Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Democracy Cafe

  • Democracy Café: June 2021

    A discussion on ‘Wokeness’ and then the role of charities in society

    Woke has become a political factor which is being used to try and divide people into ‘woke’ and those who are not. One of the features of the new channel to be launched tomorrow (13 June 2021), GB News run by Andrew Neil, is to host debates and provide a platform to counter the claimed domination of our existing media by wokeness.

    One of the politicians promoting the ‘war on woke’ is the Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden, who has issued instructions to cultural institutions saying the government does not support the removal of statues (a serious issue in 2020 in Bristol and elsewhere), that approach to contested heritage should be in line with the government’s position, reminding them of the spending review and asking for them to notify the department in advance of any actions or public statements in relation to contested heritage and history.

    The issue has also flared up in connection with ‘taking the knee’ at football matches. The government refused to condemn the booing which took place at a recent match when players kneeled. It was noted that the England Gareth Southgate asked players if they wanted to do this and the response was unanimously ‘yes’. It was suggested the discord it engendered was ‘manna from heaven’ for the government who wanted to create a divide.

    What does woke mean? One definition is: having an active awareness of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those related to civil, racial and human rights. Which seems harmless enough but there is an attempt to make it sound like something you shouldn’t have. There was a deliberate tactic it was suggested to bring in other factors, such as defund the police, to add to the criticism.

    In this connection, the process of diversity training was mentioned and how some organisations see it as ‘a joke’. A YouTube video was mentioned called White Fragility in which the author discusses the reaction and responses to racism among white people in the USA. It seems the antipathy was based on fear. This was especially so in America where there is genuine concern that the white population will be in the minority in around two decades time. This fear was also evident in the UK where, although the numbers were a lot smaller, there was still this worry about being taken over or ‘swamped’ by refugees and immigrants. The recent debates about slavery had also caused mixed responses: some felt it was appropriate that this unsavoury part of our past should be discussed and brought into the open. Others (in the wider public) felt it was all in the past and we should ‘move on’. In this connection, a post on the Salisbury Soap Box Facebook page which said: No white person alive today ever owned a slave. No black person alive today was ever a slave. We can’t move forward if people want to keep living in the past was mentioned and the fact it had been ‘liked’ well over a hundred times, presumably by mostly Salisbury people. Many people had written to object to the post but it did reveal an attitude of mind.

    The murder of George Floyd in the USA – and the Black Lives Matter movement which it spawned – had changed the world. We were reminded on the Rodney King attack a quarter of a century ago where a black man had been savagely beaten by police who were subsequently acquitted resulting in riots. This time, the policeman was convicted of his death.

    Someone mentioned seeing a poster displayed in a house saying ‘British values: kindness’. This drew the immediate response that victims of slavery, those conquered in the pursuit of empire, and victims of the opium trade in China may not see it is as particular British quality. It also rather implied that non-British people were unkind.

    The second half of the session debated the relationship between the state and charities from the point of view of who does what. One view was that charities like Help for Heroes should not exist as charities: the government sent soldiers into theatres of war and it has a duty to look after them if they are injured. Using a charity partially absolved the government and the MoD from this duty. It was suggested that this was part of the Conservative philosophy of small government and low taxes. The Cameron notion of the Big Society was mentioned. What did happen to that?

    It was also felt that basic needs – housing, health, education and transport were instanced – should be the responsibility of government since it was important that all citizens had reasonable access to these things. Prof Guy Standing suggests that it ‘was a way to procure services on the cheap, transferring activities done by professional employees to those on precarious contracts and ‘volunteers”. He notes that half charity’s income comes from government. It was suggested that charitable activity should be ‘icing on the cake’ not the whole cake.

    It was pointed out that disposition of charities was very uneven around the country. The prosperous south had large numbers of people who could afford the time to devote to a cause. In poorer parts of the country, where the need was greatest, had fewer people able to devote such time.

    Looking at what charities do reveals that there are popular causes which attract huge sums and other causes which are less popular which struggle to raise money. It was very uneven. A look at the top charities in the UK shows 4 animal charities in the top 20 for example. It was also noted that in the area of disability, the under 18s had fairly generous provision, but once they reached 18, this abruptly stops. Giving was strongly influenced by emotional factors rather than on need.

    Another issue was billionaires who sponsored causes close to their hearts. This meant who got help depended on the beliefs of these individuals not on what society felt might be needed. Many paid no tax so that denied the ability of government to offer more help.

    Charities did however enable people to offer help and this was a good thing in itself.

    We moved onto the question of who helps Syrian refugees for example – should it be the state or charities? Our response was compared unfavourably to Portugal. The worry was expressed that if we were too welcoming this would act as a draw and more would come. Our performance in this regard can be seen on the UNHCR site which discusses some of the myths and misinformation which is common in the press and elsewhere. There was no ‘regular’ way for refugees to enter the country.

    Finally, it was noted that it was harder for charities to make problems known because of recent legislation designed to limit lobbying. This has had a ‘chilling effect’ on the ability of charities to voice concerns on behalf of the causes and people they represented. So although charities were playing an important role in society, legislation made it hard for them to speak about it.

    Two interesting debates and for once, not closely related.

    Books mentioned:

    The Precariat, Guy Standing, 2011, Bloomsbury

    Black and British: A Forgotten History, David Olusoga, 2021, Picador

    Not mentioned but readers may find this book interesting in relation to our slaving history:

    The Interest: How the British Establishment Resisted the Abolition of Slavery, Michael Taylor, 2020, The Bodley Head

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: May

    This meeting took place via Zoom the day after the results were known of the Hartlepool by-election and of some of the local election results as well. The Hartlepool election was a significant win for the Conservatives in what had been long regarded as a safe Labour seat. They won by a significant margin and with a big swing to the party. (We were reminded in the Sunday papers that the captain of HMS Amethyst in the ‘Yangtze Incident’ was the first to be MP when the constituency was formed).

    This prompted the winning topic of discussion: Why do people vote Tory? The government – and Boris Johnson personally – had for weeks been mired in a variety of sleaze allegations the most recent of which was the huge cost of redecorating the No 10 flat using money allegedly from a Conservative party donor. This had resulted in a number of enquiries being set up to establish the facts. Previously, there had been the Greensill lobbying saga involving the previous prime minister, David Cameron, and before that a series of allegations of contracts being given to friends, acquaintances or supporters of the party and its ministers, the so-called ‘chumocracy’. Despite this, and other shortcomings including one of the worst per capita Covid-19 death rates, the Conservatives romped home to a comfortable victory and made significant gains in the English local elections as well.

    One participant kicked off with a series of ideas about why this was the case. They thought:

    • politics was no longer about facts but a matter of style. There was a link to the game of ‘cavalier and roundheads‘
    • politics was more about show business and by inference, Boris Johnson was brilliant at this
    • there was a high degree of ignorance about how politics worked
    • the first past the post voting system made the system as a whole dysfunctional
    • politics was now the province of ‘mountebanks and snake oil salesmen‘

    To which someone added:

    • The election had to be seen in context, similar to war time, people opt for safety first. Later, it was suggested it was a kind of ‘Falkland’s moment’ not forgetting that until the time of that war, Mrs Thatcher was really struggling to make headway.
    • there was a high degree of pragmatism as the government had aimed to give them what they wanted eg the freeport with its promise of lots of jobs for the area. An interview in the town revealed that the vaccine success was a major factor (and could have mentioned that in a Brexit supporting town, the poor performance in the EU with their vaccination programme was also a factor).

    It was quickly pointed out that the Conservatives were not being that true to their core beliefs at present. They were a party of small government, low public spending, low regulation and the pre-eminence of the free market. The pandemic meant they were spending heavily, printing money and engaged in considerable government activity, the very opposite of the austerity years.

    It was also pointed out that voting Conservative was a ‘respectable’ thing to do. Some thought voting Conservative was risk averse and that once the pandemic had faded from view, the problems of Brexit will resurface. On the other hand, statements by various ministers that the sleaze stories had not made an impact (not ‘cut through’) with the public were described as shameful. Sleaze did not seem to matter because the public were not interested. Whatever happened to integrity?

    It was not long before Labour’s performance was brought up and Sir Keir Starmer was thought disappointing although it was pointed out he had been unable to campaign in person because of the pandemic. He is seen as dull. What Labour stood for was also very unclear.

    Back to Hartlepool and it was noted that the area had changed significantly over the years. It used to be a solid working class town whereas now it was trendy and gentrified with a social mix that had changed considerably. Had Labour recognised this change both here and elsewhere? The election had focused on the pandemic and Boris Johnson is seen as successful in having led a successful vaccination programme many believed. The easing of lockdown also brought a feelgood factor into play.

    The Conservatives will be emboldened by these election results. A worry was that a range of restrictive legislation will be quickly enacted. Restrictions on Judicial Review, the risk of being arrested and acquiring a criminal record for campaigning, and immunity for some wrongdoings by military personnel, together with harsher immigration and refugee regimes were all likely to proceed at pace. A voter ID system will further entrench their hold. It was pointed out that many of these policies are very popular among the public. Reductions in overseas aid for example received overwhelming support.

    Part of our discussion focused on the notion of a change from a ‘we society’ to a ‘me society’. People were less and less interested in collective solutions and more on what they could do for themselves. To an extent this struck at the heart of the Labour party project.

    Another factor was short-termism. Attention spans were short and by the time facts became known, we had all moved on. It makes changing policy week by week that much easier. Whatever happened to the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ for example which was a key policy less than a decade ago? An enquiry into what happened with Covid will not report until people have long forgotten what took place. An article by Vince Cable on this topic was recommended. It was a piece about short-termism and its relation to actions on climate change.

    Bearing in mind the strange times and the dominance of Covid and the vaccination programme, will a return to ‘normal’ politics see people changing their minds? Maybe, but it was noted that people are very slow to change their minds. Will concerns about Brexit begin to take over from the pandemic in a few months?

    I am not sure we ended up getting to the bottom of these events. The Conservatives have done well to sell themselves with snappy slogans such as ‘levelling up,’ ‘take back control’ and ‘Get Brexit done’ which have served them well. Thinking of a Labour or LibDem equivalent is hard. The successful vaccination programme and easing of lockdown has also served them well. Hartlepool was a keen Brexit town and Boris Johnson has delivered on that front. Labour’s choice of a pro-Remain candidate seemed ill-judged. But whether this will last is another matter. The Jersey fishing dispute – which happened a day or two before the election – is perhaps a taste of what is to come.

    A recommended website which was mentioned in discussions is: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ Another site with Covid facts is https://covidfaq.co

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café – April

    The chosen topic this month was ‘have we become inured to corruption in the UK?’ The question was posed following a fairly long stream of events over the past year or so but with little in the way of reaction and no resignations in prospect. The planning row with Robert Jenrick; the same minister awarding funds from the Towns Fund to his fairly prosperous constituency in a secret process; contracts awarded to a range of individuals without due process, some of whom are Conservative party funders; Boris Johnson and the Jennifer Arcuri influence case, and most recently, the Greensill saga and David Cameron’s attempts at influencing the Chancellor and other Treasury ministers to award it funds before the firm’s collapse. A lengthy but incomplete list. The question though, was why no fuss? Why no resignations, nor indeed any shame? Has sleaze actually become the new norm?

    It was suggested that it probably started back in the days of the Blair government when the practice of employing large numbers of outside consultants got under way. They were brought in to advise on some quite ludicrous tasks such how to communicate with other departments.

    Was it the system itself which engendered corruption? The example of affordable housing allocations was given in which council planning officers meet developers to agree on what percentage of a development should be for affordable housing. This was done in private meetings. There was also an imbalance of power since the developers could afford a range of high quality advice whereas LPAs, following cuts, could not. The issue here was not corruption but a lack of democratic accountability. ‘Democracy dies in darkness’ someone noted.

    Expectations of our politicians is lower now. There was a general discussion around whether there has always been a degree of corruption but the media in previous times had not published it for a variety of reasons. The argument went both ways on this. The example of Peter Oborne at the Daily Telegraph was quoted who exposed HSBC’s bank for the wealthy in Geneva to enable them to hide funds from the taxman. This was spiked because HSBC was a major advertiser and Oborne resigned. Not many other journalists could afford to do this however. There have been a series of articles in the media about the ‘chumocracy’ the word itself having entered the language. It had been quite widely reported including in the Sunday Times. The extent of it was much greater now however. The sums involved ran into millions.

    Was it because it didn’t affect the local population much? A worry was that a common response was ‘they [politicians] are all the same’. This meant people did not feel a change would not have any effect – just a different set of politicians with their noses in the trough. Another problem was that some of it involved esoteric financial matters. Whereas people understood someone in their community who was a scrounger, the complex financial shenanigans of an organisation like Greensill Capital was less well understood.

    On the positive side, it was noted that young people did seem to be more interested these days.

    Was it because that politicians were drawn from a narrow pool? This was a reference to the public school sense of entitlement and simply not recognising that there was anything wrong with the behaviour. Once upon a time, it would lead to resignation – now it didn’t. Profumo was mentioned and in particular, that he did not expect to be ‘outed’ in the media because of the old boy network and was genuinely surprised when it went public and became a major scandal.

    The media came up again and someone said they found watching or listening to the interviews quite difficult these days because obvious questions were not asked. Andrew Marr was mentioned as someone who was too soft on interviewees.

    The theme of the effect of corruption on our democracy surfaced several times. There was real sense of crisis and how impossible it was to achieve change. Were we indeed heading for a fascist state? The opposition parties were weak and spent too much time in internal arguments it was said. There was some sign of life however, with Labour pressing for answers with the Greensill saga but there was a need for a progressive alliance to be formed to challenge the status quo. This was the theme of a Compass paper. The loss of so many One Nation Tories from the party was lamented. Too many sensible voices had been lost and recent events in Northern Ireland were almost certainly a direct result.

    The environment and the role of the public and democracy was discussed with the example of the proposed coal mine in Cumbria. This arose from a comment about the government’s desire to build its way out of our economic troubles. There were two sides to this argument it was noted: on the one hand, people didn’t really have much power since the planning system meant decisions were made on planning grounds only and relating to the various planning acts. Appeals went to the Secretary of State. On the other, local people wanted the mine because of the promise of economic prosperity – jobs etc. They seemed little concerned with the environment.

    The increase in populist governing was discussed. It was the case that MPs voted according to their consciences and their own judgement in the Burkean sense. Now they tended to see themselves as delegates and followed what they thought to be the popular will. Brexit was a case in point. The death penalty was an example where, left to MPs, it would never be re-introduced but if they followed the popular will, it could be voted back in. It was pointed out however that there was a narrow overall majority against its re-introduction.

    We then went on to discuss the second topic – do we have a free press? One answer straight away was that we had a reasonably free press but not an unbiased one. Another question was what facts? It was as much about the selection of which facts or stories to report as much as the facts or reporting itself. There was concern at great swathes of the media were owned by a handful of oligarchs who were free to push their agendas. It was noted however that newspapers were commercial enterprises and needed to sell their papers to be viable. If their views did not match those of their readers, then they would not sell. The views expressed in the tabloids especially, represented what many people thought and believed therefore.

    Examples included a front page story of someone given a £2m house in Kensington which was, it was claimed, biased. Another example was a photograph of an apparent nose to nose confrontation between a policeman and a protester. It was later revealed that the space between them had been cropped. The Battle for Orgreave was shown as the miners charging the police. It was later revealed that the footage had been reversed and the police had charged first. To this day however, the story of aggressive miners lives on. This reversal of footage was likely to have been a simple mistake however. These came up in the context of a biased media.

    The print media is in steady decline and it was social media in its various forms where many, especially younger – people obtained their news nowadays.

    A major point was the importance of distinguishing between opinion and facts ‘comment is free, facts are sacred’ as the Guardian puts it. Several newspapers make this clear distinction but others mix the two.

    ‘Balance’ was mentioned and in connection with the BBC in particular. The problem had been for a long time, climate scientists were put against climate denialists in debates who, although were for the most part not from the scientific community, made the discussion seem much more balanced than it actually was. The BBC no longer invites denialists onto these discussions following many protests.

    The two discussions were closely linked since what we believe and what we know is heavily influenced by the media. Bias or simply not reporting inconvenient news will distort our view of the world. However, the media is a collection of mostly commercial enterprises who have to sell their product to a sceptical public. To an extent therefore they are a window into what the majority believe and think. If that public is relaxed about corrupt goings on in Westminster, then that will be reflected in the coverage. Despite considerable media and political interest in the level of immigration, very little has been said about the potential for large numbers of Hong Kong Chinese to settle here.

    An interesting debate around two topics which were in the event closely related.

    We were delighted to welcome two new members to today’s discussion both of whom are hoping to set up democracy café events in their home area.

    Book mentioned: How Democracies Die, 2018, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Viking

    Peter Curbishley

  • Annual meeting

    The officers held an annual meeting today (31 March 2021) to review progress and plan the future. Overall, the chair said, we have made good progress and the idea of both Democracy Cafés and Citizens’ Assemblies were both gaining ground. Dickie had set up a second Democracy Café in Bemerton Heath and this was slowly gathering members. There were now some 300 assemblies which have taken place around the world. Unfortunately, the CA idea had not been enthusiastically received either by John Glen MP nor the leader of Wiltshire Council Cllr Philip Whitehead. They both felt that they already represent everyone so it is not necessary.

    Account

    The bank account was in funds with little activity at present. As TSB had closed in Salisbury there was the question of where to bank in future.

    Officers

    The Committee was Mark Potts, Dickie Bellringer, Mike Hodgson, Jill Cheatle, Lesley Curbishley and Peter Curbishley. Officers were elected as follows:

    • Mark Potts, Chair,
    • Andrew Hemmings, Treasurer
    • Peter Curbishley, Secretary and website
    • Dickie Bellringer, Membership secretary

    Elections

    Elections are to be held in May and there have been attempts to interest the various parties to adopt policies to encourage Citizens’ Assemblies. Good progress has been made:

    • Labour’s manifesto for Wiltshire has included the policy of ‘trialling the use of a Citizen’s Assembly’.
    • The Labour group on the city council has, in its Statement of Intent, included ‘… supports the use of Citizens’ Assemblies’
    • The LibDems have a policy of encouraging and supporting CAs and has an immediate priority of ‘initiating planning for Citizens’ Assemblies’. Further details can be found from this link.

    Updates

    • A Zoom meeting was held on PR hosted by the LibDems and the local representative of Make Votes Matter will make contact with DB.
    • OECD had published a report Catching the Deliberative Wave which discusses the 300 different models and experiences around the world
    • The People in the Park event has been postponed until September 18th. We have been invited to attend and to speak. We will plan a leaflet or factsheet nearer the time.
    • The Hampshire Equality Trust are considering a Democracy Café which will not be exactly like normal one but will focus on equality issues.
    • A Democracy Café was held with RSA which split into two groups. There will be another meeting in Devon on 11 May.
    • On 18 May there is to be a Zoom meeting with the polymath, Prof Raymond Tallis. A link will be provided in due course. Early registration is advised.
    • The talks to schools are on hold as they will be concentrating on restarting the education programme and catching up on lost time.
    • Dickie spoke of the reading group he runs under the aegis of the Library.
    • The Talkshop event, cancelled at the outbreak of the pandemic, is still on hold. It was agreed that we would not consider restarting the project until we had resumed a face-to-face Democracy Café at the Playhouse. When they re-open we did not know at present.

    Readers would be welcome to join our next Democracy Café which takes place on Saturday 10 April at 10:00 am. Leave a message here to let us know and we will send you the link.

  • March Democracy Café

    The March 2021 Democracy Café kicked off with a discussion of ‘does the monarchy represent the best or worst of British values?’  This question came following the week in which Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were interviewed in California causing a huge furore and considerable debate in the UK.

    What are British values was the question immediately asked and someone googled the question with the answer that they were part of Home Office guidance for immigrants which explained they were about the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.

    Some believed that British values were somehow unique to us whereas it was the case that many countries have similar ideas.  There was also a hint of superiority with a belief that our Royal Family is the best.  Did in fact, the Royal Family represent nothing other than themselves?  It was clear following various scandals and the Princess Diana episode, that they felt vulnerable and had tried hard to rebrand themselves.  We saw more of the younger royals to try to enhance their appeal.  On the question of superiority, it was pointed out that the flip side were feelings of  inferiority or low self-esteem.

    A recent series of stories in the Guardian had revealed the extent to which the Queen and some other royals sought to protect their wealth and financial interests by vetting legislation before it got debated by MPs.  This was quite different from the formal royal assent.  This led to a discussion which suggested separating the Queen from the monarchy.  In reality, we knew next to nothing about what the Queen thought about anything as she was entirely discrete.  Prince Charles however was quite the opposite and the question was, how will the monarchy fare once he becomes king and (if) he continues to voice his opinions?

    Elizabeth the Last

    It was suggested that the continued presence of a monarchy reinforces our inferiority – ‘we know our place.’  It was the difference between being ‘citizens’ (which we are not) and ‘subjects’.  Those in the group who were republicans objected for example with the whole principle of someone inheriting a royal position.  A king or queen was not selected or voted into position, they became one by reason solely of birth.  We were reminded that several powers the prime minister has are royal powers devolved to him or her, patronage for example.  This was clearly undemocratic and should be ended most thought.

    If we did do away with the monarchy (pursuing the republican theme) what next?  Mention of a presidential system inevitably brought up the riposte ‘do you want Tony Blair as president?’ although today it might be ‘do you want Boris Johnson …?’   Once you have recovered from that chilling thought, the answer is ‘only if people voted him in’ and then he can be voted out in future, a pleasure we cannot look forward to with the Royal family.

    The point was made that the monarchy are effectively trapped.  We were reminded of this in the famous interview when Prince Harry was asked ‘were you silent or silenced?’

    There was discussion about the social contract between the government and the people.  We the people show you loyalty and you, the government, protect us.  This seems to have broken down in recent years with many people left poor, hungry or homeless with a government seemingly not to care.

    Sometime had passed in the discussion before someone mentioned the question of class and its link to the Royals, race and our system of government generally.  Class underpinned the whole system with links to privilege, entitlement and the unequal education system.  The nation was ‘paralysed’ it was claimed and there was an urgent need for reform.  The country had moved on from notions of duty to ones of service.  That tension arose during the interview when the Sussex’s noted that ‘service is universal’ following the Palace’s decision to remove them from carrying out royal duties.

    Post Lockdown

    The discussion moved on to considering life after lockdown and the idea of ‘resetting’ things.  ‘Normal isn’t working’ it was claimed and there was a definite need for change on several fronts.  We were quickly reminded however, of the events of 2008 and the hope that that would usher in profound change – in that case the banking system.  It didn’t happen (there were small changes but not systemic ones).  Nobody ‘took the rap’ for the financial failure. The government had a vested interest in not doing anything.

    The discussion divided into two camps: the pessimists and the optimists.  The pessimists felt that the government will not be held to account for its mismanagement of the Covid crisis, people will quickly forget, or want to forget.  The nation is paralysed and change is unlikely.  You’ve got the vaccine – move on.  There was also the tide of mis- and disinformation which we have discussed on several occasions in these meetings.  Underfunding of key services will continue they thought.  The recovery was likely to be K shaped, that is, the division between the wealthy ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ would widen further.

    The optimists felt differently.  They thought climate crisis will force its way up the agenda and change will have to come.  Joe Biden’s pumping of huge sums into the public arena was a positive sign.  People were desperate for change and that would influence the mood of the country.  The Black Lives Matter campaign and the emergence of protest this week about violence against women following the Sarah Everard murder, both in the home and in the street, were signs of public desire for this change.  Some felt optimistic about young people and how they were keen to see change.  We were reminded of the Gramsci quote: ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will’ which seemed to sum up the situation nicely.

    A new website called Tortoise Media run by Alastair Campbell was another reason to be positive they thought.  The big media corporations were being challenged: their lack of democratic oversight and unfettered power to publish disinformation was an increasing topic for debate.

    An excellent discussion which ended with the observation: ‘things never change – until they do.’

    Simon Jenkins suggests the Monarchy should be abolished.

    Books mentioned:

    • Out of the Ordinary, Mark Stears, 2021, Belknap Press
    • Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour, Kate Fox, 2004, Hodder and Stoughton
    • Caste, Isabel Wilkerson, 2020, Allen Lane

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café – February

    Two very interesting debates at this month’s Democracy Café meeting held via Zoom

    Two topics won through this month: one on privacy and the other on whether we should have a land tax.  At first sight unrelated but, read on …

    Privacy and the news this week of a legal victory by Megan Markle against the Mail on Sunday who had published letters she wrote to her father.  It raised the question of how much should be in the public domain for us all to see.  There was a lot of interest by the public of things to do with the Royals (as in the Royal family not the TV family of the same name!).  More openness in politics however is a feature of Open Democracy.

    There was general agreement that it depended on what the content was.  Letters between individuals should remain private but if the content was about matters of public concern, then there might be a case for publication. The fundamental distinction was between ‘in the public interest’ and ‘of interest to the public’.  It was noted that we have some of the most restrictive set of rules preventing publication in comparison to other democracies.  Things like Cabinet minutes were kept secret for 30 years when many of the participants would be dead and the matters discussed long since over with.  It was pointed out that SAGE minutes are now published without, it seems, the ceiling falling in.

    Would we risk being overloaded someone asked?  If all sorts of government papers were published, could we be drowned by it all?  Another point: would publication inhibit civil servants, experts and others giving frank advice to ministers?  The problem – which seems to be increasing – is that many decisions are being made behind closed doors without either the public or parliament knowing what is going on or being able to discuss them.  Was the Windrush decision for example ever discussed in Cabinet?  Who said what in the lead up to the Iraq war?  This increasing secrecy has almost certainly led to the rise of the ‘chumocracy’ with hundreds of millions of pounds in contracts being issued to friends, cronies and party supporters without proper oversight.  Good old fashioned corruption in other words.  The opposite of public interest is private interest it was noted.

    A fundamental assumption was that decisions were made competently after a careful assembly and consideration of the facts and opinions sought from  those who know.  The reality is that decision making is chaotic with the actual decisions made in private rooms and the Cabinet simply assembled to rubber stamp what has already been decided elsewhere.  Decisions were made on the basis of political expediency.  If there was more openness, the likelihood was that actual decisions would shift elsewhere.  A film of the G7 summit was mentioned, attended by President Trump, showing him casually deciding whether to pull out of NATO and subsequently pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

    The whole concept of privacy has been questioned recently in a book Life after Privacy.  We have been willing to give away our privacy for the benefits of shopping on line.  Sites like Amazon and Google collect huge quantities of data about us which we seem willing to give. Does it matter? 

    In the Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt discusses loneliness and distinguishes it from isolation.  We chose our privacy she claims. 

    The second half moved onto a discussion of land tax a topic we have discussed before.  The topic arose from a recently published book, The Book of Trespass by Nick Hayes.  There was firstly, an economic argument since a major slice of the price of a house is the land it sits on.  The supply of land and hence its price was a key factor in the economy.  Yet land itself is largely untaxed.  Thomas Picketty argues in his book Capital in the 21st Century, that there should be a shift away from taxing earnings to taxing wealth which was in many respects unproductive.  It would also enable the elimination of other taxes such as the community charge.  Developers for example, had collectively around 5 years supply of land with planning permission, and they were able to build as an when it was profitable for them, not when houses were needed.  Taxing the land would act as an incentive to build. 

    However, could such a tax act as a disincentive to develop?  It was indeed one of the problems of the Betterment Levy – one of the attempts to tax land and development – that landowners simply declined to sell and waited for the tax to be abandoned which ultimately it was.  This led onto the question of taxing land which was for the benefit of the community or was not earning income, for example, wildlife habitats.  This need not be a problem since there was already a system of grants to encourage this activity and such uses could be zero rated.  The tax could also be used to incentivise the use of land for solar energy or wind farms for example.  

    Letchworth Garden City was mentioned which is managed by the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation the income from which is invested in the community.  This could readily serve as a model elsewhere. 

    It was noted that all land is owned by the Crown which introduced the notion of stewardship.  The second point was that we have got used to the pattern of land ownership a system introduced by the Normans.  William the Conqueror simply handed out parcels of land to his barons and dispossessed the English.  This pattern of ‘land grabs’ has been the case through history and fuelled the Empire.  In this connection, the lack of footpaths in Ireland was noted and almost certainly this arose because the country was once part of the Empire and there would have been little interest in the needs of Irish peasants.   One participant found the signs put up by local landowners – saying PRIVATE, KEEP OUT – to be needlessly aggressive.  Should we rethink the whole basis of the ownership of land?  We have somehow accepted the current pattern established by the Normans and have never really challenged it.  

    How will it benefit society?  A difficult question but at least it will make things a little fairer with wealth paying its share.  Tax based on land would be very easy to collect since it cannot be concealed that easily (although perhaps it should be noted that what Britain’s largest landowner – the Duke of Buccleuch – owns is unknown even to some of his tenants.)  One of the most efficient taxes however is Stamp Duty: easy to collect and hard to avoid.  

    There was a brief discussion about criminal trespass which was an act introduced to protect ancient monuments.  This was about the time of the infamous ‘Beanfield Massacre‘ incident near Stonehenge in 1985.   

    Will it change?  The idea of a land tax was suggested in the Labour Party manifesto in 2019 and was successfully characterised as a garden tax by the Conservatives.  Politically, it seems a toxic idea that will need a lot of work to sell and to explain the benefits of to the voters.  Another point is it was revealed this week that the Queen sees all bills for vetting before they come to Parliament and has amended or squashed a number of them before they have seen the light of day.  A land tax will hit her estates and those of other royalty with higher taxes so such a proposal would find difficulty getting debated.  Then of course there is the House of Lords …  Hence we came full circle with privacy and secrecy linked to the taxing of land.

    An excellent debate and our next is in March.

    ***

    Unconnected with the discussion it was noted that there is an attempt to recruit more independents onto the council in the forthcoming elections.  How Salisbury is managed (or is it mismanaged?) politically has been the subject of several of our debates in the Café over the years and if there were more independents on the council perhaps this would help.   

    Peter Curbishley

     

  • January Democracy Café

    The January Democracy Café (2021) kicked off the new year with a debate about whether violence was ever justified.  This was very much inspired by the events of the previous Wednesday when a mob of Trump supporters had stormed the Capitol building in Washington DC and rampaged around the offices and corridors before being expelled.

    There have been many protest movements in history and the majority of them have been peaceful.  It was noted that the suffragists, who formed in 1866* (not 1881 as I said erroneously at the debate) campaigned peaceably for half a century and got nowhere.  The suffragettes were formed at the start of the twentieth century and believed in more violent action – which is now well known – and women finally did get the vote in 1928.  So is it necessary to be violent to achieve change?  That example may suggest so.

    We debated the important distinction that violence may be justified if it is not against an individual.  In relation to the Washington violence, this was whipped up by the president himself who was the law so in effect, it was violence against himself.  Chairman Mao and the cultural revolution was an example of a leader stirring up violence against the state when he was in effect, the state.

    Was there a distinction between violence by a megalomaniac and violence in pursuit of the greater good?  This prompted the immediate question, who defines the common good?  It was also noted that within these protests, there are people pursuing their own ends.  Historically, it seemed that peaceful protests may achieve little.  We were reminded in fact of the considerable violence which took place in our history as described in a book by Sir Ian Gilmore: Riot, Risings and Revolution which details the many civil disturbances which took place in the eighteenth century.

    We were also reminded of Germany in the ’30s and that Hitler was voted in because he represented what many German people wanted following the humiliations and privations after the Great War.  The protests in Hong Kong were another more recent example of people reacting to profound changes in their way of life and freedoms.  Whether they represented the majority was questioned however.

    Back to America and it was claimed that the founders of the state did not want a full democracy.  This did not just mean the lack of votes or representation for slaves and indigenous Americans, but seeking to maintain the franchise among the educated white elite.  Perhaps, it was suggested, one of the problems in America is that the ‘whites’ – so long used to a natural monopoly of power – were increasingly becoming concerned at being outnumbered by people of colour.  The year 2044 looms quite large in the American psyche as it will be when white people are projected to become the minority.  Trump has been successful in appealing to this growing sense of white victimhood.  It was noted that the vast majority of protestors at the Capitol were white and the police action was relatively mild with reports of some police taking part in ‘selfies’ with protestors.  This contrasted with the violent police actions during peaceful Black Lives Matter marches. 

    There was some discussion about the violence used by government to taint otherwise peaceful protests.  The enquiry into police infiltration is currently continuing which concerns systematic abuse by police officers over a number of years.  The Grosvenor Square march was mentioned (by someone who was there but not at the end!) and how police tactics were used to compress people into small spaces resulting in inevitable tension.  There was also some discussion about ‘kettling’.  Violence in demonstrations was often an excuse by politicians to take the high moral ground.  The demolition of the Colston statue in Bristol and its dumping into the harbour was a case in point – never mind the concerns about a statue of a slaver, look at the violent actions of the protestors instead. 

    The discussion – inevitably perhaps – moved onto social and other media and the powerful influence they have over people’s opinions.  One participant said their son only looked at social media and never read a newspaper, or looked at broadcast news, which are seen as the ‘enemy’ they said.  Facebook has ‘published’ claims recently about hospitals being empty and that Covid is some kind of hoax.   But what is ‘truth’ we pondered?  President Trump’s Facebook and Twitter pages have been taken down for instigating violence but who decides?  Is it right that one man – Mark Zuckerberg (in the case of Facebook) – possesses this power but is accountable to no one?  And what about free speech?  It was pointed out that his decision was unlikely to be for some moral position but more to do with worries about advertisers boycotting the platform.  

    The debate moved onto Charlie Hebdo, the attack in Paris which occurred six years ago.  The attack happened because of outrage by some Muslims concerning content they regarded defamatory to Mohammed.  This prompted the suggestion that we should be mindful of not causing offence.  The problem was that people are offended by so many things that free speech would become quite difficult.  There was no right not to be offended it was said.  However, we do not always have to exercise that right.  We were reminded of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, and not harming other people.  The distinction was made about criticising the person and criticising their views.  In this context it was noted that actions can be evil but not the person. 

    Back to social media platforms and the exposure by Carol Cadwalladr of the attempts by organisations to influence people behind the scenes in the Brexit debate and in particular, those regarded as the ‘persuadables’ [video link].  It was noted that Facebook had huge quantities of data about individuals but they (the individuals) have no access to what was held: there was a clear lack of transparency.  The information was not for us but for sale to corporations.  Was it ever going to be possible to have free and fair elections again?

    Still on social media platforms and their promotion of antivax conspiracies which are leading some people to eschew getting vaccinated or to be frightened of having one.  It was noted that the broadcast media are not making any mention of adverse reactions to the vaccine.  We seem to be stuck between conspiracy theories and stony silence.  

    A really interesting debate which once again focused on social media and the effects it is having on our politics, on what people believe and, more dangerously, how they act as we saw in Washington DC.  The days when we thought that the platforms would be a means for meaningful debate and promoting free speech seem long gone.  They have morphed into a means for promoting conspiracies, aggressive language and trolling.  

    Books mentioned:

    1. Riot, Risings and Revolution, 1992, Ian Gilmour, Pimlico
    2. Truth, a Guide for the Perplexed, 2005, Simon Blackburn, Allen Lane
    3. Philosophical Writings, Simone de Beauvoir, 2014, University of Illinois Press
    4. [not mentioned but relevant to the discussion on the use of Facebook to influence the Referendum] Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics, Peter Geoghegan, 2020, Head of Zeus Ltd.

    *The Society was founded by Millicent Fawcett and her husband’s statue is in the Market Square in Salisbury.

    Peter Curbishley

    12/01/21

  • Democracy Café – December 2020

    We ended this most unusual year with a lively discussion on sovereignty but we also briefly, and rather gloomily, discussed was England doomed?  Two jolly topics leading up to the festive season. We also managed a brief diversion into animal rights.  The meeting was held via Zoom.

    Two aspects to sovereignty were suggested, firstly what is it exactly and what does it mean?  Secondly, we discussed it in relation to the current Brexit situation where, in the last few weeks, it has assumed considerable salience.  This is being written when the UK was hovering on the brink of leaving the EU and leaving without a deal looking like a real prospect.  [If it takes me more than a hour or so to write this, we might even know.]

    We were reminded that all through the tortuous negotiations of the past three or four years, it was economic prosperity which was promised with the easiest trade deal in history and a world waiting to sign us up to their trade deals.  In the last few weeks, sovereignty seems to have loomed larger in the discussions, hence the suggestion we debate it.  Could it be that the realisation that the economic case has become quite weak and so sovereignty has risen up the agenda?

    Every time we make an agreement or sign a treaty with another nation, we essentially give a piece of our sovereignty in return for some kind of advantage.  This is the essence of all the hundreds – probably thousands – of such agreements we have made over the centuries.  It is believed the first treaty the UK signed was in 1386 with Portugal which, outrageously, allowed free trade between the two nations and for free movement of people as well.  There may have been a party formed in the 14th Century called UK Independent of Portugal’ or UKIP for short but I’m not certain.

    In recent times, sovereignty has come to mean ‘bending people to our will’.  It seems to have lost its sense of mutual cooperation and become all about power – and one-sided power at that.  It was observed that there was a sense that we were seeking to leave the EU to prove the sovereignty point – a bit like shooting yourself in the foot to prove you have one.  It was also seen in terms of competition – ‘take back control’ – with winners and losers.  How could we change and move from a culture of conflict to one of cooperation?  What can we do to develop a greater sense of a caring culture?  Perhaps the education system was the place to start. 

    One of the puzzles of the current position and the prime minister’s statements of the past few days, concerns the point that once we have left the EU we will not have influence over its rules.  This is the situation Norway and Switzerland are in:  they are rule takers not rule makers.  If we diverge too much with our labour laws or standards for example, then the EU will be concerned about unfair competition and act accordingly.  It was compared to someone leaving a tennis club and then seeking to change club rules.  Yet this has seemed a difficult concept for some in government to accept.

    There was discussion about the loss of Empire and the effect of that on people’s views.  For some, this loss has been a painful wrench and being tied to the EU merely acted to reinforce that loss.  This was also linked to some of the myths of WWII (‘we stood alone’).  In this connection, and the desire to hold on to an imagined past, could we not imagine a future it was suggested?  We can never go back to that past yet we find articulating a view of the future difficult.

    There was then a discussion about wealth and the banks especially following the crash of 2018.  This was perhaps part of a feeling that sovereignty was too narrowly focused on us and the EU.  We did not have full sovereignty over the City of London yet few were concerned about this.  Chomsky has commented that $47tn has been transferred from the poorest to the wealthiest in recent years: 

    “We have just endured 40 years of regression, the neoliberal regime, a bitter assault against democracy and on the kind of society that can sustain it.  An estimate of the monetary cost to the general population was recently given by the Rand Corporation: $47 trillion transferred from the working and middle classes (90 percent of the population) to the super-rich; the top 0.1 percent doubled their share of wealth to 20 percent of the total since Ronald Reagan.

    “The Rand figures are a considerable underestimate.  Tens of trillions more were “transferred” after Reagan opened the spigots for tax havens, shell companies and other devices to rob the public.  More were developed under Clinton’s deregulatory mania.  Reagan and his partner Margaret Thatcher moved at once to undermine the labor movement, setting in motion the campaigns to deprive working people of the primary means to resist the assault.  The serious decline of functioning democracy is a virtual corollary of the radical concentration of wealth and dispatch of much of the general population to stagnation and precarity.”  Global Policy Journal, 26 November, 2020

    This and other imbalances have never been fully addressed by the Left it was noted.  Corporate Welfare was another area of wealth imbalance which receives almost no attention.

    We moved on to discuss big corporations and their increasing power.  Shoshana Zuboff’s book on Surveillance Capitalism was mentioned.  People are beginning to have second thoughts about some of the tech giants and their increasing power.  It was the power of ‘them’ – a reference to the various corporations, media firms and banks – who seem to control our lives in various ways.  The likes of Cummings and Johnson it was suggested, were about facilitating the movement of wealth upwards i.e. from the poorest to the wealthiest.

    In this connection, the concept of psychopolitics was brought up: a kind of version of Big Brother where people are conditioned by a combination of neoliberalism, corporate power and information.  How this was used in America to micro-target the black vote and successfully persuade them not to vote was given as an example.  

    Was England doomed?  The many problems – economic, a failure of democracy and the first past the post system, and cultural divisions, all led to a gloomy view.  In a sense we are now in a ‘phoney war’ as far as the EU was concerned, the full effects either way will not be fully felt until 2021.  Could this be an opportunity to reset it was suggested, a bit like after the wars which heralded important social changes in housing and the creation of the NHS?  Possibly, but during those wars, significant work was done in preparation as part of a desire for ‘never again.’  No such preparation is currently in progress since leaving the EU is believed to lead to a successful future for the country.  Indeed, the government is preparing bills to limit the power of the judiciary and to modify the Human Rights Act which some would argue are negative steps. 

    Some were more positive on the other hand noting the huge rise in community support which emerged with programmes like the NHS responders and locally, WCA.  This was reflected in more positive coverage of events in the local media. 

    This took the discussion on to the issue of subsidiarity – leaving decision making as close to the individual as possible.  We discussed likely devolution in England; the desire by the Scots to stay in the EU (if UK leaves), and the increasing independence shown by the Welsh government over the past year.  Perhaps there might be a greater role for local government it was suggested. 

    Finally, we moved onto animal rights.  It is here that we have almost complete sovereignty despite the fact that many animals are sentient creatures and are social.  Animals were not in a position to reciprocate however. 

    This only gives a flavour of the debate.   Perhaps one of the main conclusions is how partial the debate is framed particularly in relation to the EU.  It is seen as a kind of zero sum game where if you have a treaty with another country, then you have lost something and your sovereignty is diminished.  It seemed to be linked to nationalistic sentiments.  Secondly, it is extremely partial in its application seeming only to apply to Brussels.  Corporate power, and in particular the tech giants, the City and countries like USA and China all exert power over us and actually, or potentially, reduce our sovereignty, yet this is seldom discussed and almost never in terms of lost sovereignty.  

    Peter Curbishley

    Our next meeting is on 9 January and you would be welcome to join which you do by getting in touch with one of us.

  • First Democracy Cafe in India

    What might have been the first Democracy Cafe to be held in India took place on Friday 20 November via Zoom with postgraduate students at Sardar Patel University in Anand, Gujarat. Twenty four students and their teacher chose to debate the question:

          “Why are there no strict laws against rape in India?”

    The topic was chosen because of some high profile rape cases in India in recent months.  There was a feeling amongst some participants that justice was not completely done in capturing and punishing the perpetrators.  It was suggested that victims of rape are too often stigmatised and that this prevents many women from coming forward to make allegations.

    Some felt that it was not a matter of the law being too lax, but more of a cultural issue with a view prevalent in Indian society that rape of women is not a crime.  One participant felt that there was a need to raise awareness of the law amongst the general population.  Another view was that it went beyond awareness to education and that people need to be more educated to make more responsible decisions.

    The conversation drifted from education to democracy and the need for education to enhance democracy, so that people are more informed when they cast their vote for a candidate.  One student asked the question whether our vote matters.  In the UK, where our voting system is first past the post, there are a lot of wasted votes.  India has a more proportional electoral system with a list of candidates, so votes are less likely to be wasted.  There was some discussion over the option to vote for “none of the above”.

    Finally, we considered whether deliberative democracy in the form of Citizens’ Assemblies might work in Indian society.  Some students felt that they would not work because of the lack of general education and the diversity of castes and ethnic groups.  It was pointed out that the Indian system of representative democracy was devised to try to achieve a cross section of Indian society.

    We had demonstrated that Democracy Cafés can work.

  • Democracy Café: November 2020

    This is a report of the DC which was held via Zoom on 14 November 2020

    At peak, 14 attended this meeting which is probably a record for the discussions we have had during the pandemic.  We discussed a single topic: should we adhere to the wishes of the people or should governments take decisions based on what is the best policy?  Clearly, this strikes at the heart of democracy and the belief that ultimately, it is the people who decide what should happen.

    What do you do when people vote for something which was a potential disaster?  Just because you are in the majority, it doesn’t mean you are right, the ‘tyranny of the majority‘ someone noted.

    Allowing a government to decide on what is best and not necessarily follow the will of the people [referenda and Brexit was in people’s minds] assumed that MPs knew what was best for people: how can they it was asked?  On the question of ‘that referendum’, it should only have been advisory only, not binding on the government.

    Many in the West thought that democracy – as practised here – was a superior system yet in reality it has been a sham for some time.  There has been a considerable loss of trust in the system and the people and organisations in control i.e. the government.  Several contributors said that key was the quality of information upon which people made their choices.  As we have noted on these discussions before, there were huge amounts of mis- and disinformation.  Vast amounts of money swirled around the system – some of it never declared – in an attempt to persuade people to vote a particular way.  There was also media impartiality.

    Was proportional representation together with citizen assemblies the answer?  It was pointed out that Donald Trump was elected on a system – the electoral colleges – which was a form of PR.  Whether you think that was a success or otherwise depended on your point of view of course, after all, POTUS did attract 70 million votes.  The Senate voting system was no longer fit for purpose it was noted since all states had two Senators irrespective of their size.

    The debate then moved onto the interesting area of how people came to their decisions.  The assumption that given good information then it follows that people will take sound decisions was challenged (and not just on the narrow point of what ‘good’ means in any context).  People often voted on party lines come what may.  Many of our decisions are emotionally based not based purely on reason.  People are often driven by ideology or feelings first then more rational thinking later.  This was in part the theme of the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.  Rationality was not always the key therefore.  It was argued that perhaps there was a need for an independent commission of some kind to agree on what information was appropriate to base decisions on.  There was a desperate need for decisions based on evidence.

    Another factor was that not only do we find it hard to admit we are wrong but also, to admit that the other person was right – two aspects to the same coin.

    Back to parliamentarians and whether they represented people’s views in any event.  First past the post meant a minority of voters were needed to allow a party to form a government.  Jason Brennan’s book Against Democracy was referred to which argued that democracy was failing and was ‘rule by the ignorant and the irrational’.  The problem of ‘elective dictatorship‘ was also noted.  MPs used to be people who came into politics having done something else in life first.  Nowadays, we had more and more career politicians who have left university and ended up (!) as members of parliament having never done a ‘real’ job.  Was it any wonder we had the government we have?  They were ‘career’ politicians whose primary concern was er… their career.

    MPs have access to good information (from the HoC library and elsewhere) but how certain could we be that this is made use of for the benefit of their constituents?  If MPs were under pressure to follow the party line then what use is information however good it was?

    Final reflections concerned education and whether pupils are taught to evaluate information.  Was the impetus simply to learn and absorb not assess what is being given to them?  This lack of ability to evaluate information meant the population can be easily manipulated.

    Did we settle the question?  Probably not.  Perhaps Auberon Waugh sums it up well:

    Anyone in England who puts himself forward to be elected to a position of political power is almost certainly to be socially or emotionally insecure, or criminally motivated or mad.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books referred to:

    Kahneman, Daniel: Thinking Fast and Slow.  2011, Penguin Books

    Brennan, Jason: Against Democracy. 2016, Princeton UP.

    The question was raised about how do you know how your MP votes and the Hansard site They Work for You is extremely useful.  Type in the name or postcode and it’s all there …