The Café will be meeting this Saturday, 12 February 2022 starting at 10:00. It will be in our new venue in the former Alzheimer’s building in Brown Street, Salisbury and finishes at noon. Coffee and drinks are available. There will also be a Zoom facility so if you prefer that let us know and we will send you a link.
Category: Democracy Cafe
-
Democracy Café: January 2022
Sadly, the café had to return to meeting via Zoom
The latest outbreak of the Omicron variant meant we had to abandon plans for a meeting in Brown Street and return to meeting electronically. Before the discussion started, we had an update on our other activities namely, our attempt to encourage the City Council to consider a citizens’ assembly, which does not look promising at present. The second issue concerns allowing electronic access to meetings which the City Council is also reluctant to agree to. This would enable those unable to attend meetings for whatever reason to listen to the debates. Wilton Town Council has agreed to this but Salisbury City Council … One comment was that lack of involvement was a problem for councils and one they should be concerned about. It was generally felt we should not accept the decision.
The Café
The winning topic was Are we all doomed? This question arose from a book by Rutger Bregman Humankind, (Bloomsbury 2021) which, as its title suggests, looked at the human condition and our place in the modern world. There were two dichotomous views: the Hobbesian notion of life being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short versus Rousseau’s ideas where he suggested that the the state of nature was not that bad and that people were self-sufficient, sympathetic to others and fairly peaceful. They are broadly innocent and aren’t capable of being malicious. Clearly, a fascinating discussion had they both been on Newsnight.
The immediate comment was are we not a too either/or society? and why do we struggle so with nuance? The second point was why was it so important whether we are doomed or not: do we have the right to live forever (as a species that is)?
Things went wrong it was suggested when we settled and ceased to live a nomadic life. This seems to imply that things were good when we were nomads or hunter gatherers but this may be some way from the truth. This new ‘civilised’ existence showed the unique strength of humankind and our ability to act cooperatively. This idea was questioned however since it has been shown that elephants and ants are among species which also act cooperatively.
A settled existence enabled the growth of religion and it was the view of one participant (who admitted to being a vicar’s daughter) that Christianity has a lot to answer for with its belief that we are all evil and need to repent. Sin and redemption is a feature of several religions. This led onto the idea that however good or bad we are, we may still be doomed because of climate or a passing asteroid.
The idea that civilization is simply a veneer was mentioned and Bregman has instanced Lord of the Flies by William Golding (who used to teach in Salisbury). It was pointed out however that the real life example of boys stranded on an island (the inspiration for the story) was that they did manage to coexist. Indeed it was suggested that several examples of evil doing are often fictional.
The discussion moved onto the idea of the availability heuristic. This was about how we perceive things and how we are poor for example at assessing risk in a statistical sense. For example, the fear of random paedophiles attacking or abducting a small child is an ever present among parents whereas the actual risk is vanishingly small. Part of the problem is that news media focus on bad news ‘if it bleeds, it leads’. This led to a reference to Stephen Pinker’s book The Better Angels of our Nature (Viking, 2011) which argued that we are less likely to die a violent death today than at any time in human history. It was argued that despite this argument, people remain fearful and as a result, inclined to be more violent. It also led to a desire to ‘protect our own’ behaviour seen in the pandemic where we are concerned at our own country’s rate of vaccination but less concerned about other country’s rates. Brexit was also mentioned in this connection.
A weighty topic and perhaps the time limitation of Zoom meant we did not really give it full justice.
The second topic was the legal decision concerning the pulling down of the Colston statue in Bristol. Four of those indicted for criminal damage were found not guilty by a jury this week and this had generated a great deal of vigorous debate. Colston was a well known slaver and there have been unsuccessful attempts for years to remove the statue.
One speaker spoke forcefully for the decision calling it a ‘Magna Carta’ moment and a demonstration of the limits of state power. It was in effect a show trial since only four of those present were on trial whereas there was an extremely large crowd present. It was a good example of common sense by the jury and of the jury system. It contrasted with those countries – the majority – who have a constitution where to a large extent, that flexibility was not available. English law had incorporated Druidic and Saxon law, elements of Roman law – still a key factor in Scotland – to meld it into the system we have today. A written constitution can be difficult to change it was argued.
Not everyone was convinced by the peon to the English legal system and it was seen as an example of British exceptionalism. There have, after all, been many examples of serious miscarriages of justice over the years. One comment was that if the case had gone to a magistrate, the likely result would have been quite different given the background of so many of our magistrates. Plans to introduce the Police and Crime bill was an example of a government none too keen on free speech and protest. There was pressure on the Attorney General, Suella Braverman, to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal but on what grounds is not yet clear. On the matter of statues, the statue to Lord Pembroke in Wilton was mentioned who’s wealth came partly from slavery it was claimed*.
There was a brief discussion on the legacy of slavery which has begun to surface recently. The book Empireland by Sathnam Sanghera (Penguin 2021) was mentioned which discussed the continuing effects of slavery in British society.
Peter Curbishley
*A book on the history of the Pembroke family is Earls of Paradise by Adam Nicolson (Harper Press, 2008) is a fascinating read.
The Suella Braverman link is to some investigation I did into her views on the use of torture and also to an Observer piece which examines some of her career claims which have proved difficult to verify.
-
Democracy Café: December
Report of the Salisbury Democracy Café, December 2021
Our first hybrid democracy café with face-to-face and Zoom had some teething problems I think it’s fair to say. But I think it will improve as we gain experience and we will be persisting. My notes on the session might a little sketchy because I was also trying to administer the Zoom, but I’ll have a go.
So, the first question was: What can we do now to effect change? I suppose the question in its broader sense is, if we want to effect change and want to do it now, what options are open to us? Of course, long-term structural changes, like deepening out democracy with the introduction of citizens’ juries and proportional representation were mentioned. But they take time and lots of patient negotiations and campaigning. What is there for us to do now?
It was mentioned that many of us feel like spectators – in fact some thinkers argue that our democracy, or representative government, has become a spectator sport. There is a feeling of frustration and powerlessness, although it was pointed out that we should not assume that everyone feels like this. Many people may get annoyed by things that are happening at a national or local level, but that feeling may not last long.
One idea was that we should try harder to practice democratic skills like debate and learn to spot distraction policies deployed by those in power. It was also pointed out that we should, perhaps, concentrate on positive campaigning rather than being too negative, although it was suggested that you need to pick out the negative, or what is wrong, in order to press for positive change.
The café heard that change has happened in the past by people taking to the street and demonstrating, and although that didn’t always work you had to take a risk to force change.
Education was also important, particularly in encouraging people to find reliable news. And it was also suggested that rather than the various political parties working in their silos that they should form a national coalition in order to co-operate for policies that would benefit the country.
The second question was: What does the extradition of Julian Assange say about UK sovereignty and the UK press? This follows the decision by the High Court that the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to the USA following assurances that he would be humanely treated in prison. One of the fears among opponents of the decision is that is an infringement of press freedom. As Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson said in a statement: “Julian’s life is once more under grave threat, and so is the right of journalists to publish material that governments and corporations find inconvenient. This is about the right of a free press to publish without being threatened by a bullying superpower.”
Focusing on the question of the media it was noted that it is as much subject to cognitive bias as anyone else. Is Assange, for example, a hero or a misogynist rapist? And if you choose one of those one then you are simply displaying your own bias.
We all know that humans are subject to cognitive – what is sometimes called myside – bias. There are many forms of bias that cloud our judgement including availability bias, a kind of mental shortcut in which we grab at our most vivid personal memories or experiences in order the make decisions. Closely related is cherry picking evidence, in which we pick and choose evidence that best suits our pre-exiting belief. The more interesting question, perhaps, is to what extent, if at all, we can counter these various forms of cognitive bias. Maybe a subject for another café …
Dickie Bellringer
-
December meeting
Meeting of Democracy Café on Saturday 11 December.
The next Salisbury Democracy Café will be held on Saturday 11 December as usual between 10 and noon. What is not usual is that we will be trialling a hybrid café with face-to-face at our new venue in Brown Street (where the Alzheimer’s Society used to be) and those who can’t make it physically on Zoom. Our Pro-Zoom account has lapsed so it will two 40-minute sessions for those on Zoom (see links below) and the rest of us will try to work around those timings. Thanks to Amanda Newberry for allowing us to use the venue’s big screen. Hopefully, everything will work but, well, you know …
For those who cannot make it physically to Salisbury, the Zoom links are:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84001448633?pwd=b0dQd3JwTGZXYzJCajU2UWV4K2lSZz09
Meeting ID: 840 0144 8633
Passcode: 2AWjZe
Topic: Salisbury Democracy Café
Time: Dec 11, 2021 11:00 AM London
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89082246452?pwd=ZU9ZM2srRGdaQnBGZGNncm9GaEplZz09
Meeting ID: 890 8224 6452
Passcode: 0ye4Wy
Dickie Bellringer writes:
There is also a new article on my blog called The labyrinths of Ultimate Reality, which looks at the range and nuances of this mighty subject and follows on from the last blog that introduced the subject. And I’ve attached a wonderful poem by Emily Dickinson called The Snow.
The Snow by Emily Dickinson
It sifts from leaden sieves,
It powders all the wood,
It fills with alabaster wool
The wrinkles of the road.It makes an even face
Of mountain and of plain, —
Unbroken forehead from the east
Unto the east again.It reaches to the fence,
It wraps it, rail by rail,
Till it is lost in fleeces;
It flings a crystal veilOn stump and stack and stem, —
The summer’s empty room,
Acres of seams where harvests were,
Recordless, but for them.It ruffles wrists of posts,
As ankles of a queen, —
Then stills its artisans like ghosts,
Denying they have been. -
Democracy Café
The November 2021 meeting of the Café took place during a tumultuous ten days in British political life with scarcely a day passing without some revelation about the goings on in Westminster. The resignation of Owen Paterson MP following a report into his breaking of lobbying rules on behalf of commercial firms, was quickly followed by revelations about Geoffrey Cox MP, the former attorney general, with the use of his office for private purposes and for spending considerable time working for the British Virgin Islands tax haven for which he received £900,000 in fees. Many other MPs were caught up in the second jobs scandal and collectively 90 of them earn around £4m in addition to their MP salaries. This was against a background of stories focusing on sleaze.
It was scarcely surprising therefore that the question which jointly won the vote was ‘Is Britain ceasing to be a democracy?’ The first point to be made was the mismatch between what people want in connection with climate change for example and how this is not reflected in government policy. It was linked to the belief that in a safe seat like Salisbury, one’s vote does not count. It was suggested that the only way to get heard, regrettably, was through direct action: Insulate Britain was instanced and historically, the suffragists who argued peacefully for six decades and only achieved success when they took violent action and were renamed ‘suffragettes’, a disparaging term coined by the Daily Mail.
We were quickly brought up short by the question: ‘have we ever had democracy?’ There is somehow the belief – inherent in the question being debated – that we once had a functioning democracy and now we are somehow losing it. The point was amplified by asking were we being too narrow in our outlook by simply looking at laws and administrative aspects? What about financial matters (highlighted this very week with the revelations about MP’s lobbying and their second jobs) and ownership of the media. If democracy was to mean anything then the lack of democratic control of our print media has also to be addressed. The name ‘Murdoch’ quickly surfaced. Also the presence of so many old Etonians in the current scandals in Westminster. We were also reminded of social media also without any democratic control. The media was in prime position to influence opinion according to the views or prejudices of its – mostly overseas – owners.
Our attention was then drawn to a range of bills currently before parliament which both individually and collectively will have a deleterious effect on democracy. These were the Electoral bill with its plans for photo IDs, the Police and Crime bill, changing the voting system for mayors to FPTP, and the Judicial bill. It was pointed out that the Police and Crime bill would prevent any lawyer from attending a demonstration of any kind. If such a demonstration was declared illegal by the police or Home Office then anyone arrested would be barred from future practice in the law.
The politicisation of appointment boards was also mentioned in particular the Electoral Commission. Someone who recently met John Glen (MP for Salisbury) said he dismissed organisations like the Good Law Project as merely ‘lobbying groups’.
This nibbling away at laws and democratic processes had some parallels with what happened in Germany in the ’30s it was claimed. The Turkish writer Ece Temekuran, the author of How to Lose a Country* was mentioned who discussed the seven steps needed to move from democracy to a dictatorship.
How can we have a democracy when we still have a Royal Family? Also the House of Lords. It was pointed out that many aristocratic families thought highly of Hitler before the war.
The concept of ‘techo-feudalism‘ was mentioned, a concept put forward by Yanis Varoufakis. Essentially, that corporations exert power through oligopolistic behaviours which mimic the feudal power structures in the Middle Ages.
The session ended with a reminder from the chair of the Salisbury Democracy Alliance that we were still trying to secure a Citizens’ Jury in Salisbury. All the political parties with the exception of the Conservatives were in support of the concept.
The second half of the Café discussed the question: ‘is Britain a corrupt country?’ As in the first debate, this was topical not least because it had arisen at Cop 26 in Glasgow this week with the prime minister Boris Johnson saying that ‘the UK is not remotely a corrupt country’ in response to a spate of recent events which suggested that things might be otherwise.
There was no shortage of views on this subject. Some who worked in the NHS said that procurement rules were strict yet the government had largely ignored them during the pandemic. The scandal of Track and Trace was mentioned. We had already discussed lobbying and conflicts of interest. Tax havens were inevitably mentioned with Britain’s leading role in facilitating this activity. ‘Buying’ a seat in the House of Lords – another story to surface this week – the going rate being £3m apparently.
Water Companies and the recent scandal of the pollution of our rivers on a massive scale was brought up. Although they were required to invest in the necessary infrastructure, they preferred to pay the fines and continue to pay dividends rather than meet these obligations. The government seemed reluctant to act – was this a form of corruption?
This week it had emerged that the fossil fuel companies were present in force in Glasgow at the climate conference.
Was ‘corruption’ the right word someone asked? Was it not more about entitlement and ‘these rules don’t apply to me?’ Perhaps, but these beliefs are likely to lead to corruption in any event.
Ministers, senior civil servants and senior military personnel, often retired to take up directorships and consultancies with the very organisations they were dealing with while in office. Transparency International has published a report on what is termed the ‘revolving door’ and articles have appeared in Private Eye from time to time. The scale of this activity is very large and controls almost non-existent. [Two days after this post, an article discussing the scale of the revolving door was published in the Guardian].
It was suggested that more time should be devoted in schools to engage young people in these issues. More time should be spent on obligations in addition to time spent on what their rights were. School assemblies were an opportunity although they were often concerned with school matters and not so much about the wider world. There were classes on citizenship and there are also lessons on PHSE.
Finally, the idea of a return to religious values was put forward. The problem here was which religion and that within some religions there were some fairly extreme beliefs: the denial of Darwin’s evolution theory in some American states because of pressure from evangelicals was an example quoted. Some religion’s active involvement and support for slavery in the nineteenth century was also noted.
Two debates which ranged far and wide. That they were able to do so with so many examples is itself quite shocking. Someone asked ‘are we too tolerant as a nation?’ and it is a legitimate question. Have we become so inured to the failings in our democratic process that we have little faith that things will ever change? Would Owen Paterson and will Geoffrey Cox be turfed out of their safe seats despite their egregious carryings on? Perhaps a religious person at this point might say ‘we can but pray’.
Peter Curbishley
[Updated: 15th November]
*How to Lose a Country: the seven steps from democracy to dictatorship, Ece Temekuran, 2019, Harper Collins.
Next meeting at 10am on 11 December in Brown Street
-
Democracy Café: October 2021
The Café was able to meet outside for a third time since lockdown
Not only were we able to meet again but there were several new members and numbers attending were over 20 again. We discussed two topics from the eight that were voted for: ‘More houses for Salisbury – what are the facts?’ and ‘Global Britain – is it a force for good or a force for the bad?’
We started with the housing question. Anyone driving around Salisbury, Amesbury and Wilton will have noticed the vast increase in the number of houses and huge new estates opening up where once there were green fields. Both ends of the A345 Amesbury Road have seen almost new townships opening up. The proposer noted that the 2006 – 26 allocation for South Wiltshire is around 10,400 houses and the current level of permissions is well over 11,000. In other words, WC has granted permission for more homes than the government requires it to. This extra building brings with it needs for more infrastructure, schools, roads and medical services in particular. Would it not be better to spend more money, not on new properties, but on refurbishing many sub-standard older properties?
The issue of social housing quickly made its appearance. Although many new houses were being built, only a small proportion were affordable for those on low wages or for the young. Provision for those with disabilities was also poor. The point was made that the right to buy policy was skewed because the funds were returned to the Treasury and were not available to the local authority to construct new council houses (for rent). It was explained that the funds were originally Treasury funds so rightfully went back to them. The government could have changed the legislation if it wished however but chose not to do so.
The debate broadened into the language we used. We talk in terms of ‘housing’ not ‘homes’, indeed, in the quote of the morning it was pointed out we only use the latter word in connection with second homes which aren’t homes at all. Should we not consider needs more? The system it was suggested should focus more on these needs rather than just responding to the market. This was part of the purpose of the planning system it was pointed out which is not popular and is being curtailed.
Back to the issue of refurbishment and one of the problems is that new build does not attract VAT whereas refurbishment does. At 20% this is a serious disincentive. A change in the VAT rules would be of immediate benefit.
One speaker thought part of the answer might be in increasing the level of council tax on second homes. There were 550,000 of these and around 300,000 on waiting lists suggesting he thought a ready solution. However, not all second homes were where the demand or the jobs were, some councils already charge a higher community charge for second home owners (one speaker knew this because her sister owned such a house in Wales and paid more) and would a higher charge induce someone to sell anyway? It was noted that not all second homes were for personal use but were rented out i.e. a home for someone.
It was noted that some people are stuck in unsaleable flats because of the cladding scandal.
Land was mentioned. It was noted that agricultural land might sell for around £5,000 and acre but with the benefit of planning, it could fetch a thousand times more. A key element of the price of a house therefore was the land it stood on. Yet there were no policies to tackle this currently and the last attempt – Betterment Levy – was abolished in 1970. A single owner can reap a huge windfall from a sale of land which adds considerably to the cost of a house (or should I say home).
The role of finance and the mortgage industry discussed. Britain was fairly unusual in Europe and USA in having such large freehold tenure. The majority rented in countries like Germany. This meant a home became an investment not just a place to live. The result was a very large finance industry which it was argued, shifted power away from politicians and towards the financiers. The equity that people had in their homes also led to issues of inheritance and the expectation that it would pass unencumbered to their descendants.
On the subject of new build, the fact that new houses were not being built to high enough insulation standards was thought to be shocking. Few of the estates had solar panels fitted as standard, an optimum time to do so when being built.
In Salisbury itself, the development of several large developments for the retired was altering the balance of the city. There was an absence it was claimed of people in the 20 to 40 age band. They tended to leave and only return in middle age.
If there was a theme to emerge it was that the market was not serving the people but was determined by the power and will of the developers. Their motivation was of course profit maximisation.
After a break we tackled the second topic about the meaning of ‘global Britain’. What was our place in the world? Has it been coloured by by our colonial past? Do we as a nation spend too much time ‘in the past’?
In Asia, the perception of Britain was of a ‘chocolate box museum’. In China, where memories are long, our role in the Opium War and colonial repression is still remembered. Talk of human rights do not readily impress. In Europe, their view of us is bafflement (following Brexit it is assumed). The special relationship with America is viewed as something of a joke. All sobering thoughts. It suggested we should show a bit more humility.
Globalisation was not universal however. Capital was free to move sometimes at the press of a button, and goods are services could sold around the world with only limited restrictions. People were not free to move on the other hand which meant globalisation have different implications for different people.
On the other hand, the English language was a huge asset and influence and contributed to our soft power. Our cultural influence was extremely strong as was our academic excellence and scientific prowess which is still admired around the world. We were still a relatively uncorrupt country. Perhaps we shouldn’t talk ourselves down too much: we still have some prestige for tolerance, liberty and human rights.
Progress on this topic was difficult and we were left with the thought – was it little more than a slogan? Did global Britain actually have any meaning? Perhaps ‘Britain in the world’ might be better but it was less catchy.
Two interesting if quite different debates and the next meeting is on 13 November at 29 Brown Street, our new home.
Peter Curbishley
-
Democracy Café
Democracy Café meets again today – Saturday 9th – starting at 10:00 in Brown St. We shall meet in the former Alzheimer’s building. We look forward to seeing you there in person.
-
Democracy Café, September
First in person meeting since the Covid crisis struck
After a long hiatus, we were delighted to hold a democracy café again in the flesh so to speak and at a new venue in Brown Street. Some will remember the Alzheimer building opposite the car park. This has now been bought and is now a mixed venue, café and bar. Numbers were smaller than when we last met in person at the Playhouse but we hope to build up to previous numbers as time goes by.
The topic which won most votes concerned issues of biological sex, gender and how we balance being inclusive and intrusive. There has been a lot of government interest in this topic for example cloning, choice of gender, human fertilisation and immunology. It is an issue which many politicians find embarrassing and too difficult to deal with.
It was agreed that public opinion has come a long way: it was not too long ago that homosexuality was illegal. Despite these changes, the issue of toilets and changing rooms was still a sensitive one. Women are still a little uneasy about transgender women using female toilets and changing rooms. It touched on women feeling vulnerable in society as a whole and the after effects of the Sarah Everade murder.
It was pointed out however that the Green Party is split on the issue of trans rights and it has been a major problem for them.
Was it a feature of British prudery? Visitors to the Low Countries often found women collecting money in men’s toilets and in some parts of southern Europe, male toilets were open to public view.
The point was made that to an extent it was a generational issue. Some people of mature years did find the ideas of changed genders and similar matters, difficult to accept although it was pointed out that not all people over 60 are intolerant!
The discussion moved on to more clinical matters. The question of sexing a baby was not always obvious at birth and doctors sometimes had to decide. The ‘true’ sex then becomes apparent at puberty which can clearly cause distress. There are also around 8 to 10 thousand people born each year who’s sex is indeterminate. This was not the same as people who are gay.
Perhaps the final comment was that there were political consequences which arise from how we think. This was a complex and sensitive topic and the implications for some individuals, are profound.
The second topic was the balance between a government having powers to protect the population versus the individual’s right to liberty and the right to choose. This has arisen in the case of the current Covid crisis and a suggested requirement that all people working in health or care should be vaccinated.
The first question was ‘who’s liberty?’ The state has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Where the state has taken action, for example with the law on wearing seat belts, the aim was to protect the wearer. It would also save costs with medical and social care resulting from an injury to someone not wearing a belt. In the case of vaccination, it was to help society as a whole. We were reminded of diseases such as polio, smallpox and diphtheria which have been eliminated from our society due to past vaccination programmes.
During the war, everyone had to have blackout to protect the population as a whole.
One of the problems today is that we have social media which is able to promote antivax views. This had contributed to a lack of trust in the government. Trust was essential in vaccination programmes since the government is asking citizens to forgo a piece of individual liberty in return for improved safety for the community as a whole. The government were doing little to counter mis and disinformation. There were vaccination risks for a small number of people so it came down to a matter of balance: a risk for a small number in contrast to benefits for the many.
There were some who felt that ‘their body was theirs’ and it was up to them to decide on vaccination. Long term side effects were another worry.
It was noted that government was trying to shift responsibility onto the people. They had retreated from laying down hard and fast rules into offering advice and guidance. Was this valid in the case of a virus as dangerous as Covid? Another point was that the government often seemed to be primarily concerned at the risk of the NHS being overrun.
Two difficult topics without clear answers to either. Perhaps a common theme was that society was complex. There were no certainties. All policy interventions were a balance of risks. In these circumstances, access to good and unbiased information was crucial. Trust in government and its agencies was crucial and this loss of trust was much to be regretted.
We shall be meeting in Brown St. next for next month’s meeting which is on 9th October starting at 10:00 as usual
-
Democracy Café: August 2021
The two chosen topics were: Do humans have the will to tackle climate change? and, What impact does concentrated ownership have on local newspapers?
Two of the problems highlighted early on were, firstly, the sheer scale of climate change such that it seemed too big for us to process and the other brought in the issue of short termism in our political system. But it was suggested that part of the problem was the framing of the topic. It was often portrayed in a binary way – either we will save humanity or there will be catastrophe, whereas climate change can be mitigated and the damage limited.
An allegory that proved to be popular suggested that there were three monsters with government in the centre flanked by business and the media, all three wallowing in the mire of money.
On the other hand, it was also thought that you needed to tackle the problem from both ways, from the individual and from the power dynamics of the three-headed monster. The participants’ attention was drawn to Drawdown which analyses problems associated with climate change and the solutions – only two of which out of the top 20 were things that we could do as individuals.
It was suggested that we needed to engage more people in the issue and one way was through deliberative democracy and, in particular, Citizens’ Juries, which is something that Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for for many years. One topic that could benefit from such an approach was the ill-fated People Friendly Streets.
Another way of engaging people is through and online tool called Pol.is which enables open ended feedback from large numbers of people and is used very successfully in Taiwan.
The second question revolved around the fate of local newspapers and the impact of their ownership by a small number of giant corporations. The Salisbury Journal, for example, is owned by Newsquest – the second biggest newspaper conglomerate in the UK, which itself is owned by the giant USA-based Gannett.
It was suggested that if you looked at public information as a market square, then before the internet papers like the Journal would have occupied the entire square. But since the advent of the internet and the reduction of journalistic standards created by the business model, that dominance has been eroded to the extent that the Journal occupies just one small stall and the rest of the space is taken up with various, often overlapping groups on social media.
One of the major problems associated with this, it was pointed out, was the lack of independent, trusted provision of credible, unbiased information and facts, of the sort once provided by local newspapers but now under threat by their diminished status and capability.
One solution to this could be the creation of groups like Salisbury-based The See Through News Newspaper Review Project. It was pointed out, however, that a deeper problem was the philosophical and cultural undermining of the concept of truth itself, particularly with the rise and dominance of post-modernist thinking. Nevertheless, work like the project was vital as part of the fight back to truth – along with deliberative democracy and Citizens’ Juries.
Dickie Bellringer
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 