June 2025
The third Assembly to decide on the top 5 ideas is today at the Football Club starting at 2pm. There may still be places if you want to take a chance!
Category: politics
-
Democracy Café
VE Day celebrations provided one of the topics for this months Café discussions
May 2025
Once again we must thank Salisbury Library for allowing us to use their space for our debate.
The 8th May is Victory in Europe Day and was celebrated this year with a high level of publicity. Only a handful of those who fought in the war remain now. The question posed was should we continue to celebrate VE Day? The first comment was that millions died and the war should never have happened. Politicians knew what Hitler was up to in the ’30s and should have acted sooner not wait until war was inevitable.
Perhaps we should say ‘commemorate’ not ‘celebrate’. It was important to remember and to learn some of the lessons. A Quaker perspective was that we should remember all the dead of all the wars. It was noted that one of Hampshire’s parks was the site of a former hospital for the thousands injured in the Crimean War. Now all that’s left is small plaque in the ground the memorial having been removed some years ago.
The claim was made that the celebrations are an ‘unfortunate political act with the purpose of maintaining imperialist and militaristic attitudes’. It had echoes of ‘keep Britain strong’. It fed some of the myths about ourselves someone thought, the erroneous claim that ‘we fought alone’ was strong. The reality that we were helped by many nations who provided soldiers and other support. It was also true that the contribution by Indian and Caribbean people had largely been written out of the histories. We were reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s quote ‘There was never a good war or a bad peace’ (1783).
The contribution of the Russians to the war was noted who were our allies at the time. They are not invited to the UK celebrations for obvious reasons. How was Germany celebrating these events it was asked? [They do seem to have a modest ceremony]. Germans were present at the Paris events. The EU was sanctioning two European politicians who went to the Russian celebrations in Moscow. The contrast with the Moscow ceremonies was remarked on where the parades consisted of weaponry and had a militaristic theme. Would there be a day when we and the Russians could celebrate together? That seems a long way off at present. Maybe the centenary could be held in Strasbourg with all the combatants there …
The myths about the war might have contributed to the Brexit decision by those who may not have fully appreciated the role played by other nations in the conflict and the ultimate victory. Some believed ‘we liberated them [the Europeans] so they should be grateful’ was a belief it was suggested.
There was nothing wrong in being proud of one’s country it was suggested.
A recurrent theme, stated by several, was the importance of remembering. These terrible conflicts which cost millions of lives and left millions more wounded, should not be forgotten but the precise nature of how they should be remembered was unclear. Several were unhappy at the jingoistic nature of the VE Day celebrations and the ‘capture’ of the event by politicians, royalty and the military. Should we just have Armistice Day? Dunkirk was mentioned which had been a major disaster for the BEF and resulted in a huge loss of equipment and men. Yet somehow it has been transformed into a celebration and the ‘Dunkirk spirit’ was part of the nation’s folk law.
Finally, the role of the UN was raised as an instrument to act as international policeman. This had been one of the intentions following the failure of the League of Nations. However, it was pointed out that the US which had become the supreme power after the war and did not want a UN able to interfere or ‘police’ its affairs. We do not take international law seriously was a sobering thought.
In the second half we debated the notion should voting be made compulsory? One of the problems of our debates which are introduced without prior preparation is that most do not know the background facts. There is a detailed discussion of this topic in Wikipedia and since Australia was mentioned, they have had the system since 1924. There are around 20 countries which have it. Chile also has this system it was noted.
The topic arose because of the recent local elections (and one parliamentary by-election) where it was noted that the Reform candidate won on a 20% turnout in a local constituency. With so few voting was it time to make it compulsory? The point was made that it is our responsibility as citizens to take part in the selection of those who run things.
The right to vote was hard won over many decades. The suffragists and the suffragettes were mentioned.
The problem was that many thought that their vote would not make any difference. Although enormous attention was paid to the voting process and elections, we were reminded that parliamentarians and the government itself were subject to sustained and well funded lobbying. MPs were not always transparent about the degree of outside influence they were subject to or represented. All MPs should declare their interests in all debates and not rely on various rules which allowed them not to do this. In media interviews, interviewees are never asked ‘who funds you?’ leaving voters in the dark about the role and influence of lobbying and vested interests.
The MP for nearby East Wiltshire, Danny Kruger, is currently being investigated by the Commons authorities for allegedly not declaring his involvement and funding by a religious organisation opposed to the Assisted Dying bill.
It was inevitable it was suggested that MPs came with a set of beliefs and views which they could hardly leave at the door of the House of Commons. Perhaps it was a cynical view but the point was made that any politician bent on a career in politics had ‘sold their soul’ so was there any point in a deep dive into their background and beliefs?
If compulsion was introduced then various changes would have to be made. What about people who did not have mental capacity? What about people who were living abroad for an extended period?
It was noted that many did not vote because they thought none of the parties or candidates would make any difference to their lives. So there would have to be a ‘none of the above’ is compulsion was the norm. We should not overlook the fact that low turnouts were a measure of people’s frustrations. The low level of voting by young people was troubling and it was suggested that they felt ‘screwed over’ by the current system. However, voting was one of the few times we could make our views known.
One issue with local politics was they were strongly influenced by national events. So people tended not to vote for who was the best candidate locally but to express displeasure at what the government was doing. So many may have voted locally for Reform for example with its strong statements on stopping the boat crossings, about which they could do next to nothing locally as it was a national – not to say international – issue. An increase in independent candidates would overcome this in part it was suggested. Frome was mentioned and someone noted that in Cornwall there were attempts to organise locally to solve local problems.
Many asked what would be the sanctions for not voting?
The next meeting is on June 14th.
Peter Curbishley
A reminder that the third People’s Assembly takes part on June 1st at the Football stadium starting at 2pm. If you’re interested in coming please contact Mark on mapotts53@gmail.com or leave a note here.
Would you like to join us on the committee? We are trying to improve the standard of political decision making including the introduction of citizen’s juries.
Latest posts:
-
Democracy Café: April
Two topics discussed of current political interest
April 2025
The Café took place days following Donald Trump’s announcement of a range of tariffs which has caused ructions in world markets and threaten to destroy the way the international economic system has worked since WWII.
But the winning topic was of a domestic nature and concerned a government bill which aim to introduce a system of reports which in their wording: ‘[…] is to prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council’s Imposition guidelines, reinforce equal access to pre-sentence reports and support consistency in application across all demographic groups‘. The worry was that there is not currently a ‘level playing field’ and that certain groups – ethnic minorities, people from religious minorities, and women – suffer differentially in the justice system.
This had become politically sensitive with some politicians claiming that white people would suffer from this treatment if it became law. It would create a two tier system they maintained and white people would accordingly suffer. It was argued that courts needed to take everyone’s circumstances into account in relation to sentencing. The book The Devil You Know was mentioned in this connection, written by a psychiatrist who interviewed people who committed serious crimes to try and understand their stories and motivations. She gave this year’s Reith Lecture series.
Objectors said that it risked introducing a two-tier system and one politician said it was ‘blatant bias against Christians’ and ‘straight white men’. It was noted however that there was already a two-tier system with a disproportionate number of black men in prison. It was also noted that since the ending of legal aid, there were many who could not obtain justice at all. Another change which has taken place in recent years was victim statements. These were introduced to remind the courts that there were people who had suffered greatly from a criminal act.
A case was mentioned of someone who had entered the country illegally, held for 7 years without charge [I could not find a reference to this]. How can the legal system justify this?
It was argued that the legal system has arisen from a power structure which was essentially Christian in nature. Not everyone agreed with this: many of our laws were based on common law going back centuries. We were also reminded that early Christians were extremely violent in the promotion of their beliefs.
Digression
At this point we digressed from the topic in hand and the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt was mentioned. She was the lady arrested and eventually found guilty by the court in Bournemouth for breaching the Public Spaces Protection Order by standing outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth holding a sign saying ‘Here to talk if you want to’. She was fined £20,000 and given a conditional discharge. These are the bald facts of the case as widely reported. It was suggested however, that this was an attack on the freedom of expression. It was also suggested that Tossici-Bolt was on the other hand a ‘front’ for American evangelicals. The US funded organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) did indeed help fund the case but I could find no evidence that she acted for them. Readers would need to refer to their website to understand the nature and activities of this organisation. [They also have an extensive Wikipedia entry].
It was questioned whether she had been warned before her arrest? She had indeed been asked to move by the police but refused. She had also been offered a fixed penalty notice but she declined it, hence her arrest. The Americans had commented on the case as an example of the lack of free speech in the UK. She is free to speak and campaign but to do it outside the PSPO.
There was discussion about the extent of Christian influence on our laws. It was noted that historically, people believed they would go to hell (in the literal sense) if they lied in court for example. Christianity has strongly influenced our culture and beliefs it was argued and it was noted that in the US, God and religious beliefs were a powerful influence. It has driven their views on abortion for example [see the reference to ADF above who funded the overturning of Roe v, Wade] The benign nature of early Christianity was questioned however as they were extremely violent in promoting their beliefs in the early centuries.
We were reminded of Lord Acton’s quote ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.
On the struggle for power, Magna Carta was mentioned which concerned a very narrow group of people namely the King, the Barons and some property owners. The word ‘woman’ only appears once in the document. This prompted the comment concerning the present day and the farmer’s protests (being property owners I think was the link though not all farmers own their land). Despite causing disruption in London concerning their protest about the capital gains tax changes introduced last year, none had been arrested. This was contrasted with the arrest of women in a Quaker meeting house in Westminster who were planning a protest.
But back to the question and it was said surely, it is better to be informed about people (during the judicial process) than simply to continue with the policy of locking people up? Someone who had been a social worker said he was often asked to produce reports by the courts but he did not think this was for everyone. We have too many in prison and this contrasted with the Nordic countries and the Netherlands who were reducing their prison populations. However, the role of the media and its allegations towards any politician advocating such ideas was that they were guilty of being ‘soft on crime’.
Overall, there was probably agreement that it was better for courts to be informed about defendants and their circumstances rather than just rely on punishment.
For our second debate, we looked at the proposition: was what has happened in the US [Trump and the tariffs etc] a blessing in disguise? We had a somewhat Hollywood view of America and some of the realities of life there did not always reach our screens. The health service for example: we have seen several TV series showing heroic doctors – Dr Kildare and ER for example – whereas around 20 million Americans had no access to health care. Someone who had lived in America said that she had received excellent service in the US whereas she has been waiting months for treatment here. Someone else who had worked in the US said he knew of someone involved in a motorcycle accident which damaged his leg, but who did not have Medicaid, was taken to a hospital where they simply amputated it, no attempt was made, it was suggested, to save it which might have happened if he did have medical insurance.
The economic effects of Trump’s actions were mentioned and how there had been some ‘bragging’ about the economic effects especially from those who had profited from the stock market gyrations. One suggested it was a ‘clever business deal’.
Brexit was mentioned and the idea that we could stand on our own since leaving and this looked a little fragile now in view of Trump’s actions and tariffs. We should form closer links with Canada and the EU. We should also be supporting the UN and the ideas of accountability and the rule of law. Gordon Brown had suggested using the IMF and the World Bank in the process of building a new world order. The problem however is that both institutions are American controlled. Removing the dollar as a reserve currency was another suggestion which is something China and a clutch of other countries like Brazil and South Africa is trying to do. It was noted that Iraq, then the largest oil producer, wanted to tie its production to the Euro and this might have been part of the motive for the Iraq war. Since the stated reasons for the war (Iraq’s alleged programme to produce weapons of mass destruction and links to AL Qaeda were both wrong) this theory is not altogether outlandish.
How feasible was detaching ourselves from the US it was asked? The US has cut aid to WHO and its own US aid programmes but other countries had not stepped forward to fix the breach. We were closely linked militarily with bases around the country. We had very close links between the intelligence services particularly the NSA and GCHQ. We also made components for American aircraft such as the F35. Detaching ourselves from these relationships would be both difficult and unwise. We were reminded of the Five Eyes programme.
History goes in cycles it was noted. The US has a constitution (which the UK hasn’t) and Trump was facing many legal challenges. The Washington Post was mentioned but we were reminded that it had been acquired by Jeff Bezos who had prevented it from endorsing the Democrats at the election. We must be aware of US firms seeking investments in key areas such as Palantir. They were looking to acquire NHS data and the worry was the government would sell this off cheaply for short-term gain and to the detriment of the long-term health of the country. Allowing such firms to have access to the NHS’s data is a huge risk. The other concern was tax and major US firms like Amazon make massive profits in the UK yet managed (quite legally) to pay next to no tax since the transactions take place in a tax haven.
How will it all end? Even if Congress decides to stand up to him, the results could be violent since many Americans feel he speaks for them. We were reminded of the massive gun ownership in the States. Attention was drawn to the film Civil War which was a kind of imagined scenario of what an insurrection could look like in the States.
It was noted that two US Supreme Court justices were reported to be quite angry over recent events and ignoring established government protocols. It has centred around the Court’s demand that Kilmar Abrego Garcia be retrieved from El Salvador. It showed that Trump can be resisted.
The gradual decline in international law prompted the thought of what happened in the 1930’s in Germany where the Nazis gradually built their power by denigrating the law and gradually reducing rights along the path to power. Was there a risk of similar things happening in the UK?
Did we debate the question? Not really. Perhaps we are too close to it and the events too raw for notion that it might be for the long term benefit of the UK to forge closer links with like minded nations. We were warned that the idea of forming a closer link with China had serious risks.
Books mentioned:
The Devil You Know, 2022, Dr Gwen Adshead, Faber & Faber Ltd
The Darkening Age: Christian Destruction of the Classical World, 2017, Catherine Nixey, Macmillan
Next meeting on May 10th. The next People’s Assembly takes place on June 1st at the Football Club starting at 2pm. Booking is done by contacting mapotts53@gmail.com. It is free but a small contribution can be made if you wish. [UPDATE: 15 April] We’ve just held our second on 13th and a write up is now posted. There is a report of the first here.
Have you thought of joining us? We are trying to improve the standard of democracy and governance in the area and would welcome anyone with similar interests to join us.
1748786400days
hours minutes seconds
until
People’s Assembly
-
A House of Experts
Fresh thinking on how to reform the House of Lords
As a long-time supporter of the idea of citizen’s assemblies, I have felt conflicted by the current argument about the future of the House of Lords. While the present structure of the Lords is clearly untenable, we must be wary of replacing it with something that might turn out not a whole lot better. For a continuous second chamber, I suggest we need to think from scratch what would be the best option rather than trying to squeeze an existing concept into the same hole.
The organisation Assemble want a House of the People (presumably an anti-political entity). Others have suggested an elected house based on a form of proportional representation, or a house representing the regions in some form, or a random body of people like a jury. My concern would be how much are they bringing to the table? It’s all very well to say that ‘politics is broken’, but where does that leave you? If we want a complementary House of Ex-Lords, surely it should bring in those unrepresented by the Commons? I don’t mean the underprivileged, who need better representation, which can only come from a better working democracy rather than a replacement body. My view is that we need greater expertise.
MPs have to learn about a lot of things on the job. The fact that so few of them have experienced work in “normal” jobs before parliament only makes the situation worse. Also, of course, government and opposition parties will adopt stances based on political criteria rather than objectivity or close study of the issues. So, to have a body of people on hand who know stuff could only be beneficial. It would also obviate the activities of lobbyists, as they could be scrutinised at source.
So the House of Experts I would envisage would be something like up to 500 people who are specialists in their fields. They would serve for, say, 6 months (on sabbatical?) and being replaced by persons with similar qualifications, to cover those areas where legislation is problematic (probably all of them!). It would mean that, instead of the current situation where politicians declare their aims of fixing a problem in five years, say, the detail and difficulties and realistic solutions would be in the open debating chamber rather than muttered by people who lack the resource to influence what happens.
Since the chosen members would not be parti pris, debate would be a more constructive, Habermasian procedure than the antagonistic Commons (to be fair, the current Lords and proposed citizen’s assemblies also aim to do that). Selection procedures would be up for debate: one possibility would be choosing by geography (different areas might have different approaches to issues). It would also be useful to have overlapping knowledge areas debating in the same place (e.g. climate change and farming).
An obvious question that arises concerns the authority such a chamber may have. Is it purely advisory, or can it legislate, in which case by what right? My feeling is that it should be essentially advisory, but that the Commons would have to have very good reasons for going against the advice of the Experts. I would not expect the new House to be able to initiate legislation.
So where does that leave our cherished citizen’s assemblies? In a better place, because I believe they are more suitable for specific (and maybe local) issues than as a national body (think of a CA deciding foreign policy). It was originally felt that their value lay in resolving political impasses, and I would expect there to be a future in that line of business. This would also, of course, do away with the problem of maintaining such bodies, as they would be entirely ad hoc. Even better, it would stop complaints that we are trying to take over from the politicians!
Andrew Hemming
-
Democracy Café
March Café takes place today
March 2025
The March Democracy Café takes place today, 8 March, starting at 10:00 as usual in the Library, upstairs. For new people, it lasts 2 hours with a short break. The idea is to discuss a topic suggested and voted on by the people present. We usually end up selecting two topics. You do not have to have a topic (and broadly speaking, half of those who come don’t) but you are welcome to participate in what is chosen.
Some may have attended our first People’s Assembly last Saturday or you may have read about it in the Salisbury Journal or the Avon Gazette. This is part of our programme to involve people in political debate and decision making. Many feel frustrated by the current system where political parties seem to be dominated by commercial or media interests. If you missed last Saturday, there are two more and the next is on 13th April starting at 2pm. The link above tells you how to reserve a space.
Members
Have you thought of joining us? We want to do more and our ambition is to have a Citizen’s Assembly sometime. This is a process where people attend several weekends to debate a topic or problem and this is informed by the presence of experts in that field. The results where this has been tried have been impressive. We welcome those who would like to join us in our endeavours. Wiltshire is proving a hard nut to crack being somewhat stuck in its ways with a ‘we know best’ attitude: but we’re still trying.
-
People’s Assemblies are coming to Salisbury
Citizen involvement idea coming to Salisbury
February 2025
NOTE SMALL CHANGE TO DATES AND TIMES IF YOU HAVE VISITED BEFORE
Does Salisbury need a People’s Assembly? We at Salisbury Democracy Alliance think it does and we have been campaigning for one for many years. Our mission is to improve the quality of decision making in the area and to increase the involvement of citizens in such decision making. Our political system is essentially to hold periodic elections and once elected, we tend to leave them to get on with it. We want to improve on that.
Finally, it seems that we are going to achieve our aim thanks to the support of the national organisation Assemble. They believe our current system is broken with poor decision making at the national level, and capture of government by outside and corporate interests. The first People’s Assembly in Salisbury will be on Saturday 1st March from 2 – 4:15pm at the Quaker Meeting house.
A second one will be held on Sunday 13th April from 2 – 4:15pm at St Gregory’s Hall, Salisbury.
The third one will be held on Sunday 1st June at the Football Club, same times.
At both sessions, participants will discuss what the main issues are facing Salisbury (local or national) and what solutions they propose. These issues and proposals will be fed through to local politicians (The local elections are in May) and after a third Assembly in Salisbury in June, they will be forwarded to the National People’s Assembly being held in July. The National Assembly will have the ear of independent MPs, some of whom are supportive of Assemble.
If you want to participate in the People’s Assemblies please respond to the email below letting us know which ones you would prefer to attend. You may attend as many as you like. Attendees at our assemblies will also have the opportunity to attend the national people’s assembly to discuss issues facing the country. It is, of course, free to attend the assemblies.
We believe that this is a way of giving people the time and space to discuss issues and getting people’s voices heard through a deliberative process.
If you want to participate in one of the People’s Assemblies please respond to this email letting us know which of the two you would prefer to attend. You can respond to this post or send an email to mapotts53@gmail.com. There will be more posts on this topic as time goes on.
Picture shows a Talkshop we held about 2 years ago which has similar features to this project.
Your message has been sent
-
Democracy Café
November 2024
Post amended 23 November
A lively and well attended session on the Saturday following the wonderful/disastrous (please delete as appropriate) election of Donald Trump to be the next president of the USA. You may not be surprised to know that eight of the 10 topics people proposed were, in some way or another, connected to this event. The one actually chosen was Why did the Democrats lose the election?
It was suggested that many – a bit like the UK election – didn’t like either candidate, so ‘held their noses’ and voted for Trump partly because he fitted their views. It was suggested that Donald Trump focused on the economy (mostly) whereas Kamala Harris by contrast spent time on things like women’s issues and seldom discussed the economy. It was noted that in fact the economy was doing quite well with 2.2% growth and inflation at 3% but the Democrats failed to get the message across.
The elephant in the room someone said was the middle east and Gaza in particular. Democrats were put off by Harris’s attitude and silence and many Moslem’s did not vote.
Another factor it was noted was the late entry by Harris and the lack of a primary. She had little time to establish herself. She was a poor candidate someone thought. Would there have been a different result if the Democrats had had a better candidate it was suggested? I was asked, after the meeting, to include this link to a Guardian article from someone who worked for the Democrat team over the pond. It is an interesting perspective.
A different view concerned people’s lack of understanding of economics. The discussion moved to the UK at this point and it was noted that it is not taught in schools below A level. It is seen as a specialist subject and is a small part of the curriculum even where it is taught. Bill Clinton’s ‘it’s the economy stupid’ was quoted to express how important the subject was to people. In this connection, it was said that whereas the economy might be performing well but for many Americans, life was a struggle. Someone who’s son was in Texas said they don’t feel well off.
Back to the USA and the Democrats had a credibility problem it was said. Her focus on gender identity issues; women’s rights combined with Jo Biden’s very visible decline contributed to their loss of credibility. Someone did ask: ‘did Harris achieved anything?’ (as VP) which was left unanswered. But then it was noted that vice presidents seldom did achieve much – it was the nature of the post. We were reminded that if Trump should be unable to carry on as president for some reason, JD Vance will assume power … We swiftly moved on.
At this point it was noted that the word ‘populist’ has not been used. It was a pity we didn’t discuss this further.
A different perspective emerged when someone reported on some comments made by Bony Greer on the last edition of BBC’s Question Time. She is reported to have said the US was a completely different country sitting as it was between two oceans. It was populated almost entirely by immigrants yet most saw themselves as ‘post immigrants’. Immigration was a hot topic in the election and a weakness for the Democrats. Rather like the boat people in the UK, immigrants coming across the border from Mexico were not popular. Trump had tuned into these feelings. It was noted that home produced goods will be more expensive than imports and how will Americans cope with that? Wages were not keeping pace with inflation.
America had prospered after the war and had many manufacturers of cars, domestic goods, clothes and much else. Many of these jobs had gone overseas and had left vast swathes of middle America with few jobs. Detroit was an example. Although the country might be prosperous, large areas weren’t and there was much poverty. As someone noted ‘it was easy to be a liberal when you’re better off’.
It was easy to be a liberal if you are better off
It seemed to suggest America was becoming more isolationist. The proposal to impose tariffs on import with China likely to attract 60% was perhaps evidence of this. On the other hand it was noted that America has a history of involvement around the world. It had intervened in many South American countries fomenting coups and other activities.
In the second half we felt sufficient time had been given to the American election and decided on the topic of the Intimidation of media in the UK. The proposer mentioned the Electronic Intifada site and the arrest on terrorist charges of one of its journalists. Craig Murray was also mentioned who was sacked from his diplomatic post after exposing human rights abuses by the Karimov regime. The contention was that journalists were being arrested for carrying out honest journalism. [Amendment 23 November. It was clear that few had heard of the arrest mentioned at the start of this paragraph which in a way, reinforces the point that it is not just mis and disinformation but the denial of information by the media. In December’s Byline Times, Peter Oborne has written a short piece which is relevant and of interest].
SLAPPs were mentioned as another pressure to limit press freedom. [There is no single definition of what is a SLAPP – Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation – but they consist of a range of legal measures to make exposing wrongdoing extremely expensive and act to prevent publication of such wrongdoings because the costs are too great. It is generally agreed that SLAPPs act against the public interest and free speech]. It was noted that London is regarded as the ‘libel capital of the world’ and venue of choice for those wishing to silence criticism.
We were urged to read publications such as Declassified UK which publishes stories the mainstream media is reluctant to. There was also the D Notice system and that we are not allowed to know that such a notice is in existence. The current conflict in the Middle East was mentioned and how journalists were muzzled, although it has to be noted that they are not allowed into Gaza. In this context, Haaretz was mentioned, which despite being based in Israel itself, was a surprising source of information which does not see the light of day in British media.
The debate hovered around independent views in the context of the media and someone wondered if there was much demand for this? In the context of the US it was suggested that, to quote, ‘they couldn’t give a monkey’s’ (for independent views). People read material which reflected their opinions. Byline Times was mentioned (and recommended) by a few as providing some kind of spotlight on media activity. Others suggested Tortoise Media and Middle East Eye. This suggested the importance of critical thinking – a topic we have discussed in previous DCs – and the ability to analyse critically what we are being told. The distinction (in the media) between fact and opinion was important it was stressed and indeed, some media did make this distinction clear.
An ex Open University tutor stressed the importance language and the meaning in words. Students were encouraged to carefully appraise what they were reading to establish its reliability. We were invited to look up Harry Frankfurt, the author of several books on the subject of ‘bullshit’ which he has carefully analysed (these Americans, whatever will they think of next?). You may wish to follow this link which is a sea of text I’m afraid but nevertheless, does give you a good insight into this topic.
Facts someone said, were all very well, but they did depend on your perceptions. I think the point being made here was that fact was difficult to discern and it did depend on the recipient’s interpretation of them hence, could anything be a fact? What a pity Wittgenstein could not come to our discussions and help us out. That, come to think of it, is a fact. Someone noted the idea of ‘evidence based medicine’.
Back to the original topic and problems of free speech. The Southport riots saw many people arrested and imprisoned as a result of the violence. The problem was free speech and the distinction between ‘inciting’ and ‘challenging’. Who decides? The first amendment in the US guaranteed free speech (an issue which may be tested if Donald Trump’s threats are to be believed) which we do not have in the UK. It was noted that ‘one person’s rioter is another person’s freedom fighter’ (Gerald Seymour, 1976). There was a link between ‘fact’ and ‘values’ a comment which seemed to echo the issue of perception.
No platforming a slippery slope towards totalitarianism
Concern was expressed about the notion of ‘hate speech’. It led to things like no platforming in universities where those who’s views are deemed unacceptable are not allowed to speak. This was a slippery road that led to totalitarianism it was suggested.
The internet and the world wide web were seen as hugely beneficial when they first appeared around three decades ago. They have a huge influence over our lives but no one voted for them. We are now on the verge of an AI revolution but again, no one has voted for it.
Comment
Two really interesting debates and although we have oft debated the media in these meetings, we somehow broke new ground this time. Perhaps the war in the Middle East and Gaza has exposed the weaknesses of the mainstream channels. The alternative sources mentioned above together with al Jazeera and – somewhat surprisingly, Haaretz – provide more insight into the terrible events taking place there. The threat side of things is something we have not touched on before and it will be interesting to see if some of the restrictive legislation passed by the last government will be repealed by the new. Perhaps it would be inadvisable to hold one’s breath.
Peter Curbishley
Next meeting on 14th December at 10:00 in the Salisbury Library. People seemed to like the table less format so we will repeat that. It’s only the scribe who loses out …
-
Abolishing the House of Lords
Seminar by the Sortition Foundation to create a ‘House of Citizens’
June 2024
We attended a Zoom seminar run by the Sortition Foundation in which they proposed the abolition of the House of Lords and replacing it with something they call a ‘House of Citizens’. They are calling it the ‘858 Project‘ after the year Henry II created juries.
Trust in the HoL is low among the public at large. The average age is 71, it is mostly white and 71% are men. The majority are ex-politicians and most vote with their party. We are the only country, apart from Iran, where religious people (bishops) have seats in the Lords as of right. Watching a debate is to witness a slow and ponderous process as one after another elderly person totters to their feet to deliver a homily about some arcane subject few outside would be interested in. They are paid a handsome daily attendance fee and there was a scandal some years ago where it was revealed that many signed in and immediately left thus qualifying for their (tax free) attendance allowance but contributed nothing.
However, Ian Dunt in his recently published book How Westminster Works and Why it Doesn’t puts forward a different view and claims that on the whole, the HoL does good work by correcting and carefully considering shoddy and ill-considered legislation sent up from the Commons. Despite appearances and of course the presence of a number of charlatans and dodgy characters, there is a significant number of members who have solid experience to offer, considerably more than is present in the lower house. Despite whipping, there is a higher degree of independence and willingness not to tow the party line.
Since we do need a second chamber, how it should be formed needs careful thought. Sortition’s idea of 300 citizens who would serve for a year and paid what an MP is paid might not be the answer. Even informed by experts, their effectiveness might be questionable. For a start, anyone who watches programmes on television with audience participation will note that their ability to ask fundamental questions is generally limited. Vox pops are frequently embarrassing with participants able to say more than they like or dislike various politicians. The assumption that there is this vast pool of wisdom ‘out there’ whereas the HoL and the Commons is populated by fools and knaves is neither fair nor accurate. There are many hard-working and intelligent parliamentarians who work selflessly for the country and their constituents. Unfortunately, they are not usually the ones who regularly turn up to be interviewed on College Green.
How long will it be before the established parties begin to get their people elected to the House of Citizens? How many will stay the course once the shine has gone off and the need to plough through reports and research becomes part of their duties? And is a year enough? Ministers complain that the frequent moves mean by the time they get to grips with their department, they are moved on often after only a year or so. By the time these citizens have learned the ropes their time will be up. How many people with appropriate skills will be able (or their employers allow) a year to take part in this?
So an interesting seminar and Sortition are going out to consultation. Saying that the HoL is non-functioning is not altogether true. Booting out the bishops and hereditary peers would be a good first step. There is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater however. We need a second chamber composed of people with experience and dedication. I am not convinced that a House of Citizens is the answer although all praise to Sortition for starting this debate and trying to force it into the open.
Peter Curbishley
-
Democracy Café: June
June 2024
This café took place two weeks into the general election and just after what had become a major faux pas by the prime minister who left the D-Day landing commemorations early to attend an ITV interview. This had produced a blizzard of negative publicity and Rishi Sunak issued an apology. It brings us to our first topic which was what is the purpose of commemorating military achievements and is the purpose achieved?
Referring to the Normandy landings, it was noted that there are few survivors left and that this was probably the last to be held on that scale in Normandy. How long do we continue with them and what is the aim? One said it was important to say ‘thank you’ to all those who took part and the many who gave their lives. It did also promote the idea of ‘never again’. However, this was also the theme of WWI commemorations – the war to end all wars – yet it did happen again. Incidentally, the invasion planning was carried out in nearby Wilton.
There were worries about glorification though. There was also concern about only commemorating wars we won, what about the losses and defeats? War was about both. ‘Lest we forget’ is one of the phrases one hears at these events but one speaker noted a memorial to the Boer War in Hampshire has disappeared leaving only a base. This war had a profound effect on British social policy following what was termed the ‘recruits crisis‘ and an initially disastrous campaign yet has now been forgotten.
One of the central points about the D-Day invasion was that it was a collaborative effort between us, the US, Canada and a host of other nations from what was then the Empire. It was a celebration of what nations did together to defeat an enemy. Referring to Rishi Sunak’s early exit it was noted that in his apology he said “having attended all the British events, I returned home before the international leaders event later in the day”. It was remarked that this had a kind of hint of Brexit to it: the notion of being part of an international commemoration was less important than focusing on the British side of things. This theme recurred later in the discussion with the question on how we get on with our neighbours. We seem happy to celebrate a violent event (however worthy and necessary) but less happy at celebrating peace. Was it because conflicts generally generate media attention? Defeating the Nazis was a simple and easy to understand story.
On the subject of peace one speaker spoke about peace education and how they had attempted to introduce it into schools. Some schools had agreed but it often didn’t last (parental disapproval?) but they were happy to invite in military representatives.
The discussion moved on to the question of generational issues. It was suggested that these commemorations are a product of the ‘boomer generation’. Some of them harboured the belief that ‘Britain is great’ and any idea of national service was not for them – the sort of thinking that led to Brexit. In a similar vein, Britain is a much more diverse nation now, how important was D-Day for them?
There was discussion around the political issues. What did politicians believe? For the veterans it was important to keep the memories alive and it was obvious it affected them deeply. Some became tearful when remembering lost friends and comrades even after all this time.
We were reminded that WWII was total war and millions were involved on the home front and in factories and other locations, all of whom played a part in the invasion. The commemorations tended to focus on the military side of things.
But back to the question and whether it has had its time. We tend to skip over the military defeats and it was noted that victors get to write the history. Are we clinging to the wrong things? Part of the answer is that D-Day is still relatively close. We do not remember the battle of Hastings for example yet which had huge implications for the country: a chunk of our language, the pattern of land ownership and our judicial system all derive from that event.
Surely what was needed was to teach children critical thinking. If more were able to question the background to wars, why they happen and the political or diplomatic failures that often led up to them, then this might lead to greater reluctance by the public for military adventures. We need to understand the politics of war and how they happen.
The absence of a Russian presence in Normandy was noted for obvious reasons. Yet the eastern front was crucial to the success of D-Day since many German divisions were tied up in the east (or wiped out in Stalingrad) which thus improved Allied chances on the beaches. Despite the problems in Ukraine, there is no commemoration of the Russian contribution which was substantial. There was brief discussion about the numbers and 20 million was mentioned. The figure could in fact be even higher.
We were reminded by a veteran of the Korean war which followed a few years after the end of WWII yet there was no commemoration of that.
Finally, despite the solemnity of the occasion in Normandy and the moving speeches, the principal victors of the war who formed the Security Council of the newly formed United Nations, were now the biggest arms sellers in the world, the UK being among them. We cheerfully sell weapons to all manner of states causing untold misery and death around the world.
We moved onto the second topic is the general election fair? This arose following the row raging during the week about Labour’s tax plans. Rishi Sunak, during the leader’s debate on ITV had alleged that Labour will increase everyone’s taxes by £2,000 and claimed this figure had been produced by the Treasury. It transpired that this was partially true but the figures had been calculated on assumptions provided by the Conservatives and did not make clear that it would be over a four year period.
One suggestion was that telling lies should be a criminal offence. The problem would be however proving it was a lie and the time it would take to get to trial by which time the election would be over.
It was pointed out that a lot of fact checking already goes on and this particular misstatement had in fact been quickly corrected. Unfortunately someone noted, the very fact of correction somehow made it more potent in people’s minds – think of the £350m figure on the Vote Leave bus. Untrue but it stuck.
The importance of hustings was noted the problem being too few attended them.
The problem of the TV debate was it was about one leader rubbishing the other and the moderator did little to stop them. What did we learn from the debate? The question was asked rhetorically implying not very much. It was suggested that it might be a case of collusion by broadcasters and the politicians. After all, the scrapping made a lot of news which means lots of viewers, never mind the veracity.
I am not sure we came up with any solutions. We briefly touched on PR but how that would improve the fairness of the debate was not discussed. We also briefly discussed tactical voting and how, for example, to achieve a more ‘green’ set of policies when both parties offered feeble ones.
Finally, we discussed a third topic because the voting was tied. This was another election issue namely: the advantages of a years compulsory community service for those leaving school. The first point was ‘who pays?’ We could not answer this.
We quickly got onto Rousseau and the notion of social contract which seems to be lost today in a society more concerned with personal matters. There was value in encouraging community service and the country could not do without volunteers. More young people might volunteer it was suggested but they needed paid work to pay for higher education and somewhere to live.
Scandinavia was mentioned and the higher tax rates in those countries but with higher levels of social support. Britain was fixated on lower taxes it was suggested and the belief that we were automatically better off with lower levels of tax was widely believed. The connection between low taxes and poor public services did not seem to be understood. Another factor was privatisation and which had eroded the whole system it was claimed. On the topic of privatisation, water was mentioned and that CEOs of these companies should be fined for failing to meet targets not given multi-million bonuses. I suppose we can all fantasise about such things.
An intriguing suggestion was that all young people should receive training in how to handle a disaster, a fire for example or what to do after a road crash. This could be done by extending the school day.
One speaker drew on experience of circa the ’80s when we had a variety of training schemes: YOPs; YTS and then young apprentice schemes. Funding – as in the lack of – was a problem and it offered poor education for many young people. It was also a vehicle for mostly poorer children and was not popular among middle class folk. Their children did gap years.
It might be a good idea some thought but it would need proper funding, and proper supervision by trained people. It would also need a lot of organisation. Previous experience suggests it would be done on the cheap and would offer young people very little of value. Compulsion was not the answer it was agreed. It was also noted that small voluntary organisations are daunted by the bureaucracy of doing things of this nature with all the checks, DBS, and necessary reporting which are costly and off-putting.
A short debate but it was agreed that more thought was needed and a lot more detail about how it would work for the benefit of young people and also the recipients.
Three interesting debates all with an election feel to them.
Peter Curbishley
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 