Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: politics

  • What could possibly go wrong?

    What could possibly go wrong?

    December 2025

    In the complex political world in which we live, it seems that the standard response to any new proposal or initiative is “What could possibly go wrong?” Even allowing for the British love of sarcasm, this is quite a worrying trend. The implication, of course, is that any venture is doomed to fail and with it the probable demise of the lead actors. Although we know that politicians (and civil servants) are held in low esteem, does this mean that we think they are, ipso facto, incompetent, or do we think that whatever they are planning is pointless? Either view is alarming.

    How did we get to this state? Clearly, for any venture, the chances of error are very high. But they are made much more damaging if the original policy is mooted as a solution to a recognizable problem. One has only to think of any recent Budget, with the furore resulting from some tax change which might have unexpected consequences. Politicians tend to react to this kind of treatment by preparing the ground beforehand issuing various hints and leaks, with the inevitable risk of that playing out badly too. The recent IHT changes came about because the government wanted to clamp down on rich landowners purporting to be farmers so that the land could be kept in the family, but it ended up appearing to be an attack on the farming community.

    There is no doubt that a Labour government has a particular

    problem in that the right wing press will present its actions in the worst possible light. But that is all the more reason for giving an honest presentation of what the policy is, how it is intended to work and the possible snags. Apart from helping to block attacks from opponents, this would mean taking the public into ones confidence, surely an astute move (and also resulting in a better informed electorate).

    If it does all go wrong, the best response must be to own up and try to explain  what happened, instead of looking for someone to throw under the bus. Politicians would no doubt say that the public would be enraged, but they probably are anyway. If MPs want to be respected, they are going to have to level with the voters. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

    Andrew Hemming

  • Dissatisfaction with our politicians expressed at latest Democracy Café

    That and tax were the two topics discussed

    A recurring subject of our Cafés is the dissatisfaction both with our MPs and the political process generally. This is clearly becoming a matter of national concern with low voter turnout at elections, falling membership for the main parties and a rise of what were once called ‘fringe’ parties.

    The escape of various prisoners that week from Wandsworth Gaol was the focus of our first topic: not the escapes themselves but the unedifying debate which took place in parliament particularly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Two prisoners, Brahim Kaddour-Cherif and William Smith were released mistakenly and there ensued a major political row with the Conservatives blaming Labour and Labour blaming the Conservatives.

    The question which won the vote was How can we encourage more cooperative working [between the parties] in Parliament? The proposer was motivated to pose the question by the debates about relatively petty issues and insufficiently on the big ones. The slanging match which took place between the parties overlooked the years of underfunding of prisons which had taken place under both parties. Prisons were unpleasant places said someone who visits one regularly and they too little time was spent on things like behavioural change. No party was willing to tackle the system or the huge investment the estate needed.

    A lot of theatrics we saw was around PMQ and this often got televised. Many politicians were playing to the popular press. Would it not be an idea to stop televising parliament it was suggested? We did not pursue that thought and it would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Another thought was Eton. The school has a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons and boys practice the skills (if skills they be) of debating. Since Eton has provided a preponderance of ex-pupils to become MPs and ministers including many prime ministers, could this be a contributory factor to the public school raucous style of debating?

    The need for a constitution was suggested. However, the US has a constitution and it hasn’t ruled out bad politics. Could not the Speaker control things better?

    It was noted however that the Select Committee system works well where party members do work together on them. This system has been a success especially after control of the selection of members was wrested from the whips. But how often do people follow select committee debates? People watch the spectacle of PMQs are less inclined to follow the dry stuff of a select committee even though it was often more consequential. As we have noted in these debates before, do we not get the politics we deserve?

    Back to PMQs. Was it not absurd that the prime minister was summoned each week to answer what can be trivial or detailed questions? The session was dominated by point-scoring and appealing to the gallery not discussing matters of strategic importance. Imagine for example if the boss of M&S was asked each week why one of their stores was out of a particular size of trousers say. Would you run a major corporation that way? Probably not.

    One of the shifts which has taken place in recent times is the way all parties now have focus groups and fashion their policies around what these and other sources of public opinion thinking. They were no longer leading but following. But what many are crying out for is leadership. The election this week of the charismatic Mayor of New York was mentioned. What we seem to be getting is followership.

    The quality of our MPs was mentioned. Do we need to know more about candidates? Should there not be some kind of minimum standard? What that would be and how it would be enforced was not discussed.

    An interesting point was that we elect our MPs but have no say over who gets into the Cabinet or goes onto the government payroll. Since it is the latter individuals who exercise the power it does seem anomalous that we spend all the time selecting someone to represent the constituency who then may well go onto become a minister of some kind. Rory Stewart discusses this in his book Politics on the Edge (Jonathan Cape, 2023) where no interest is taken by selection committees in someone’s policy making experience or management skills in the selection process. It suggests large numbers of people being elected with no regard at all for the skills they’ll need to run the country. And we wonder why we’re in a mess.

    Back to the public school system and whereas it was true that such schools provided a disproportionate number of MPs and hence ministers in the past, a Sutton Trust study in 2024 shows that just one member of the current cabinet had a private education. This contrasts with the last Conservative government where just 19% of ministers did not have a private education.

    Another feature of Stewart’s book was the practice of ignoring expert advice. There was a suggestion that there should be more in the way of expert input into decision making. One said their experience of meeting civil servants to convey expertise or knowledge was met by the response ‘this is what the minister wants’ with little or no interest in whether it was practical or workable. Another said there was no shortage of reports, McPherson and Louise Casey into the Met for example. Most ended up ignored. The problem was a ‘we know best’ attitude not a lack of informed input.

    Was our government a product of the class system? Perhaps we should debate this as a topic all of itself in the future. As noted, the role of public schools has lessened in recent years.

    We digressed somewhat to talk about the removal of power and money from local authorities.

    As a kind of summing up it was thought that manifestos should be more visionary and not the product of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The lack of interest in the political process was also noted and we will not get improvement or change unless the public presses for it.

    On to our second topic which was Should the wealthy pay more tax? It is only about 2 weeks until the Budget around which there is already considerable debate. The Chancellor gave a speech a week or so ago which was widely seen as a hint that there will be an increase in income tax. The immediate answer the proposer noted was to say ‘yes’ but in fact the system already enabled sufficient tax to be collected the problem was all the loopholes. [Official statistics show it stands at 5.3% of theoretical liabilities i.e. £46.8bn (2023- 24 tax year). Experts say this figure is an order of magnitude too low].

    The major problem with the system was it was concentrated on earnings not on wealth. Considerable wealth was in the possession of those who paid little in the way of tax on that wealth. Land for example was not taxed (but rents would be). However, it was noted those who owned property did pay tax on any rents. Major estates could gain exemption from Inheritance tax by opening their homes to the public once a year or more. It was stated that art did not attract tax [This is incorrect. Works of art are subject to capital gains tax when sold subject to current rules and exemptions. So if you are thinking of selling your Rembrandt, be careful].

    One of the things not mentioned in the debate about tax is the moral question. It is frequently said that the rich would leave if taxes were too high. Taxes paid for the things we need in our society. It was pointed out (from the perspective of a wealthy person) that they might say they do not need many of the services. They pay for their own medical treatment, they educated their children privately, they live in gated communities and do not need police protection and rarely use roads on the way to the airport to board a private jet or helicopter. Why should they pay tax certainly a higher rate? Why should they pay yet more to keep individuals who were too lazy to work? They might even use the word ‘feckless’.

    However, they lived in a society which is getting ever more unequal. Placing the burden of higher taxes on the poorest in society risks bringing the whole system down. A recent BBC programme on inheritance had noted that inequality was embedded in the system. As some people got wealthier, they were able to pass on this wealth and its attendant advantages to their children thus further increasing inequality. Home ownership for many was but a dream but those who had access to the ‘bank of mum and dad’ ‘could achieve this. We should think more about what to do with our wealth it was suggested.

    There was some discussion on loopholes which is where we came in. The role of the so-called ‘treasure islands’ as discussed in Nicholas Shaxson’s book Treasure Islands: Tax havens and the Men Who Stole the World (Bodley Head, 2011) is key to the system of avoidance. He estimated around £12 trillion was stored in them (2011 figures). These havens were a relic of Empire.

    Part of the discussion about tax was based on the notion we were better off with lower taxes which is why politicians constantly promised that they, and their party, were dedicated to lowering them. Would any politician who said we needed to pay more tax if we want the services we expect ever get elected. Almost certainly not. As we have noted before, lower taxes will enable you to buy some more consumer goods or services but it will not buy you a road system, a health service, schools, defence and so on: all the things which gives us our society.

    Which led to the notion that we should be proud of paying tax and such individuals should be admired. Paying tax should be seen as a duty.

    It was noted that wealth also gave power. So we would not see changes in the tax havens for example because many of those who use them possess the power to stop change. On the subject of loopholes, Eton cropped up again and that it, along with other public schools, did not pay VAT or business rates until this year. They were regarded as charities going back to their foundations but were far from charities today.

    I suppose there is a theme linking both debates and that is our role as citizens. It is surely up to us to demand better service from our leaders, to take a closer look at those standing for election and to enquire about their ability to lead, manage or develop workable policies, to take a closer look at those policies and promises made and to be realistic about things like tax. We cannot have something for nothing. The focus should be on making sure that the tax system works as it should but how many people know of the tax gap or how much it is? Two interesting debates which raised several interesting questions.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on December 13th

    Thought of becoming a subscriber?

  • Democracy Café

    The next Café will be this morning Saturday, 8 November starting at 10:00 as usual in the Library. Lasting 2 hours with a break. If you haven’t been before, the idea is people bring a topic – ideally in the form of a short question – and we vote on which topic to discuss. Typically, we debate two. You can just come and take part – there is no compulsion to offer a topic.

    If you want to see examples of previous sessions just scroll down and see the write-ups. It’s free but there is a collection if you are able to spare any half groats that would be appreciated.

    There seems no shortage of things to talk about – the Royal family, the state of the economy – but you might find these too depressing so if you have any uplifting ideas they would be welcome.

  • Conspiracies: the Five Factor Theory

        

    Some ideas about conspiracy theories

    We went to a talk at the Cheltenham Literature Festival recently and the topic was conspiracy theories and why they are so widespread.  I have been thinking about this and done a little research and these are some of my conclusions.  I propose The Five Factor Theory which is discussed below. Conspiracy theories have cropped up in our Democracy Cafés from time to time so they are a matter of interest for us. I would welcome comments on this idea.

    I suggest that there are 5 major factors involved in conspiracy theories (CF) and why they are widely followed.

    1. Believability
    2. Psychology
    3. Power
    4. Politics
    5. Information.

    1              Believability

    A conspiracy has got to be believable and not utterly bizarre. Indeed, many provide simple answers to complex issues or unknown forces.  Crop circles were by aliens visiting not by a group of blokes going out at night. The solution was simple, providing an answer to a problem which originally did not have an answer.

    It has to provide an answer. So how did a loner like Oswald manage to kill JF Kennedy?  It seemed unlikely he did it on his own so a mountain of conspiracies were produced about other’s involvement and state actors.

    Often the conspiracy is more interesting.  Instead of dry facts, evidence and complexity, we have a simple and interesting story.  It must be easy to grasp.

    It mustn’t be mundane. They are never dull but involve dark forces, aliens, secret cabals and so forth.  So much more interesting than the truth. 

    They are often embellished to enhance the theory. So crop circles had force fields around them which scientists couldn’t explain.  They couldn’t because there weren’t. Notice by the way that crop circles have disappeared as a story.   

    There has to be a degree of topicality to them.  Recently, anti-vax theories have been the game in town. It is extraordinary to note in passing, that to get a science or medical theory off the ground, you have to collect evidence using established protocols, a paper has to be produced with copious references to published work, then submitted to a journal who will get 3 referees to review it and then, after any corrections, it get published.  Others in the field will comment on it and the experiment might get repeated.  There are occasional frauds and mistakes do happen but these are rare. A conspiracy has absolutely none of this, yet people believe in them and will scorn established science or ‘conventional’ medicine.  ‘Einstein proved Newton wrong’ is my favourite numpty phrase: no he didn’t, he refined Newton’s theory which is still taught as the basics in understanding mechanics.

    However, scientific theories are sometimes wrong even well-established ones.  Phrenology was widely believed and practised for example.  Cold fusion another scientific mistake.  But the point is that there are methods to check on scientific hypotheses or theories.  Another point is that they make testable predications. Experiments can be performed to see if the theory is correct.  Einstein’s prediction about the bending of lights by the sun was dramatically proved with the orbit of Mercury for example.  Conspiracy theories on the other hand cannot be tested. 

    2              Psychology

    It gives individuals a sense of power.  A lone person can nowadays launch onto the internet all manner of theories and ideas and see them spread in no time.  A successful blogger may enjoy hundreds of thousands of people viewing their theories and conspiracies some of which will get repeated more thousands of times. Some are monetised and make their promoters large sums. The woman claiming that the French president’s wife isn’t really a woman has made her millions of dollars. 

    Linked is a sense of excitement. Just knowing that people are reading to what you have written is a powerful force almost like an aphrodisiac (whether it’s a conspiracy or otherwise).  And it’s very tempting.  I get excited if the number of readers of my posts get into double figures.  If I posted something outrageous would I get hundreds or even thousands?  Hmmm.  Moving on –

    It is a means to bite back especially if you or your community has been left behind. Suddenly, you can be heard and listened to (or read) whereas the politicians are nowhere to be seen. It is also a means to vent anger.  It might even be therapeutic.  You are angry at an injustice and in a few lines you express your anger and ‘let it out’ possibly making you feel better.

    There might even be a childlike pleasure in metaphorically throwing stones at the powerful or successful. This might be linked to a sense of resentment at such people.  It is a feature of the media landscape that bringing down the successful is a popular newspaper activity.  It sells copy and people like to see them brought down. 

    But another feature is that conspiracists are likely to be more gullible.  They may actually believe the theories.  Flying saucers are ultimately unbelievable (why have they never been found and how are they able to traverse the vastness of space?  Why here?). But rational thought does not intrude. Homeopathy is widely accepted despite the total lack of evidence. The lack of evidence can be explained by a further conspiracy.  But what about religions?

    There is a thirst for answers.  Everything seems a lot more complicated now.  The world seems full of protocols, rules, regulations, endless button pressing – nothing seems or feels simple.  People thirst for a simple answer and to an extent a CT provides that simple explanation.

    3              Power

    Closely linked to the above comments, it can give people a sense of power. Those who pester stars for example are able to exert power (negative though it may be) over someone cleverer, more attractive or able than themselves.  People sense that nobody really cares about their condition or plight.  The ease with which they can mount an attack on Facebook or X etc is a form of power for them. 

    It also seems to give them power in conversational situations. You are left – if you are not a conspiracists – feeling that you are naïve to have believed what you read in the paper or saw in the news.  They have the real story: you believe what they want you to believe, they being some secret cabal or some such.  It can be difficult to pursue the conversation because how do you prove the negative?  I believe from having read about it and seen film and pictures that the Great Barrier Reef is suffering from bleaching because of ocean warming.  Not so a conspiracy man insisted to me.  A scientist who says the opposite has lost his post in a university and his works shut down and he is not allowed to speak.  The true story is being suppressed.  How do you answer this?  By their nature conspiracies are almost unprovable so the promoters of them gain power over you the listener.

    Believers have a sense of superiority.  You, have been duped by the fake media and believe what they want you to believe.  They (the conspiracists), on the other hand, are privy to the real story i.e. it’s a conspiracy. 

    British law prevents much truth coming out because of fear of lawsuits.  The powerful are in a position to suppress truth because of the shear cost of defence.  It is worth noting that it is up to the person making the allegation to prove the truth of it.  This suppression of free speech provides perfect space for conspiracies to take place. It can even be argued that the conspiracies can actually be true. 

    Ordinary people have lost power and influence.  Our society is such that many doors are closed to the powerless and fomenting or spreading conspiracies is a means to fight back. 

    4              Politics

    There is almost a complete loss of trust in politicians and the political process.  There is a widespread belief that we are constantly being lied to. This is linked to a belief that various forces – ill-defined – are actually running things – Liz Truss’ ‘deep state’.

    That there are background forces who exert some form of control is not altogether untrue, the City for example has considerable power.  But they are not totally hidden and we know who they are even if we don’t know all the details.  Media influence is strong and to state it is not a conspiracy. 

    There is a degree of muddle here in that there is some truth in the allegations (or is that conspiracy at work?).  The problem here is that the political world is murky.  Honesty and integrity is hard to find and knowing what is true or not extremely difficult. 

    5              Information

    Most of the information we get comes from various forms of the media.  Social media is substantially unmoderated and not controlled by anyone.  So any theory, however wild, can be posted on any one of dozens of sites and quickly gain traction.

    There are few controls and a desire to make a profit. If a lot of people believe there is life on Mars then it will find an outlet either because of a lack of control or because there is money to be made.

    People do realise that a handful of men own and control our media so it is not a conspiracy to believe this.  But it is likely to lead to ideas that we are not seeing/reading the whole truth.

    Belief in once trusted sources like the BBC has declined.  Partly due to constant attacks by rivals but also its own behaviour and not broadcasting stories for example around Gaza.

    The anti-vaxers are widely believed and are causing great damage in the US, less so here.  Dr Wakefield of MMR fame is back in business in the US and is widely believed.   I looked into one case, promoted by one of our local MPs and it was founded on nothing.  There was no science, no published papers and no peer review.   Just a motley crew of keep fit types, a gym owner and ordinary citizens expressing their views.  He also made a basic schoolboy error of confusing cause and effect.  But it has taken root and is very hard to shift. 

    Types of Conspiracy

    I suggest conspiracies take several different forms:

    1. Full on conspiracies.  These have no foundation in fact
    2. Partial conspiracies. These have some truth to them but are embellished by conspiracists into something much larger
    3. Actually true things which seem as though they are conspiracies
    4. True things which people believe to be conspiracies.

    Many years ago at a party in Brighton we were pinned in the corner by an American who told us at great length about a conspiracy involving President Nixon.  He seemed quite mad.  His story seemed fantastical and totally unbelievable.  A year or so later, Watergate broke.  Recognising truth from conspiracy can be extremely difficult. 

    I said at the start that they need to be believable.  That does not mean they necessarily have any truth at all.  That Microsoft was putting trackable microchips in vaccines was widely believed and spanned the globe.  It was believed because people thought it was possible.

    A perusal of the above will show that there is no way in the current world to prevent or even limit conspiracies.  The ease with which they can be started and spread, the sheer number of people who have the psychological make up to a) to believe in them or b) create them in the first place, is vast.  There is also the lack of serious penalties for carrying out this activity. 

    There is also the influence of overseas actors.  China, Russia and others are busy engaged in trying to destabilise the West and are actively engaged in cyber warfare an element of which is promoting conspiracies.

    They are ultimately undeniable.  Because there is no science or facts to support them, demonstrating their implausibility or falsity is impossible.  Attempting to do so is another conspiracy of itself. 

    Disinformation, Lies and Conspiracy

    There is a link between these factors. We are subject to disinformation that is, deliberately producing wrong information in order to persuade or confuse.  We are also lied to.  From individuals all the way through to governments, lies are told or truths withheld which is a form of lying.  Then there is conspiracy as discussed above.

    They are nearly all linked to power and a desire by those with power, or seeking it, to deceive for some kind of gain. They are not identical – that’s why I say ‘linked’. 

    The unifying factor is power.  From and individual through to a state or politician, they are a means to exert power over others.  However, as you move up the food chain so to speak, there is a risk for promoters of conspiracy theories to look foolish.  This is likely to be because of greater scrutiny by the media and others looking for the source of the claims.  This critical review is likely to reduce the likelihood of those at the top of the tree using them but it does not stop their currency.  Indeed it may even enhance it.  Think of the logic: there is a conspiracy, the rich and famous do not discuss it, ergo, it proves the conspiracy.

    PC

  • October Democracy Café

    Probably the 100th Café to be held

    We think this meeting was the 100th Café to be held and is a testament to the format that it has survived several different venues and came through the Covid crisis unscathed. Sadly, numbers were down for this meeting – the lowest for some while – but that did not inhibit the discussion.

    We are grateful to Salisbury Library for allowing us to use their venue.

    The first topic of the morning was the vexed question of immigration which has filled the airwaves in one form or another for months now. It featured strongly in the recent party conferences. The question was Surveys show that immigration is of prime concern at the moment despite other matters being more important: discuss. The first comment was to expand on the topic to say that Reform is largely centred on immigration and kindred matters and the other parties are keen to jump on the band wagon. Matters such as the NHS, education and roads for example are more important but do not receive the same attention. Another said immigrants had become the whipping boy for problems in the country and the concern was the degree of traction it was getting. A general election tomorrow would probably see a Reform government elected.

    Who’s to blame for this? Was it the likes of Robert Jenrick or the Labour party? Or was it the failure of politicians to stand up for immigrants and to point out that the NHS simply could not function without them? Why are they so defensive?

    One spoke of his early life experience going to Wales because his father was a key worker in the nascent plastics industry. They were given houses in Barry (of Gavin and Stacey fame) which was much resented by the locals. Life was quite uncomfortable such that many wanted to return to England. It is easy to understand the resentment however with English ‘immigrants’ arriving and taking the newly built houses (actually prefabs).

    One spoke of her discomfort at the display of St George’s flags. They were looking after a property tenanted by Egyptian medics. The neighbour next door displayed one of these flags and there was some unpleasantness. It was quite provocative.

    It was similar in some respects to Brexit someone suggested: a simple solution to a complex problem. Why were there no ‘grown ups’ in the room spelling out the [real] problems? Was it a case of deflection? Another thought was that voters tend to vote against something not for: voters were given some ‘ugly’ but simple things to vote against it was claimed. If the economy was doing well, perhaps there would be no need to demonise immigrants? A recent Question Time programme was mentioned where the audience appeared to turn against Reform which was encouraging.

    Much of the public debate centred on ‘illegal’ immigration but it is not illegal to enter the country to seek refuge. It was more properly ‘irregular’ immigration. It was demonising and dehumanising. There was a comparison with the ’30s in Germany and the campaigns against the Jews who were alleged to be to blame for many of the country’s ills and the loss of the Great War.

    There was some discussion about the role of the rich in our society triggered by an assertion that Nigel Farage receives massive coverage despite his party only having a tiny number of MPs. Having a simple message was part of the answer it was suggested. He also defended the position of the rich which was popular with our newspaper owners. In this connection, the recent events concerning the PPE scandal and the award against Baroness Mone in the PPE scandal was discussed. None had gone to prison it was noted. Millions had been spent on the court case but the award was against the company, Medpro, which is now in receivership and whether any of the £122m award will ever be seen is questionable. By contrast, benefit cheats do go to prison.

    Were political parties frightened of the rich? Promises to do something rarely came to anything. The distraction idea surfaced again, with suggestions, along the lines of Juvenal’s bread and circuses, that governments were more interested in distracting the voters rather than tackling root problems. Where the fundamental beliefs that used to determine the parties someone asked? Sir Keir Starmer’s lack of charisma and vision was mentioned.

    One curiosity was mentioned and that was how people spoke disparagingly about immigrants and others not from these shores but if they were in the presence of such a person would say ‘I don’t mean you’. It was a kind of ‘othering’ and how the word was detached from individuals. So people were grateful for help and treatment in a hospital from a foreign medic, but would still sound off about immigrants as though they were some kind of different species. It was noted however, that assaults and racial abuse on medical staff had increased dramatically.

    There was discussion about the use of the St George’s flag and how they were visible all across Somerset someone claimed. Some of the complaints about immigrants were not just about housing and ‘taking our jobs’ but suggesting it was to protect our daughters and the risk of rape. Dangerous lies were being told. There is an interesting post on the local Amnesty site on the immigrant/refugee situation.

    If there were some themes to emerge one was the pusillanimity of our politicians who were seemingly too afraid to praise the contribution of immigrants to our country. Second was the success of simple arguments peddled to complex problems and thirdly, finding scapegoats for problems no matter how relevant they were. Which sort of linked to the second topic …

    The second half of our debate tackled the notion ‘Did it matter which political party was in charge?‘ This it was explained was based on the assertion that a range of outside forces meant the room for manoeuvre by governments was extremely small.

    Parties keep a close eye on the polls and spend time with focus groups as they want to be re-elected. They have few principles that can survive this and the need to placate the media is another factor. There was also the question of representing the views of the electorate which politicians had to be mindful of. ‘It’s what my constituents want’ is a frequent cry from some politicians. They always claim to be ‘listening’. One anecdote was of a politician invited onto Desert Island Discs, who organised a focus group to give him advice on what records to choose [the politician was named]’. Tony Blair relied heavily of focus groups.

    We were reminded of the term ‘Butskellism’ which emerged in the ’50s and was a combination of two leading politicians Rab Butler (Conservative) and Hugh Gaitskell (Labour) because many key aspects of their policies were similar and centrist in nature. Both parties pursued broadly similar policies in fact.

    Politicians were in a difficult position it was noted. If they stuck to their principles they risked losing the whip and were of limited use to their constituents. Isabel Hardman in her book Why we get the wrong politicians (Atlantic Books, 2019) described the lonely and stressful world that some lived and how badly they were treated as backbenchers. It was suggested that this was less of a problem in Europe where they do not have whipping systems.

    Back to the question and the role of lobbying was mentioned. There was a considerable number of lobbyists in the Commons and they played a key role in shaping policy and representing the interests of their mostly, powerful backers. Many were centred on Tufton Street which has become infamous for their behind the scenes activities. They were sometimes referred to as ‘junk tanks’. Often their funding was opaque and they were funded by fossil fuel interests.

    There have always been lobbyists it was noted and they do sometimes have a purpose in introducing outside views and expertise into the political arena. There was discussion we have had before about the narrow nature and backgrounds of politicians in parliament. Public school, university, a think tank then into parliament. Many lacked real world experience. Shuffling between ministries was mentioned as discussed by Rory Stewart in his book Politics on the Edge: no sooner had a minister got to grips with a department, they were moved. The narrow pool from which ministers are chosen was also noted. Most were MPs (the occasional person from the Lords) and if you were appointing the boss of a major corporation, there is no way such a method would be used.

    There were comparisons with other countries where often circular arrangements were employed in their debating chambers to avoid the confrontational approach. In Belgium, ministers resigned their seats once appointed. It was noted that we seemed unable to learn from other countries. The UK system was not fit for purpose it was suggested, designed for managing the Empire not for the present day.

    But do we, the electors, have some responsibility? We demand low taxes in the belief we are better off the lower they are. The current government was in a bind having won power partly because of its low tax promises. We want the services, the NHS to be fixed and pot holes to be filled etc. but we do not want to pay higher taxes for them. Or rather, we want others to pay more but not us. It was noted that money spent on defence might be better used elsewhere.

    Two interesting debates, linked in some ways around responsible government, politicians to show more courage and to be honest and how increasingly, simple solutions and scapegoats employed to tackle complex problems.

    The next meeting, number 101, is on November 8th.

    Peter Curbishley

  • September Democracy Café

    Smaller group than usual but two fascinating topics

    At the end of this post you will be invited to think about the future development of the Café

    September 2025

    The Café took place a day or so after the murder of Charlie Kirk in Utah, USA. This has produced a huge degree of anger in that country and cries of vengeance. An element of this is the role of Christian Nationalism and this led to our first debate: Christian Nationalism, is it a threat to democracy? These ideas and beliefs seem to permeate many levels of American society and are influential certainly with young people. It combined God with government and together were a powerful force. It was disturbing they were able to persuade so many people.

    It was important to remember on the other hand that Christian values – whether you were a follower of the religion or not – had brought a lot to our world. Whether the sort of evangelism so common in the US could come to the UK was questionable. However, it was pointed out that one of the local MPs, Danny Kruger, had received substantial funding from Christian evangelicals which he failed to declare in time. [Kruger defected to the Reform party a few days after the Café took place]. An issue however was the selective interpretation of Bible teachings.

    People were looking for certainty someone suggested and the Evangelicals relied on Hebrew texts not the Gospel. Christian nationalism goes back a long way in the States it was noted despite the Constitution saying that Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion (First Amendment). The connection between church and state is a feature of the UK however and Tony Blair was mentioned briefly although he was famous for saying ‘we don’t do God’. Governments often talks positively about religion when it suits them, but then criticises them as being ‘political’ if they say something they don’t like. A separation of church and state was unlikely to happen in the UK it was thought.

    The Alpha Course was mentioned. This is an American evangelical course which is now established in the UK. There are some criticisms of its approach. It was claimed that the course misunderstands what aspects of Christianity is about [and several references on the internet seem to bear that out].

    There was then a bold statement that religion was ‘a form of manipulation of the masses’. There was considerable hypocrisy and my post [Facebook] about the enormous wealth of the Cathedral was noted and its failure to share that wealth locally. There was a fear of living a life which was bleak and pointless. This led to a discussion about whether abortion – and the various religious approaches to this difficult subject – was ‘political’ or not. All these subjects were political it was argued and there was tendency for all religions (Christianity and Islam were both instanced) to use texts for their own purposes: an echo of the comment above and Hebrew texts. Someone said that religion was about ‘we know the answer – it’s in the Bible’. That is, giving specific answers to a range of moral issues.

    This was developed by the suggestion that religion was transactional. For example, people feared death and it gave them the promise of immortality. It was suggested that religion was based on ‘getting something back’ (I assume for believers) if you follow their precepts.

    Someone spoke of their brother who had been an alcoholic but stopped and subsequently became a fundamentalist. Addiction seemed to be the point being made here. The Ten Commandments were mentioned at this point but then the fact that the Church ‘got rid of’ women [from the priesthood]. Were not some of the Apostles women? There was an anti-woman movement in the US. The late and hugely influential Charlie Kirk was quoted who said ‘black women don’t have brain power’, ‘Democrat women want to die alone without children’ and the much quoted remark that ‘Taylor Swift should submit to her husband’.

    The role of fundamentalist Christians funding settlements (mostly illegal) in Israel was mentioned. ‘It’s in the Bible’ they claim and if you attempt to argue with this you are deemed ‘anti-Semitic’ or just plain evil. Their fundamentalism meant there was no way to argue with them,.

    ‘Jesus gives my life a point’ and also meaning and a purpose someone said. She suggested that they should not leave their minds at the door to the church. She mentioned a service where people were free to say what they thought about Palestine Action. It was suggested that people should have a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other.

    ‘In the beginning was the word’ – was it? it was asked. The ‘creation myth’ is still believed it was noted [and still taught in some schools]. There was disagreement about the constancy of religious belief. Some argued that beliefs went back thousands of years, others argued that it was constantly evolving. Another issue was the meaning of words which have changed enormously over the ages. Translation was an issue as well and we were reminded of the bitter arguments surrounding the translation of the Bible into English.

    So did we answer the question put? Probably not although we did on the whole conclude that extreme positions on religion were unwelcome. Some fundamentalist positions meant argument was impossible: they had the truth. This was clearly the opposite to a democratic approach.

    The second half we switched to discussing the question With otherwise brilliant people, should we accept their warts [and all]? This was a reference to Peter Mandelson who had been sacked the previous day as Ambassador to the US following further revelations in the Sun concerning his relations with the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein. We seemed to be obsessed with undermining our leaders the presenter suggested. Mandelson was praised by many for doing his job well but clearly his relations with Epstein were more intense than apparently the prime minister was aware of at the time of his appointment.

    One aspect was that it was not a level playing field it was suggested. All week, the Guardian has been writing about the scandalous activities of Boris Johnson who used his position to secure millions yet this has not been mentioned on the BBC, Channel 4 or the Daily Telegraph. There seemed to be two standards where someone like Angela Rayner was intensely scrutinised whereas people like Boris Johnson seemed not to be despite the huge sums involved. We have a broadly right wing press keen to hound anyone it was said.

    Could there not be a system of apologies where people’s past indiscretions could be accounted for? The central question was ‘does this make you incompetent anyway?’ It was a problem for women especially. Men can have multiple affairs but for a woman, there was still a degree of shame attached to any activity of this kind. Will people stand for office or to become an MP etc if their past lives are crawled over? A female minister for X had a child out of wedlock – and? But for the tabloids it was fodder for a takedown and acres of prurient comment.

    At what point however can you wipe the slate clean and move on? A difficult question. Some may remember the Profumo scandal (seems tame by today’s standards) and the eponymous minister resigned and spent his remaining years working for a charity in the East End of London. There were personality types who don’t ever see they’ve done anything wrong – perhaps Johnson was an example of this. Apologies and clean slates were irrelevant in these cases as they will always carry on in the same shameless way. Unfortunately someone noted, they are attracted to power.

    Mandelson had been ‘unbelievably crass’ however. This was his third comeback and he did seem to be drawn moth like, to the rich and famous. Clearly, his charm had taken him far. Had in fact has he done anything wrong? Surely, it was suggested, he had stayed loyal to a friend. That is regarded by many as a positive quality. The question however centred around the gravity of Epstein’s offences it was argued. It was about powerful men abusing their positions and about child abuse.

    Mandelson was a protégé of Morgan McSweeney it was claimed schooled in the ideology of ‘the ends justify the means’. It was pointed out though that the Labour party did have an ethics adviser which the Conservatives did not for some while. The Nolan Principles were mentioned number 1 of which is ‘selflessness’ and No. 2 ‘integrity’. Hard to square with some recent behaviours.

    Back to the question and Fred Goodwin was mentioned as someone good at his job who had to step down after the near collapse of RBS. This was not really a relevant example because the rise and fall of Goodwin concerned his management and reckless expansion which led to disaster. He was not brought down by some kind of personal scandal. He was ultimately found not to be good at his job. [Famously, Goodwin hated mess, so filing cabinets had to have sloping tops to stop staff putting stuff on them].

    Richard Wagner was mentioned as a noted anti-Semite but is regarded as a major composer and still performed around the world. Picasso and his treatment of women was also instanced. However, they were not politicians so did not have direct effects on our lives.

    We ended by the observation that we needed a spectrum of people to run our affairs and we do not elect saints. As if to link with the first debate someone observed ‘let him without sin throw the first stone’ [John 8:7].

    Our thanks again to the Library for allowing us to use their space

    Peter Curbishley

    Future of Democracy Café

    We have been running the cafes for some time now and early in 2026 we will have our hundredth session. They are well attended and we regularly see over 20 come each month. We have had a very wide range of topics to debate and ideas for new ones never seem to be lacking.

    Following this success, the committee is wondering if we can extend the idea in any way? We do not want to change the DC itself under the principle of ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ but whether some similar idea could not be tried. There seems to be a thirst for political debate and it is very evident from our sessions that people are unhappy with the local political process, the local media landscape and the media generally, and are worried about democracy itself.

    Do you have any ideas? Please use the comments section or on Facebook where this post will be linked or contact us individually – whichever suits.

    Meanwhile, have you thought of joining us. We have a small committee and additional members would be welcome. Are you a subscriber?

  • August Democracy Café

    The Café tackled two contentious topics

    A colleague came into my office years ago and after a long discussion about a project not going well said “we must grab the nettle by the horns”. Well the first nettle we grasped at this Café was the vexed one of terrorism and we debated the question ‘Is terrorism ever justified?’ With the war in Gaza still raging and Hamas (a proscribed terrorist organisation) still in existence, if weakened, it is clearly a debate of some moment. What is a terrorist? The Oxford dictionary says: ‘a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods for coercing a government or community.’ There is nothing benign in this definition and the idea that it can be used as a means of persuasion was clearly not in the mind of the lexicographer.

    It was suggested the word emerged during the Iraq war (which is not in fact the case – it seems to date to the French Revolution and the period called ‘The Terror’). The distinction between violence against individuals in contrast to violence against a state was one of the first points made. It was important to distinguish between them it was said.

    The word is more nuanced it was noted. Echoing the last point, there was a distinction between violence against property and and violence against people. This is a matter of some significance concerning the banning of Palestine Action following its latest action of spraying paint over RAF aircraft at Brize Norton. (This very weekend, over 500 were arrested for allegedly supporting PA at a rally in London). It was interesting that Just Stop Oil were heavily policed but never proscribed despite similar tactics used by PA. The contrast with the farmers was noted who blocked many streets in and around London as part of their protests. There is no record of a single farmer being arrested.

    The suffragettes were mentioned who used violent and aggressive means to force the government to accept female enfranchisement. It followed many decades of peaceful protests by the suffragists which were largely unsuccessful. The word suffragette was coined by the Daily Mail as a term of disparagement. Misogyny has a long history in that paper clearly.

    Historically, the words ‘Freedom Fighter’ was often used for such activities but in recent times, terrorist seems to have taken over.

    The frightening effect of protests by supporters of Palestine on Jewish communities was claimed.

    The lack of democratic credentials was pointed out. It is perhaps difficult to see how a democratic process could be organised to support a terrorist organisation however. Neither the UVF or the IRA had any kind of formal democratic process in their formation. Later in the discussion it was said that terrorism exists when/where democracy has failed. This observation cropped up several times.

    The debate shifted a gear by asking can a state be a terrorist organisation with its own activities against its own citizens? Russia was mentioned. President Bush called a range of states an ‘Axis of Evil’ (Iraq, Iran and North Korea) for supporting terrorist activity beyond its boundaries. Governments can introduce laws which aren’t democratic. A state can demonise a cause they don’t like by calling it ‘terrorist’ a technique now widely applied around the world. In any event, who gets to decide on these definitions?

    We were reminded of the activities of the US in South America where nation after nation was threatened and its leaders murdered or overthrown if there was any sign of them becoming socialist or communist. In Chile, the murder of president Allende and his replacement by General Pinochet was given as an example of the role of the CIA.

    Do our definitions change if there is a war? During the Second World War, the French mounted a ‘resistance’ against the Germans. Would we call their activities terrorism? We didn’t because we approved of their resistance and the SOE supported them with their activities. Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the then Soviet Union, the US supported the mujahidin. Subsequently, with the occupation by the US they were fighting the same people whom they had armed and trained. Who or what is a terrorist seems to shift according to whether we approve of them or not.

    It was suggested that any country which has a secret service is by definition a terrorist state. An interesting proposition. Perhaps a country which invades another can similarly be described. This led to a discussion of ‘justified’ and how that could be defined and also ‘proportionality’. This latter being discussed in relation to Israel’s actions in Gaza. A key issue someone thought was when violence was used against civilians, the problem of Russian’s bombing Ukraine an example. Nelson Mandela was mentioned who was involved in the bombing of unmanned government buildings and was declared a ‘terrorist’ by President Reagan. One man’s terrorist …

    We were reminded that the UN allows the use of force against an invading nation.

    The discussion moved on to whether we should negotiate with terrorists. Northern Ireland was mentioned and the covert negotiations with the IRA. An interesting point was made: if there was some ‘right’ in the terrorist’s position then perhaps negotiations might be justifiable. There was an obvious danger of course, namely if anyone with a cause imagines that violence is a passport for negotiations then the results can only be imagined. Was there some kind of ‘sliding scale’ of justification for political violence? it was asked. At this point the book How to Blow up a Pipeline was mentioned which argued for aggressive approaches to climate change. Hamas was mentioned and it was claimed that they seek the extinction of Israel and are called terrorists. Israel seeks the destruction of Hamas and Palestine but are not called terrorists. [The BBC says Hamas is opposed to the existence of Israel which may or may not mean the same thing].

    We struggled with the word ‘justified’. Can the killing of civilians ever be justified? In Gaza it is the disproportionate nature and scale of the IDF attacks which many are concerned about.

    Definition came up several times. When a group is defined as a ‘terrorist’ organisation then governments stop negotiating with them. Understanding the underlying causes also disappears from view.

    Finally, this week was the 80th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Was that an act of terror by one nation on another? We did not explore that unfortunately …

    A difficult topic suffused as it is with meanings, politics and perspectives but an interesting discussion nevertheless and one worth exploring.

    The next topic was almost as controversial as the first namely, should the City Hall invite Katie Hopkins (pictured) to a gig at the hall? It appeared that some in the audience had not heard of her which is a kind of comment in itself. She came to fame on the BBC’s Apprentice programme and has since carved out a career for herself as a media person with a range of outspoken views. She deplores fat people and seems to have particular animus for women who stay at home after having a baby (having looked up a range of her quotes I discovered). The argument was essentially about the cancel culture which has gripped the universities. Some of her gigs have been cancelled it was claimed largely on public order grounds apparently.

    Did the booking and the purchase of tickets mean her views were endorsed by the hall and the

    audience? Some of the arguments hinged on KH being classed as right wing. It was a pity that more did not know of her comments because although they are, some might argue objectionable, few seem to be particularly right wing. The view that she was led to a question about whether a left wing comedian (Stewart Lee was mentioned) should be cancelled?

    It was argued that the City Hall was simply doing it for commercial reasons. One article was mentioned which caused much anger and many complaints was in the Sun where she referred to migrants as cockroaches. Objecting to her presence could be argued on acceptability grounds. It was divisive and these comments go against the values of our society. It was strongly felt by some that the City Hall should not be making money by inviting people whose act was built on causing offence.

    The counter argument was should we be concerned at offending people. Shami Chakrabarti has claimed that in the interests of free speech, we do not have a right not to be offended. Stand-up is sometimes outrageous, so where do you draw the line? The popular and award winning series on the BBC The Hour has been pulled and back issues are no longer available. It appears because it had low ratings rather than for any political or acceptability reasons (why back issues are not available is a puzzle though).

    In connection with a Tommy Robinson video, said to be professional, persuasive and manipulative, it was suggested that the educational system needs to catch up. There was a need for critical awareness to be introduced into Civics classes to help students grasp meanings and impacts. The Super Searchers Programme has been launched to enhance information literacy. However, it is run by Google – draw your own conclusions. An article in this month’s Byline Times discussed the topic of information with the familiar misinformation and disinformation, which we have discussed in several cafés, but added a third, malinformation which is using correct information for malign purposes.

    A point was made concerning humour and its use to mask prejudice. An article by George Monbiot in he Guardian discussed this aspect of humour by individuals like Rod Liddle who has a column in the Spectator. The article suggests that humour can be used as a form of ‘plausible deniability’ and as a cover for outrageous views such as getting rid of disabled people by starving them to death. Rod Liddle suggested bombing Glastonbury for some reason. Monbiot makes the point about Right v. Left: if a humourist suggested bombing the Conservative party conference there would be outrage. Suggestions of bombing Glasto are, well, humour. Can’t you take a joke?

    It was noted however that Bernard Manning made a career out of being outrageous and was hugely popular.

    An interesting idea was put forward about comedy: it is acceptable punching upwards at the powerful, less so punching ‘down’ to the powerless. Where that puts Bernard Manning’s many jokes about mother-in-laws is for you to decide.

    This was an example where debate could not settle a basic difference of view. For those who dislike unpleasant or divisive views being aired – whether or not wrapped up in humour – the likes of Katie Hopkins should not be promoted certainly not for profit. For others, however unpleasant, such people should be heard because the risk to free speech is a higher cause and one where we just have to put up with unpleasantness in its cause.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next meeting is on Saturday 13th September starting at 10:00 for 2 hours. We are grateful for the Library allowing us to use their space.

  • What is politics?

    A silly question but with a serious answer

    What is politics? A silly question, maybe, but a comment from Chris Dillow’s blog this week chimed with what I have been thinking of late: “Politicians make mistakes. This is inevitable because society is complex and knowledge is limited. But there are different types of error. Being bad at your job is one type, but another is simply not understanding what your job actually is. By some definitions of political activity, leading politicians have for some time been guilty of the latter.”

    Dillow picks up on issues such as transgender toilets and banning controversial bands as being not politicians’ business, and I think there are more areas where they have turned issues that are not in themselves political, into matters of partisan posing. It is at least arguable that politicians take on areas outside their remit as a form of displacement activity, as dealing with big issues is hard.

    There are many cases where legislation has been introduced to regulate activity unnecessarily (think of all the laws banning protesting activity), which could be better dealt with by following existing law rather than creating new ones. The argument about the small boats could have become much more helpful if politicians had agreed to act jointly instead of holding a bidding war as to who is the toughest. Reform is only the worst offender at inventing an issue and then demanding it be addressed. I am not suggesting that all political issues should be turned into a lovefest, but the present confrontational approach is at least timewasting.

    Political debate should be about principle and policy, how we might order and protect society and improve people’s wellbeing. Anything else is noise. Obviously, whether or not politicians are debating the issues, the issues still exist, but the British are very bad at taking responsibility, so politicians fill the gap (a gap frequently created by the media). Anyone is free to have an opinion, but decision-taking seems now to have been taken out of the hands of the relevant bodies and claimed by others (witness the number of U-turns of late). This is how we end up with a politics of impunity – it’s someone else’s fault, but I’ll apologise anyway, as long as you know it wasn’t my area of responsibility.

    If we could remove some conflicts from the parliamentary field, there would be more time to debate the direction the country could or should be taking. Ethical questions should be eschewed as far as possible unless actual legislation is required (the debate on assisted dying was much praised for its respectfulness and lack of partisanship. This would, I think, be the exception). Abortion, for example, is not a political matter; it is a health matter. “Wokeness” is not a political matter; it is a set of opinions. Anti-Semitism isn’t a political matter; it is bad manners.

    What would be left to the politicos? Economic policy (there is a clear left/right policy differentiation), foreign policy, resource allocation, climate change, food policy, governance – there’s lot to get on with. I would exclude immigration (largely a managerial issue), growth (a misguided aim) and most of welfare (should be dealt with at an appropriate [i.e. lower] level). But you can choose what you think should be the business of legislators; the point is to concentrate their minds on the important things and not to interfere with things which are the task of lawyers, the police or the Health Service.

    As a side issue, this would, in my view, help engage the public better. They would be clearer about who was responsible for stuff, they would recognize political posturing more easily and they would get a better sense of the differences between parties. I’m not asking for a return to ideological warfare, but rather that parties were forced to express their vision, or at least to acquire one. Better that than interminable arguments about BBC presenters.

    Andrew Hemming

  • Democracy Café: June

    June 2025

    A smaller group than usual assembled at the Library for this month’s Café, but the discussion was still diverse and considered. The first topic chosen was “What are the costs and benefits of AI?”

    One member noted that he had written an article back in 2016 on the subject and, rereading it, had found it surprisingly relevant. A review of the piece had some good recommendations.  Most members were of the view that AI had great benefits in terms of saving time on processing but were concerned about regulation.  A dissenting member observed that it was too late for such concerns, as AI had developed way beyond the ability of humans to control it – into the level of “general intelligence”.

    Apocalyptic visions aside, the debate was generally about the possible effects of using the power of AI to increase productivity but remove jobs.  Some found ChatGPT useful, particularly for scientific research; but mistakes can occur, and there were concerns about whether AI could overcome this.

    At a more philosophical level, it was felt that AI would remove free will, or at least lead a trend away from individualism.  The implications for art were considered.

    On regulation, it was questioned whether AI could regulate itself; the more advanced view was that AI would be concerned with its own survival and would evade regulatory interference.  This led on to a discussion of machine consciousness and thus human consciousness and how far we understand either.   Complex questions, but a stimulating debate.

    The second topic for discussion was “Should we increase defence spending to 3% of the total?”

    The consensus was that more spending on weaponry was pointless but the defence of the realm was still important.  The reason for the proposed increase was questioned, particularly the demand from the US that Europe as a whole should take on more of the burden.  Some agreed that we have had defence on the cheap.  There was also some debate about the UK’s role, bearing in mind that we have not always been able to demonstrate that we are a major power nor have much influence in the major conflicts. Our role as a seller of arms was also questioned.  It was generally felt that the Strategic Defence Review was not a useful contribution to the debate.

    Andrew Hemming

    NEWS

    For those of you who came to one or more of the People’s Assemblies, we are pleased to report that we will be able to present the results at a meeting of an Area Board early in July. This could be a big step forward for the SDA.

    Have you thought about joining us? We are working to bring a better way of doing politics in the area and we need supporters. It is free.

  • People’s Assembly

    Third People’s Assembly held today

    June 2025

    The third People’s Assembly was held today and we were delighted with the turnout of 42 (excluding the team so 50 altogether). There is always the worry when you run projects of this nature that come the day you’re faced with an empty room.

    There was eager debate and we were particularly pleased to welcome several local councillors. This is just an interim post and we will be putting up a more detailed one after our ‘wash-up’ team meeting tomorrow (Monday).

    It is clear however from the three sessions is that there is an appetite for debate and an eagerness to contribute to what should happen to Salisbury. We have been encouraged by the exercise and encouraged to follow up with other similar ideas.

    PC