conference, because it was claimed, 10 Downing Street did not want him to.

    So, do we need a king? The case against centred on a number of objections. Firstly, that someone should not be appointed solely on the basis of inheritance, and not by a form of selection. Secondly, it is often claimed by those in favour of a monarchy, that one of the benefits is that it brings in lots of revenue, especially from tourists, however, as far as anyone was aware, no proper cost benefit analysis has been done to demonstrate this point. The point was made that the argument was back to front in any event: we do not create an institution of this nature for the benefit of tourism. The House of Lords should also be based on some kind of appointment system not on inheritance (it is partly that now).

    The Queen, and now King Charles, enjoy considerable influence often exercised behind closed doors. The issue of Prince Charles’s ‘spider memos’ to Ministers has been mentioned in previous meetings and it took a huge and prolonged struggle for some of these to be made available and published. Recent revelations have shown the royal family’s interference in parliamentary bills to protect their financial and other interests. The prince’s alleged role in ending in the tenure of Prof. Edzard Ernst’s role at Exeter University because he criticised the prince’s championing homeopathy was also quoted. It was also noted that the Queen failed to act when Boris Johnson when prime minister, wanted – illegally as it turned out – to prorogue parliament. The BBC came in for criticism for not investigating these and other matters: it was suggested that they were too frightened to. In addition to the monarchy itself, there was a huge retinue of people and sycophants whose future depended on them.

    In addition to being our royal family, the King was now head of the Commonwealth although it is not a hereditary position. The Queen ‘championed’ Prince Charles’s (as he then was) appointment to overcome alternative suggestions for an alternative head.

    These remarks prompted the question ‘do we need a head of state and what is the role for?’ I am not sure we progressed this fundamental question much further. We are hard-wired to need leaders it was suggested – an interesting point.

    Another point was that the monarchy was the tip of an iceberg under which was a pyramid of privilege. Aside from the Lords, there was Eton and other ‘posh’ schools, grammar schools all of which played a part in cementing privilege and advantage in our society. But how to replace them? A meritocracy? This led to a mention of democracy and was it that perfect? We had to reckon with the fact that a series of unsatisfactory individuals have been voted into parliament. We might rail at the incompetence or manifest inadequacy of several ministers, but they were there because we put them there.

    Back to King Charles and the Cop27 in Egypt to which the government is reluctant to allow him to go. The problem is that his views on the environment are well known and his presence there will have political significance and the King is now said to be keen to be seen to be neutral. The other point is that we may well support his presence in Egypt because we applaud and support his views on the question of the environment. But if we support him in that, how can we object to some of his other views such as his somewhat doubtful opinions on education and as we have mentioned, his dotty views on homeopathy.

    Perhaps it was a pity that there were no monarchists present in the debate to promote their cause and the continuation of the status quo.

    Part two was on the question ‘is neoliberalism dead?’ inspired by the recent non-budget by the Chancellor and the speech by Liz Truss at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham. This belief, basically around the idea of a small state, low taxes and reduced regimes of regulation saw the light of day in the Thatcher/Reagan years but it was assumed it had largely died at the time of the financial crash. Yet here it was, live and well, at the party conference.

    Some thought it was dead. They felt that although there were some ideologues around, the general public has moved on. More were in favour today of government intervention. Some were even happy with higher taxes and were keen to see some of the poorly performing utilities renationalised – the water companies most obviously. The negative reaction to the budget was also heartening some thought. It would seem the government was out of touch with what people were thinking.

    The debate moved on to more economic considerations and one of the long-identified problems of the British economy – short-termism and the unavailability of long-term risk capital – a problem identified by Macmillan when Chancellor before the war. Could the ‘green new deal’ replace neoliberalism and see greater investment in the economy by the state? Perhaps this could be linked to more localism. Green ideas were popular with the young it was noted.

    One of the ideas to re-emerge recently was that of trickle down. This was behind the proposals to reduce taxes on the rich (subsequently abandoned) and the ending of controls over bankers’ bonuses. The idea was that the more wealth created, the more it ‘trickled down’ through the economy for the benefit of all. The problem is it didn’t work. It merely increases income inequality. The wealthy don’t spend all their wealth and are able to afford sophisticated tax advice to enable them to protect it, to avoid taxation and for it to be moved offshore. A more useful concept was trickle up since the middle classes and below spend a higher proportion of their income thus benefiting the economy. We briefly touched on the circulation of money at this point.

    We touched on issues such as the creation of money, the Thatcher era ideas from Milton Friedman of the Chicago school which argued all you needed to do was control the money supply an idea which so divided the party at the time. It was clear there was a lot of ignorance around and pointed to the need for better education of the public. Politicians were able to come up with hare brained ideas and get elected largely because so many did not understand how the economy worked.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Next Democracy Cafe

    In view of the sad death of Her Majesty the Queen yesterday, this event has been cancelled. Posted 9 September

    The next Democracy Cafe was to have taken place tomorrow, 10th September in 29 Brown Street has been cancelled. I expect we shall be inside looking at the weather forecast! If you haven’t been before, the idea is we start by going round the table to ask for suggested topics for debate (you don’t have to suggest anything). We then vote on which topic and away we go. We break after an hour and we usually go onto a second topic but not always. You can look on this site for examples of the many previous debates we have had over the past years since we formed.

  • Democracy Café

    There will be our usual DC this morning, Saturday 13th August starting at 10:00 am as usual at 29 Brown Street Salisbury and finishing at noon. Well there wasn’t. A small handful of people turned up and after a quarter of an hour, we called it a day. Hot weather, several people away or on holiday, meant it did not happen.

    We shall be back in September when hopefully, the weather is kinder so we hope to see you then.

    PC

  • Democracy Café: July

    Meeting of the Democracy Café, July 2022

    This meeting was held following the week in which Boris Johnson was forced to resign as prime minister of Great Britain and the start of the selection process for a new PM. The final straw was the revelations about Chris Pincher, the deputy chief whip, and when and how much the prime minister knew of his unwelcome groping of other men. Johnson was found to have lied about the matter and this prompted a series of resignations which rapidly grew to a flood resulting in his departure, although he was still in Downing Street as we speak, and he had formed a new cabinet. The uncertainty surrounding his departure led to the first question we debated: Do we need a written constitution? This is not the first time we have debated this.

    Peter Hennessy, a writer on the UK political scene, called our system the ‘good chaps’ model, a kind of echo of Victorian times when gentlemen ran things and there were rules – some unwritten – about they were to behave honourably. This point was made along with the point that one problem with a written constitution was that changing it was difficult. Ireland has such a constitution and they have been able to change it so perhaps it is possible. Mary Dejevsky, writing in the Independent, has argued recent events demonstrate that reliance on the gentlemanly way of running things was no longer tenable and that we needed a written constitution.

    The point was made however, that we did have a wide range of rules and procedures governing behaviour, including precedent, but if they were to be brought together who got to decide? If it was parliament then they are likely to do it to suit themselves.

    We were brought up short by the question: what is the purpose of a constitution, written or otherwise? Later in the debate the question, what problem does a written constitution solve? I suppose it is fair to say we circled these questions in our debate. We were reminded that we do have a constitution of sorts and that is Magna Carta. Later we had the Great Reform Act. The same speaker noted that Germany’s constitution was written by the Allies after the war. Chile was given as an example and the country, post Pinochet, is engaged in constitutional reform following a period of unrest. Consultations, rather like citizens’ assemblies, have taken place with a wide range of groups including minorities and native Americans. It is about to finish and to be voted on by the people.

    Other influences were discussed. These included the old favourite, the media, but also the judiciary and the role of a small group of public schools. If we do have a written constitution, who will police it? The Judges? Apart from the fact they are drawn from a very narrow section of society, who appoints them? They could rule on what was legal, but not necessarily the right thing which was more a matter of judgement. It was noted that Russia has a constitution but it has effectively been ignored by Putin. The media, as we have discussed on many times before, wield enormous power yet are run in the main by individuals who live abroad. It is they who inform the people so it is vital that this duty is carried out as fairly as possible and that the information they provide is as honest and balanced as possible. Are they doing that? Any system – written or otherwise – would require a well informed citizenry.

    On this point, it was said that it would be important that any such constitution was available for schools, by implication that it would be written in a plain fashion and jargon free. Someone with young children said they were looking at surveys on line which asked questions about their beliefs and ideas on various issues of the day. This then suggested a political party which most fitted those beliefs. Encouraging, and a shift away from just looking at personalities.

    Human rights should be at the heart of any constitution, a sensitive issue at present with the government bent on abolishing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights. This point was not really pursued.

    Finally, we got onto discussing the role of the monarch. After a discussion about King Charles who had argued he could not be tried for treason since he was the king (so could not commit treason against himself I think was the point), we got onto the role of the current Queen in the light of the events of this week. Some commentators had apparently opined that Her Majesty should not be ‘dragged into’ the row over Johnson’s will he/won’t he? shenanigans this week. What then was the point of the monarch? Why have one when it could be argued, there was a pressing need for some kind of final arbiter?

    In the second half we moved on to our second question which was the psychology of leadership. It turned out to be closely linked to the first debate. It started naturally enough, with the question of Johnson’s personality. People voted it was said, for politicians like Johnson, who had charisma: the word ‘machismo’ was mentioned. Keir Starmer’s problem was that people thought he lacked it.

    This led to a general discussion about personality. To sum up this point, people simply voted for people with a likeable personality. They were not turned on by ‘men in grey suits’ (interesting – we do not have a phrase ‘women in grey skirts’). It was also noted that Johnson was lucky in his opponents: Corbyn and Livingstone.

    There has also been a move towards TV debates which favoured those who were good at this kind of activity (products of Oxford University perhaps where they have a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons). But were they the right people to run things? A highly regarded prime minister was Clem Atlee for example would have been extremely unlikely to get anywhere near No: 10 in today’s climate of celebrity politicians yet was an extremely effective and highly regarded prime minister.

    At this point the idea of psychometric testing was introduced. This led onto a discussion of teams and the point that a good team has a variety of personality types. There are various models and tests surrounding this to establish an individuals best place in a team according to their personality.

    Various disasters in the armed services had led to a thorough appraisal of leadership and a variety of tests and training to determine leadership skills. Young recruits for example are given various tasks in a group to see how they perform and one of the centres is based in Westbury.

    Back to our parliamentary system and the difference is immediately obvious. An MP is selected, not on leadership skills or how they would perform in a team but on how they performed in front of a selection panel. That was often influenced by whether the candidate was seen to be ‘one of us’. Once in parliament they might be selected to become minister following, in some cases, a brief period of ‘training’ as a PPS. There was no training offered for this ministerial role and it is immediately apparent that many individuals are simply not up to the task. Indeed, many who were appointed did so on the basis of their loyalty to the leader not necessarily on their abilities or relevant experience. Since many MPs nowadays were career politicians and many never have had what might be referred to as a ‘real job’, there was precious little of that experience anyway. Is it any surprise then we get the results we do? It’s a wonder it’s not worse in fact. Why cannot the system sort out ‘flaky’ people someone ruefully asked?

    Will there be a reaction to the cult of personality following the departure of Johnson? There were many angry people on both sides of the political divide.

    We ended with a comment by the journalist Peter Oborne who, speaking at an event in Salisbury some years ago, was asked about Johnson and his reply was ‘he is not a team player’. Greg Dyke was quoted as saying he would ‘not allow [Johnson] to run my bath’.

    Two interesting discussions broadly about how our country is run. We have a hotchpotch of a system based on the concept of good chaps who do the right thing when appropriate. Recent events tested this to the limit so maybe we do need some kind of constitution. The people who run it are not selected on their management or team skills but on loyalty to the party and to its leader. There is precious little training in ‘how to be a minister’. Three dysfunctional bits add up to a dysfunctional whole.

    Peter Curbishley

    Readers might like to read the book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman (Atlantic Books, 2019) which gives an interesting and quite sympathetic picture of an MP’s life.

  • Democracy Café: June

    Numbers were a bit down for this meeting which is probably to be expected on a nice June day. It didn’t inhibit our discussion however which was on the topic of should there be a different way of selecting our prime minister? This referred to the votes by members of the Conservative party on whether to keep Boris Johnson as their prime minister following the magic number of MPs who had submitted letters to Sir Graham Brady and the vote of no confidence in him.

    The point made by the proposer was that the prime minister represented all of us and was the prime minister of the country as a whole. Should it just be left to, in this case Conservative MPs, many of whose futures depended on party patronage or who were on what is termed the ‘payroll vote’ that is were part of the government in some form? The example was given of John Glen, the Salisbury MP and a Treasury minister, who claimed in the Salisbury Journal that he had ‘no discretion’ in the matter. This puzzled some as it was a secret vote.

    Some alternative suggestions were made and discussed including allowing the public to sue or involving the court system generally. People were not generally impressed by this partly because of its cumbersome nature and, who selects the judges? It was pointed out that the House of Commons as a whole can have a vote of no confidence which is likely to lead to the prime minister resigning and even the fall of the government. It was also pointed out that Boris Johnson is still very popular with the public and that many think that ‘partygate’ has been overdone. Many liked his style of leadership which was itself a worry. Involving the public in prime ministerial appointments brought us dangerously close to being a presidential system. We didn’t get the normal response of ‘do you want to have a president Blair?’ at that point but someone did quietly mutter ‘Donald Trump’ which serves as a terrible warning (Trump I mean although …).

    People still felt the current system intolerable but quite what to do about it was less clear. The role of the media (as ever) came into the discussion and their role in influencing public opinion either way. Big money interests support the Conservatives on the whole it was said.

    A general question was posed at this point: how do you select a leader of any group or organisation? Who selected whom should be the facilitator of this very meeting? If we didn’t like him how would we go about changing him? A profound question.

    We moved on to talk about the parliamentary situation as a whole and in particular the current two party system. Although ‘first past the post’ was not specifically mentioned, it was the point behind the comment that the winner takes all process encourages people who can cope with it. Those who might be more collaborative in their approach are discouraged by the party warfare – or should I say warfare between the parties. The two party system was thought not suitable for today’s world it was thought.

    A quirk of the system about voting for the prime minister was that it would only be the voters of Uxbridge and South Ruislip who get to vote for him (or not) in a general election.

    Towards the end of this session, the point that most politicians are not in it for the money was made (although this had not been suggested or inferred).

    Part two of the session moved on to whether at the local level, politicians should not be aligned to a national party. Salisbury was slightly unusual in having a party system – other councils in the area for example Wilton, weren’t. That we do was at the behest of Labour and LibDem leaders it was claimed.

    One of the advantages of people standing with a party label is that the public knew broadly what they stood for. It was a kind of short hand for their likely beliefs. On the other hand, it is likely to lead to assumptions by the public about how a politician will vote which might not always be true. It was also suggested that it also encouraged people to vote. Whether this was the case was challenged with the example of Frome in Somerset where a non-party approach had led to an increase in voter participation.

    It was pointed out that a great deal of council expenditure was determined by government policy and spending limits. Much expenditure was non-discretionary, social services and highways for example. The degree of discretionary expenditure was relatively small and declining: reductions in the support grants also imposed restrictions. One of the councillors present said that in fact most of his fellow councillors across parties, wanted the same sort of things but the disagreements were more about how.

    The second part, which touched on the same sort of areas, was the suggestion that Wiltshire should be split into two counties, north of the plain and south of it. The two halves of the county were very different (the saying ‘as different as chalk and cheese’ referred the two farming types in the county). The two parts looked to different areas: the north more towards Bath and Bristol and the south towards Southampton and Winchester. People living near the borders between counties often lost out because of the postcode lottery. There has always been a simmering resentment in Salisbury that Trowbridge was remote and that they was overlooked. However, it was noted that people in the north of the county similarly resented what they saw as Salisbury getting a bigger slice of the cake, so where did the truth lie?

    Those who wanted something like the District Council back were less keen to have social care back as well it was said.

    Why was voting for, and interest in, local government so low? One answer was that people often do not understand its importance. Well, couldn’t councils do more to explain it better? It was pointed out that some councillors had established surgeries to which no one came. When there was a local issue then perhaps then it was appropriate for councillors to engage with electors.

    Both topics shared a sense of frustration with the political system both national and local. For some, the failure of Boris Johnson to resign was outrageous although, as was noted, many thought the whole story was overblown and they were happy with his performance. The system relied on basic integrity and once that failed, the flaws in our uncodified system became all too evident. Many people were disengaged with local politics and part of this was a lack of understanding of its importance and the limitations on its powers.

    Peter Curbishley

  • 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.

  • Democracy Café, May 2022

    Report of the Democracy Café which took place at 29 Brown Street, Salisbury on Saturday 14 May 2022

    In the usual way, members suggested topics for discussion and then voted on which they preferred.

    The first topic to be discussed was “A United Ireland?” – is the possibility of a united North and South of Ireland in the near future a prospect that should be greeted or feared?  The view of most members was that there was little to be said for the state of Northern Ireland continuing as it is, now that Sinn Fein has become the largest party in the North.  There was discussion of the colonial basis of the Unionist settlement and a feeling that unification was inevitable eventually.  The success of the Alliance Party was encouraging in indicating a move away from the old sectarianism, but members cautioned that the religious divide had not gone away. Implications for the UK as a whole were also debated.

    Changes in the South have also been beneficial to the tendency to unity, as the power of the Catholic church has lessened, and the fear of the Protestants in the North of becoming second-class citizens has faded. Their continuing desire to be seen as British was still a source of puzzlement, although an emotional attachment to the UK was recognised.  What happened to the Protestants in the South after 1921?  Some left for England and elsewhere but many stayed and seem not to be a second class community in the Republic. 

    One of the encouraging factors some thought were the attitudes of young people who were born after ’the troubles’ and the Good Friday agreement.  Joint education is important and a move away from sectarian schooling should be welcomed.

    Members also debated what was the actual contribution of NI to the UK, and what would be lost if it left.  The feeling was that the effect would be marginal.

    The second topic under discussion was “Is war (particularly the Ukrainian conflict) all about propaganda?”  The proposer was struck by the claims of the Ukrainian head of military intelligence that the war would be over by the end of the year, there would be a coup in Russia, and that Russian might was a myth.  This was reported with little indication that the claims were questionable, so is the Ukrainian side as guilty of propagandising as the Russian?  Scepticism was expressed at the detail level in the Ukrainian claims of military hardware destroyed.

    When war is declared, truth is the first casualty.  Attributed to Samuel Johnson

    It was noted that, certainly in Russia, the propaganda is directed at the home audience.  On the other side, the Ukrainians have a very good propaganda machine, which has encouraged them to fight harder.

    The observation was made that it depends who is speaking.  Propaganda has nothing to do with the truth, although it might contain truth.  But the information has to be believable, which implies an element of truth, unlike with a conspiracy theory.  How one weighs the individual items of information one is fed is problematic.  We were reminded that the word itself derived from the Italian and the propagation of (Catholic) faith.  It’s modern meaning assumed that it was at best one sided.

    It was noted that in war it is highly likely that even the top military will not know what is going on, so truth is not always easy to find.

    It was commented that it was only possible to validate much of the claims with modern technology; without it the debate we were having would have been impossible.

    As a positive conclusion, the debate moved to discussing the trend for young people to not have any truck with party propaganda while remaining politically aware.

    For those with an interest in this can follow the course run by Future Learn on this topic. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/propaganda

    Andrew Hemming

    This post has had 3 likes

  • Democracy Café

    The next session of the successful Democracy Café will be tomorrow Saturday, 9 April, 2022 starting at 10:00 for 2 hours (with a break). Attendance is free but if you can drop a groat or two into our collecting bins that would be appreciated. Also avail yourself of a drink of coffee or whatever as the host lets us use the facility for free – it all helps. It’s at 29 Brown St (the old Alzheimer building).

    We are moving forward with our plans to hold a Talkshop in May and no doubt there will be an update at the meeting.

  • Democracy Café: March 2022

    Just over 20 people attended the café in Brown Street with a handful on line via Zoom. Better microphoning improved matters but there were still a few technical hitches. The meeting took place about two weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this issue popped up several times during our debate.

    The first topic was about gender balance and should there be more balance in our national institutions? A common theme emerged in the discussion was that of culture. For example, the first point to be made is that two of our cabinet ministers at present are Priti Patel and Liz Truss, neither of who inspire much in the way of confidence. Indeed, Patel is under fire at present because of her dilatory approach to Ukrainian refugees, few of whom are able to make it to the UK. Do we want more women like this? The riposte was immediate: we are quick to criticise poorly performing female cabinet ministers but what about failing or inadequate male cabinet ministers? One thinks of the dismal performance of the past education secretary who has recently been knighted and what about ‘failing Grayling?’ Secondly, who appointed them but, a man, namely Boris Johnson. The culture point however was that men created a system which leads to people like Truss and Patel. This was not developed but it was implied that women who succeed in these roles have to assume male characteristics and behaviours to do so. The overall (poor) quality of our politicians was noted.

    It was argued that one of the key differences was the differing life experiences between men and women. It meant those in power – predominantly men – simply do not have the experience or personal knowledge of what it is like to be female in our male dominated society. Issues of safety in our streets, being out at night, the attitudes of police towards women and so forth were unknown to them. It applied to those with disabilities and people of colour it was noted. However, what about Margaret Thatcher? When she was made prime minister, it was widely thought she would bring a female perspective to the role but the opposite was the case. No woman was appointed to her cabinet and she took little interest in social issues although she never quite said ‘there is no such thing as society’. The issue of better involvement and decision making was part of SDA’s desire to have a Citizen’s Assembly in Salisbury and the Maltings development, Fisherton Street and the Library were cases in point.

    Back to Priti Patel and co, the point was made that women had to work a lot harder to get anywhere. The discussion moved onto women’s role in childcare which was generally different although the point was made that more men were giving up careers if their wives or partners were doing well. It meant that when they (women) re-entered the workforce after their children had grown up they had had less experience of outside activities (and thus were disadvantaged I think was the point). The need for more, and more affordable, childcare was emphasised the absence of which was a real impediment to women (mostly) being able to integrate into the workforce.

    Someone with a background in education said that men were largely missing from primary school teaching. This led onto a discussion about women being more about nurturing, but, it was counter argued, wasn’t this more about culture than some intrinsic gender difference? It was assumed to be so therefore it came to be. The younger generation have different attitudes and are generally more flexible about these supposed roles. Another view was that it all went back to hunter-gatherer days when men were the ‘protectors’ and although it wasn’t quite clear protection from what: one assumes it was wild beasts. Some women might feel that now wolves and bears have gone it’s men they need protecting from …

    Baboon behaviour was put forward to challenge our views of gender stereotypes. Apparently, male baboons establish positions around the outside of the flange whereas the females cluster in the centre. But, when real danger appears, the male baboons run away whereas the females fight to the death. As if by chance, a new book has just been published entitled: Bitch: A Revolutionary Guide to Sex, Evolution and the Female Animal by Lucy Cooke published by Doubleday. The Guardian review ended by quoting the author saying ‘Much of the distorted science [we] have been taught was shaped by the values of a certain kind of man. To change that … we need more diverse scientists: “a mixture of sexes, sexualities, genders, skin colours, classes, cultures, abilities and ages”. ‘Only then, it seems, will we be able to see the female experience in nature for what it is: “variable, highly plastic”, and “refusing to conform to archaic classifications”. Issue 24, 12 March 2022.

    There were many during the course of the discussion who doubted whether there were great differences between males and females. A lot of it was a kind of cultural overlay: women’s roles were set out for them, how they should behave, what they should wear and what they should do: ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ for example. Women then had to conform to these norms and stereotypes which had then become self-fulfilling. Women should stay at home and look after the children which meant that they were suited to nurturing: basically a circular argument. Meanwhile men were off fighting those pesky wolves and bears. I hope this is a fair summary of what people felt.

    Part two was a discussion around Ukraine and the effects on nationalism. Parallels with the World Wars was obvious. Powerful anti-German feelings were evident in both wars with German homes and businesses attacked as if all Germans were complicit. It was noted that all Germans (in Germany) had to tread carefully once the Nazis came to power – it was more or less obligatory to join the Hitler Youth for example.

    It did seem though that so far at least, people were distinguishing between ordinary Russians and President Putin. Russians were not all being tarred with the same brush. The attacks on Germans during the wars was not being repeated. It was recognised that Russians were largely being kept in the dark because of the tight media and internet control exercised by the regime. The wildly improbable narrative that Ukraine is being led by a Nazi regime was nevertheless believed by many Russians apparently.

    The interesting point was made that sanctions will be hurting ordinary Russians whereas the effects on the elite will not occur for some time.

    Back to the question: isn’t the Ukraine war making us more international in our outlook? It had stiffened NATO, Finland and Sweden were both considering joining and the UK was aligning itself closely with Europe. Whatever happened to Brexit?

    The point was powerfully made about what exactly is a ‘Nation’? Just considering that part of the world, borders have changed over the past 100 years. Poland has moved east and then west, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had gone altogether and whatever happened to Prussia? Czechoslovakia had been created and was no more. Millions lived in countries who spoke languages other than the national language: Polish was spoken in west Ukraine for example. The idea of a nation as some kind of fixed immutable entity was a nonsense. They were like lines drawn on a beach, when the tide of history came in, they were no more.

    It was noted that Russia had never (in recent times) been successfully invaded although they had suffered terrible privations, as in the siege of Leningrad. Ukraine on the other hand, still had memories of the German invasion. Ukraine also suffered a terrible famine purposely engineered by Stalin. Russia also think it was they who won the second World War which they call the great patriotic war. Someone said we need to do more to understand Putin’s standpoint.

    The discussion moved onto refugees which in an eerie way took us back to Priti Patel. Other European nations were welcoming refugees with open arms whereas the UK is … not. There were some who doubted whether they were still proud to be British. Even the Daily Mail is criticising the government although we do have to note that the paper has spent years and thousands of column inches reviling refugees and immigrants.

    A three stage response was suggested 1. fight or flight 2. us and them and 3. thinking about ethical values.

    Finally, and certainly hopefully, was the question, are young people less nationalistic? The answer seemed to be an emphatic ‘yes’ and instances were quoted of various offspring who had married people from other countries and that this was not seen as exceptional.

    Two interesting discussions and a recurrent theme was the differing attitudes between the generations which should give us hope for the future.

    Peter Curbishley