Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: politics

  • Democracy and elections

    Interesting article on the subject of democracy and citizen’s assemblies in today’s Guardian

    June 2024

    We are in the middle of an election campaign although residents of Salisbury reading this week’s Salisbury Journal may be forgiven for thinking ‘election, what election?’ At least John Glen’s weekly puff piece has disappeared.

    So far campaigning has focused on trivia. The big issues of the state of the economy, the dangerously high level of our debt, our weakened defences, poor productivity, the ever widening level of inequality, and weak investment are not mentioned nor likely to be. Waiting times and the NHS are being discussed but not in a particularly edifying way and of course, the national obsession with not paying more tax is front and centre stage with the £2,000 extra tax row filling the airways.

    All told, a campaign which so far, avoids the big issues and where disinformation and trivia are what minds seem to be focused on. By contrst, an interesting article on democracy which discusses sortition and citizen’s assemblies by George Monbiot, is to be found in today’s Guardian and is a worthwhile read.

    Guardian piece

  • Hugh Grant and our media

    April 2024

    Many of our Democracy Café debates often come back to the role of the media in shaping ideas, informing or concealing information from its readers, bias and generally influencing what we know and believe of the world around us.  The important titles are courted by government politicians and during Tony Blair’s time as prime minister for example, Rupert Murdoch slipped in and out of the back door of 10 Downing Street 28 times.  No notes or minutes of these meetings have been released. 

    The settlement by Hugh Grant of his phone hacking case is therefore of wider importance than just what was published about him and the means of getting the information by journalists.  

    The Daily Mail has enormous influence and again, Paul Dacre when editor was regularly courted, not to say fawned over, in the hope of favourable coverage.  They do not just report the news but seek to control the narrative and to shape policy.  Since the owners are for the most part foreign based, we have a disturbing situation where a handful of foreign oligarchs exert huge influence over policy.  We might imagine that the public votes in a government to carry out our wishes but the reality is that this small handful of men set the tone and decide what we read and what we should know about. 

    Hugh Grant was one of a large number of celebrities, sports people and royalty, who were subject to a wide range of tactics to get private information, who they were seeing, their medical problems and other matters in their private lives. Tactics included breaking into their homes, tapping their phones, blagging their medical records and bank accounts, and buying information from police officers.  Most of this activity was illegal but since the police themselves were compromised, no action was ever taken.  

    As an aside, you might wonder how a person’s medical records can be obtained without their consent.  One way was to employ a recently struck-off doctor say, who knew the language and jargon, who could phone a surgery to pretend to be an A&E surgeon and was treating X and therefore needed to know their medical history.  

    An important aspect of this is the scale of it.  One individual was paying the Metropolitan Police around £150,000 pa for information.  There have been 1,600 claims so far against NGN, publishers of the Sun and the now defunct News of the World.  A staggering £1bn has been paid to settle claims.  For reasons that are not at all clear, the Murdochs are desperate to prevent this ever coming to court.  Some may think that if all this surveillance and hacking had been to track down drug dealers, arms traders and people traffickers then the end might justify the means.  It wasn’t.  The people targeted were pop stars, actors, sportsmen and politicians.  

    Hugh Grant had to agree to end his action because of the legal process where a payment is made into court to settle the matter and if the judge awards damages less than this then the person complaining – even though they have won their case – will be responsible for both side’s costs. 

    This activity of paying off those whose lives were penetrated in this way simply to sell more papers is hugely significant for our legal process and our democracy.  Here we have a group of individuals who committed crimes over more than a decade, and who corrupted the police and the political process, who are allowed, in effect, to buy their way out of any kind of reckoning.  “Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done” a famous judge opined.  What we have is a flagrant avoidance of justice, simply a series of large payoffs to keep it all under wraps.   

    Yet there is very little outrage from politicians about this.  Imagine if a professional burglar went around Salisbury stealing from people’s homes.  When caught, he was able – from the fruits of his criminal activities – to pay into court a sum likely to equal the fine he might receive from the magistrates.  The CPS drops the case because they decide on the balance of probabilities that, even if they win the case and get a prosecution, they will end up paying both side’s costs.  There will be a non-disclosure agreement so the burglar walks away to do the same thing again and again.  People would be outraged if this were to happen (it cannot of course because a burglar cannot avail himself of this procedure).  

    The Fourth Estate as it’s sometimes known, is a key part of our political process.  It works by finding out what is happening and informing its readers accordingly by reportage and commentary.  If however, they become a power in their own right, able to control the narrative, and, by engaging in a variety of illegal activities, to find out the private details of anyone they wish, this becomes damaging to our society.  Who is there to report on them? If the politicians themselves are frightened to discuss this and to propose actions to control it, then this becomes a serious problem for all of us.  Effectively, voting in someone at a general election ostensibly to represent our interests becomes a nonsense: they dare not if it risks offending the beliefs or prejudices of our media proprietors. 

    An example is the prison system.  The system is in crisis.  Rotten and infested gaols; people locked up for 23 hours a day; overcrowding; rampant drug abuse and almost non-existent rehabilitation are just some of the problems.  Yet attempts by ministers to reform the system hampered – no, not hampered, stopped – by a handful of editors who believe that prisons are holiday camps, full of hardened criminals and murderers and vigorously attack any proposals to bring the system into the twentieth century let alone the twenty first.  So instead of a reasoned debate on our prison system and how we might learn from the Dutch for example who are closing and selling off many of theirs, we have paralysis (indeed, how many of their readers even know of the Dutch experience?).  Prison reform is a debate we do not have.  It is unlikely to appear in the general election debates both parties being obsessed with ‘law and order’ and terrified (of the media?) describing them as ‘soft on crime’.  

    Some have a cosy belief in the BBC but this organisation has been systematically attacked, its funding cut and right wing board members appointed to control its reporting.  Although there are some brave journalists, it has been seriously and deliberately weakened.  Members of the various Tufton Street organisations for example, appear regularly on our screens, in radio interviews and as panellists on political shows. One such organisation, the so-called ‘Institute’ of Economic Affairs, is a front organisation for mostly American right wing organisations yet never is one of their people asked ‘who funds you?’ They are allowed to pose as some kind of respectable ‘institute’ without the BBC interviewers ever asking this fundamental question (who funds them is never revealed).

    It may seem a long way from Hugh Grant to prisons.   But they both reflect in their different ways, how a handful of overseas media barons can manipulate the law to their own benefit, control the political process and who used a variety of illegal activities to set about any politician who dared to threaten their hegemony.  The claim now is that times have changed.  They no longer use illegal means to blag, burgle, bribe or steal to get their stories they say.  Then why spend north of £1bn to prevent it ever coming to court?  

    In all fairness to the tabloids, it has to be noted that these publications are read by millions and are piled up in supermarkets and on newsstands. Perhaps ‘piled up’ is an exaggeration, just a handful of copies these days. The public has known of these intrusions but continues to buy and read the results. The proprietors might fairly say ‘we are providing what the public wants to read’. If the public is not repelled by what we do, why should we be concerned?

    What we read and what we see on our screens, substantially shapes what we know of the world.  In Israel for example, the average Israeli knows very little of the destruction in Gaza.  In Russia, few Russians know of the enormous death toll of their men on the front line in Ukraine.  Perhaps in the UK we should be a little more concerned about how we, and our famed legal process, are so easily manipulated by a handful of overseas individuals? Shouldn’t we be a lot more concerned about the integrity and honesty of the media world and their owners?

    Peter Curbishley

  • Potholes and democracy

    Democracy depends on an informed public

    April 2024

    It is widely believed that democracy is a desirable state of affairs for the running of a country. Churchill’s famous quote is often wheeled out suggesting that, despite its flaws, there isn’t any superior method of doing things. That may be true but democracy depends on those with the vote being sufficiently aware of life around them such that their vote is a meaningful expression of their informed beliefs. Listening or watching ‘vox pops’ one sometimes has to wonder.

    Readers of Private Eye and watchers of Newsnight (and possibly other outlets) will be aware of the scandal that is the freeport in Teesside. The story is complex and involves many factors including huge potential losses for public authorities and the taxpayer; procurement rules being waved; windfall profits of £60m; environmental risks being loaded onto public authorities; appointments made without advertising them first and appointments of friends and relatives to lucrative contracts; tax evasion schemes and a pall of secrecy over what is going on so that finding out details is extremely difficult.

    The scheme known as Teesworks, is rapidly becoming a major scandal. An independent report was damning but despite the considerable evidence produced by Private Eye and others said there was ‘no evidence of corruption’.

    There is an election in Tees Side and when reporters canvassed opinions in Darlington, no one raised it as an issue. Instead it was potholes, potholes and more potholes. It is something of a problem with our complex society that major issues such as the continuing and long running scandal of the post office, can rumble on for many years with little interest or anger from the public. Labour are proposing to try and close the tax gap – estimated by HMRC at £36bn – but is more likely to be double or treble that. One wishes them well and I suppose hope does spring eternal. But there is little anger from the public about this huge activity. These sums disappear and result in long waiting lists, lack of care for the elderly, rotting schools and … yes, potholes. I very much doubt that someone stopped in the street by some media outlet and asked what they would like to see changed, would say ‘close the tax gap’ or ‘what about Teesworks’ despite their massive potential benefit to the nation’s purse.

    I suspect that politicians know this and realise that whingeing on about the tax gap or the various goings on in the City will have little traction with the public. Teesworks is just too complex to understand without a lot of study. A hole in the road on the other hand is simple, visible, seen everywhere and generates an obvious statement that ‘they should do something about it’. It can be argued that potholes act as a kind of metaphor for the state the country is in and there is something in that argument.

    Is the problem solvable? I am not sure that it is. It’s a commonplace to say that politics has become trivialised and is largely about personalities. The recent scandal of an MP sending personal details via WhatsApp generates huge interest and many column inches for example. But massive corruption, tax evasion and other goings on are difficult to uncover, hard to explain and carry great risks under our draconian libel laws and Slapp actions which mean wealthy individuals can use the courts to silence critics. News outlets find it harder to justify the extensive work needed to bring these damaging activities to public notice.

    The nation faces some momentous decisions about its future. Climate, poor investment, continuing poor productivity, and an economy weakened by Brexit are just some of the major issues facing us. Massive issues around care of the elderly, the mental health of our young people are two other problems – expensive problems – in need of attention. Are they receiving the attention they deserve? Do sufficient people know enough about these and other problems to make a difference to the political narrative? I wonder.

    Or are we trapped into the endlessly repeated cycle of promises about lowering taxation with no mention of the billions lost overseas. Is the population fixated on potholes to the exclusion of all else? And even if we do fixate ourselves on potholes, is there a true realisation of why we have them? Do people understand that over two decades have gone by since houses were revalued for Community Charge purposes and hence local authorities have less to spend on their sacred potholes? Have they forgotten that local authorities lost huge sums of central support grant following the 2008 banking crash – around 40% over the decade?

    Democracy, to work properly, does need an electorate with some grasp of the key issues and events which have led to our present position. It does need some thinking beyond just ‘what about the potholes?’

    P Curbishley

  • ‘How Westminster Works … and Why it Doesn’t

    A book on our political system by Ian Dunt

    January 2024

    Many of our Democracy Café debates concern parliament, Westminster and the political process generally with frequently a lament about why it’s so bad. We are now in election year and for the next n months, we are going to have speculation upon speculation about when it will be, and once the date is announced, we will have months spent on debating the various party’s promises and their manifestos. And promises there will be aplenty. How party A will fix the NHS and reduce waiting lists, how party B will solve the immigration and small boats crisis and party C will improve the nation’s productivity and get Britain growing again. The airwaves and our screens will be filled with endless interviews and silly stunts as politicians hug small children or are seen in various uniforms for a photo shoot before departing smartish. Oh and I nearly forgot, all of them will be reducing taxes.

    Read Ian Dunt’s book* and you will realise how pointless it all is. How oceans of time is wasted on all this election rubbish when the reality is that the political system is in a mess – arguably a terminal mess – and there is precious little any politician can do to fix it. Indeed, as our economy has deteriorated, the opportunity to fix it has narrowed considerably.  

    In his book, Dunt takes us remorselessly through our political system bit by depressing bit to show that almost none of it works or is capable of doing what is needed. The book starts with the disaster of the probation service and the ‘reforms’ carried out by Chris Grayling. He rushed into a privatisation without a trial to see if it could work. He ignored advice. He realised that the public would be worried that serious offenders were to be handled by the private sector so he divided the service into two parts – public and private. The public part became overloaded and the private part lost money.  It turned into a complete and expensive disaster and had to be undone. He should have been thrown out by his local electorate for his massive and unnecessary failure. But he was in a safe seat so first past the post saved him. 

    It starts with the selection of MPs. As Rory Stewart noted in his book, this is not done on the basis of management skill or experience, leadership ability or policy experience but rather on how a collection of local, and mostly elderly, party people think you’ll fit in, how likeable you are and your knowledge of the constituency. Having succeeded at that and arriving in parliament, you discover that you are almost a nonentity as an ordinary MP. Treated shoddily by the whips who even dictate what you’re maiden speech will be. As Isabel Hardman writes in her book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians, life as an MP can be lonely and stressful being either ignored or bullied. Away from home during the week and once back in their constituency, they have constituency business to attend to. For many, the only option is to be slavishly loyal, don’t ask awkward questions and hope to get on the ministerial gravy train. Much of the constituency business is nothing to do with the MP anyway and should be dealt with by a local councillor but they cannot refuse for fear of a backlash. 

    One of the surprises of the book is the House of Lords which he praises. Yes indeed, who would credit it. But he points out that the Lords has many highly experienced people able to inform policy making and legislation. Dunt points out that much legislation is shoved through parliament and MPs whipped to vote for it mostly without having read or understood what they’ve been told to do. The party system is not nearly as prevalent and there are many cross bench lords. It is the competence and expertise of the Lords which frequently proves crucial in ensuring legislation is capable of doing what a minister wants it to do. 

    He looks at the press which fails to deal with matters in depth and ministers who often have too cosy a relationship with people like the Murdochs and Paul Dacre. For example, Thatcher and Blair who even went half way round the world to fawn on Rupert Murdoch. The Leveson enquiry revealed how Murdoch came and went to No10 at will entering by the back door. 

    The Civil Service which has lost its way and has far too few people with statistical, organisational or project management experience. The churn of staff means the constant loss of experience as people are moved every two years or so. The churn of ministers is also criticised often moved after a year or two when it takes at least 18 months to get to grips with a ministry. The Treasury is vastly overrated and its pathological aversion to long-term investment a major cause of our problems. 

    So when we listen to one or other politician making claims about what they are going to do if they form a government, just remember that they will be attempting to run a machine that is a long way from being ‘well oiled’ and which has a high degree of dysfunctionality. That is quite apart from the parlous state of the economy and a decade of underinvestment in our social fabric. 

    Ah you might say, ‘Mrs Thatcher changed things’ and so she did. Remember though that the economy was in a vastly different place to where it is now. She was able to deliver some shocks to the economy and it did recover. An incoming government will not have that degree of leeway now. 

    The message of the book is that we have to undertake wholesale change to include how MPs are chosen and what their true role should be; reforming the civil service and the spad system which has grown up in the last few years; MPs to be properly resourced; changing the killing work schedule of ministers with their red boxes they have to plough through; curbing the Treasury’s powers and ending the silly budget process. 

    If I have a criticism of the book it is its relentless negativity. Despite the criticisms, there are the occasional MPs who achieve things and campaign successfully for a piece of legislation. Good laws do get onto the statute book, anti-slavery legislation for example. Although the civil service is very generalist, it does take someone who is non technical to ask the ‘idiot question’ sometimes to challenge the orthodoxy. Although the Treasury does have a lot to answer for it does challenge ministers who think the answer to all problems is to throw money at it. 

    It is nevertheless a good, if depressing read and a useful backdrop for the months of nonsense we will be subject to in this election year.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2023

  • The nature of our democracy

    The revelations emerging from the Covid enquiry pose deep questions about how we are governed.

    November 2023

    Many of our debates at the Democracy Café discussions have focused in one way or another, on democracy and how it might work better. We have debated the first past the post system, proportional representation and whether we need a constitution. Locally, we have discussed Citizens’ Juries and we have tried our best to interest the local powers that be in using this technique to achieve a better standard of decision making.

    However, we are currently witnessing the Covid inquiry take place and although it is a long way from completion and we are unlikely to see the final report before 2026, the early evidence has been profoundly disquieting. The foul and abusive language used in communications, the lack of any kind of planning before – or it seems during – the pandemic, the disorganisation, the shameful misogyny, and a prime minister who was frequently absent, disengaged, or flipflopped all over the place when he was there. The unelected Carrie Johnson appeared to be a key influence. A picture in sum – and added to each day – of confusion and chaos at the heart of government. It seems almost no one behaved in a competent fashion or looked anywhere near being on top of their briefs. And all through lockdown, they were busy partying and consuming large quantities of alcohol, ignoring all the rules they themselves had introduced.

    Many of the key players however – MPs and ministers – were voted for by millions. Boris Johnson is still admired by many and despite his pitiful performance as prime minister and who should by rights quietly disappear into the country, is instead raking in vast sums from a column in the Daily Mail, is about to go on GB News with another vast fee, and is earning huge fees on the speaker circuit.

    There seems to be a gigantic gap between what people believe they are voting for and the reality of how these people behave in government. It has to be asked though, do people care? Clearly, the Daily Mail and GB News think not. The role of the public school types seems to be very evident. As Simon Kuper describes in his book Chums, the pathway of people from public school (and mainly Eton), via Oxford and thence parliament and the Cabinet, the Civil Service or a spad, means a set of narrowly educated and privileged people, with no real world experience or relevant skills is put in charge of our government. It is no wonder things are as bad as they are. Their degrees in Classics, English or PPE leaves them hopelessly at sea when faced with the shear complexity of government.

    This poses a key question. Would a different system of voting or setting up a constitution make any difference? I suggest not. Ordinary people would still be voting for a dysfunctional collection of fuckwits (to use Dominic Cummings’ choice phrase) to represent them. There would be some shuffling around but the same sort of people would be put before us. As Rory Stewart describes it in his recently published book Politics on the Edge, talking with other candidates selected to stand as potential MPs: “No one felt that the party valued them for their personality, their intelligence, or their experience. Nor for their ability to make a speech, to analyse policy or the lead a country. Instead, they were prized for or their ability to protect leaflets from the rain, enter a locked apartment block using a caretakers code, partner with eighty-year-old male members and understand their need for lavatory breaks and protect their fingertips from the sprung letter box and the teeth of a silent dog” (p36). This was not unique to Stewart or just his party.

    As we have said before, an MP is selected by a local committee of party people (except the LibDems) on the basis of whether they like him or her and do they agree with their views. They then, if elected and if they display sufficient loyalty, start to climb the ladder of patronage possibly becoming a minister of something they know nothing at all about before being moved again in a year or two to another ministry about which they also know nothing.

    The system works – or should work – on the basis of competence, integrity and honesty none of which is evident at present. Covid is a lot like the decision to invade Iraq where it was obvious none of these factors was to the fore. As we look in dismay at the roll call of the second rate sat mumbling before Hugo Keith, the Covid inquiry’s barrister, often unable to recall key events, or confessing to having deleted key messages, we have to wonder how on earth we have a system of government so inadequate to the task. It is in fact quite scary.

    Nothing less than radical change will be needed. Not just the system of government but a rethink about where ministers come from, how they are selected, trained and acquire the necessary experience to run our affairs. Can we really not do better than Nadine Dorries, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg or Gavin Williamson? Should we not have some other route to enable someone with true ability to become a minister? What we are witnessing with the Covid Inquiry should be a wake-up call to how we are governed.

    Peter Curbishley

    [These views are his own and not necessarily those of other members of SDA]

  • Democracy Café, January 2023

    The first café of 2023 was held in our new venue – the Progress Café in Endless Street, Salisbury. Mark, the chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance, welcomed everyone and explained that the Café was part of SDA’s activities which was to promote deliberative democracy, an issue which surfaced coincidentally in the second topic we discussed.

    The first topic which won the vote was about the conflict in Ukraine and how people thought it might end. The proposer of the topic quoted an article in the Global Policy Journal. The background to the conflict it was suggested is that the US wanted to draw Russia into a war in Ukraine which would drain it of resources over time and weaken the perceived intention of Putin to recreate the Russian empire, thus reducing its chances of becoming the dominant force in Asia. The US was also worried by the Russia/China link.

    Similarities were drawn with the war in Afghanistan where America and other western countries supplied weapons and military equipment sufficient to keep Russia bogged down there for years. The point was made that these wars are often testing grounds for equipment to see how well they perform on the battlefield. In Afghanistan, the Stinger missile was a crucial weapon which destroyed many Russian helicopters.

    The Ukraine war produced two surprises: first the tenacity of Ukrainian resistance and secondly, the weakness of the Russian military. It had been assumed that Russia’s military might would enable it to sweep through the country but the opposite had happened and its gains were limited. Although their army was strong in numbers, it was a conscript army and had weak NCO leadership.

    A key point was the actions of the West in the post Gorbachev era. It was suggested that Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan both failed to respond to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Instead of developing something like the Marshall Plan, it gradually expanded NATO eastwards, taking in more and more members, up to the border with Russia. In other words, the invasion was a kind of reaction to this eastward push by NATO.

    Another point was that Putin saw how the US and other NATO countries abandoned Afghanistan in some haste. They also failed to respond to Russia’s original invasion of Crimea and were largely mute with its support for the brutal campaign by Assad in Syria. They are likely to have concluded that the West were unlikely to do much if a full-scale invasion of Ukraine was undertaken. In this connection, we were reminded that the Crimean Oblast was handed over to Ukraine in 1954 by Khrushchev.

    How will it end? One suggestion was that the voice of the people (by which it is assumed the Russian people) must be heard. How? was the question in a state where opposition is not allowed and the media was tightly controlled. How long the western public will put up with the expenditure in view of other well-known pressures on the public purse at present? Will anyone be held to account for the war crimes?

    A theme, which was a kind of leitmotiv to the discussion, was that the media tended to underplay the role and responsibility the US has had in the current war. The deliberate confrontation with Russia particularly with the eastward push of NATO, and the desire to weaken the state and to depose Putin and the policy of giving just enough weaponry to the Ukrainians but not (it is alleged) sufficient for them to win it are all aspects of note. This is not to downplay or excuse Russia’s actions nor the war crimes which it is alleged they have committed.

    The second half discussion was on the suitability of our MPs and how they are selected. It would be fair to say that variations of this topic have been debated over the years reflecting, perhaps, the disquiet over poor decision making and some disastrous policy mistakes. The introducer gave a tour d’horizon of the problems as he saw it. He gave examples including the Iraq invasion and gambling legislation by Blair; the referendum by Cameron and more recently Johnson and Truss. In his view, MPs should be properly paid, truly independent and provide evidence and reasons for their policies and decisions. He also suggested their should be regional assemblies although he was reminded there were proposals to introduce these around 15 years ago and the legislation was never proceeded with.

    Some suggested that PR was a way forward as this might help smaller or newer parties gain seats. We were reminded that UKIP secured nearly 4 million votes in 2015 but gained not a single seat. Not everyone was convinced by PR however claiming that it risked have candidates who were party hacks and it might prevent independents getting elected.

    One problem was that MPs were expected to be all things to all men. One minute they were in their surgery dealing with a constituent worried about a pot hole outside their house, and the next expected to deal with affairs of state.

    On the question of pay, the issue of second jobs was mentioned. Some MPs have significant commitments, and sizeable earnings, from this activity and this raises the question, where do their loyalties lie (and when do they get the time to do the job they are elected to do?)? Linked was the question – some might say scandal – of lobbying which was on a huge scale. Isabel Hardman’s book ‘Why we get the wrong politicians‘ which painted a fairly grim picture of life as an MP.

    The legal system was mentioned and the jury system where a group was selected more or less at random, to hear a case and decide on guilt or otherwise. Could this not be a model for politics? We were reminded that one of the objectives of SDA is just such an idea – a citizens’ jury. This would review a problem in detail, using experts as necessary, and recommend a course of action. We had tried to introduce this idea with WC and Salisbury City Council, so far without success.

    One telling point was made however. We can talk about selection of MPs; lobbying; second jobs, and the poor quality of so many MPs, but the fact remains that it is we who select them at election time. Do we not get the MPs we deserve? How do we encourage the electorate to vote for the right person, although as Hardman points out, we are all too often presented with a candidate already selected by the local party?

    We were reminded of Walter Lippman and his phrase ‘the Bewildered Herd’. Lippman had a low opinion of democracy and assumed many people were too disengaged to understand the complexity, made worse by poor journalism.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Why we get the wrong politicians, Isabel Hardman, 2019, Atlantic Books.

    Putin’s People: how the KGB took back Russia and then took on the West, 2020, Catherine Belton, William Collins.

    Mistakes were made but not by me, 2007, Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson, Harcourt.

  • Selecting the new prime minister

    Is the current system fit for purpose?

    To which, many would answer ‘no’. The prime minister is the prime minister for the whole country. Although he or she is the leader of the party able to form a government, they are running the country as a whole for the benefit of the all the people. Yet the selection process starts with only Conservative MPs making the choice.

    I am sure we can all be confident that the MPs are doing that on the disinterested basis of who might be the best candidate to carry out that extremely important role. There may be some however, just some, who are voting for the candidate who has promised them preferment in some form: maybe even that treasured cabinet post with its car and chauffeur. That is a choice based on personal ambition not on who might be best for the country.

    Next comes the vote of the Conservative membership. A self-selected group of trusty souls who live mostly in the south or home counties: around 200,000 of them it seems (since membership of the party has dropped dramatically over the years). How many will have experienced the effects of policies carried out by their party? They read about them in the papers and see interviews with various folk but direct experience? Limited.

    And how about the selection process itself with the candidate interviews on television? A great deal of the first session on Channel 4 was taken up with trust issues. A rather pointless exercise in my view which seemed to lead nowhere. Then there were the spats about tax reductions or no tax reductions. Setting aside the nonsense as I have argued elsewhere, that it is a myth that we are automatically better off with lower taxes if services are reduced or are non-existent: the arguments themselves were no more than cursory. It was almost pantomimic ‘oh yes you can!’ ‘oh no you can’t!’ they cried – all that was missing was someone to cry out ‘look behind you’. Only Sunak stood out reasonably well as someone who seemed to know what was actually possible.

    In the week when temperature records were broken – and not by just a fraction of a degree – it was chilling to listen to their desire to carry on with fossil fuels.

    So we will have just Conservative MPs selecting the two candidates, from an altogether lacklustre field, who will go forward to the final vote of a tiny and extremely unrepresentative part of the kingdom.

    And, a factor that does not seem to have occurred yet to the commentariat, is the continuing presence of Johnson. Like a wounded beast, raging but not yet dead, he will be a continuing presence on the backbenches. As a narcissist, he does not, and will not, have any grasp or acceptance of his role in what is to come. As the new PM struggles with the mounting and quite frightening crises which lie ahead, he will be there to jeer and be a focus of discontent. ‘What have you done?’ cries the Mail. Others, such as supporters sent to the backbenches with him will say the same before too long. Neither Sunak, with his history of curious tax arrangements, who will have a great deal of difficulty showing that he has any kind of understanding of how ordinary people live, nor Truss who will quite simply be out of her depth and I think, is a bit delusional, will be able to rise to the challenges. They will also have a great deal of difficulty in distancing themselves from the policies which have led us here and which they so vociferously supported all these past years.

    Locally, John Glen MP is supporting Rishi Sunak and he is another one who has relentlessly supported government policies and paraded that support week in and week out in the Salisbury Journal, who must now try and pirouette to a completely new position. What were they debating on Channel 4? Ah yes – trust, that was it.

    Altogether, it is simply no way to run a country or to select its leader. Every element of the chain has serious weaknesses and shortcomings. In all the press and media excitement and breathless interviews, it is sometimes difficult to see the overall picture of a failed system guaranteed to produce a failed result. It is just not a way to select our new leader.

    Peter Curbishley

    CORRECTION: There are 160,000 Conservative members, not 200,000 as stated above. Apologies for the error. PC

    UPDATE: Liz Truss was appointed Prime Minister on 7 September 2022

    [A personal view not necessarily reflecting the wider membership of SDA]

  • Democracy Café: March 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

  • Maltings site

    Maltings site sold for redevelopment – but what now?

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance has argued for some time now that with big decisions facing the city, employing the Citizens’ Assembly technique should be considered. We have tried to get the concept incorporated into party manifestos – with some success – but with the proposal to go ahead with the redevelopment of the Maltings, it is looking as though the opportunity to employ the technique with this project is slipping by. That would be a pity.

    The idea of a CA is to convene a carefully and demographically selected group of local people to come together over three weekends and, advised by a range of experts, to consider a problem in depth. What to do with the Maltings and the relocation of the Library would be an ideal project. The advantages would include proper involvement of local people in the project, an absence of any political posturing and ideas and recommendations put forward which have been properly considered.

    It contrasts with what is likely to happen at the Maltings. The sale to Catella APAM already begins to limit the likely options for redevelopment. A quick look on their webpage shows that they are a property company who do a lot of the early development to enable a scheme to be sold on to investors. Nothing wrong in that but their focus will be on viability and making a return. That’s their business. Since Salisbury is not ‘prime’ in property terms it is likely to mean that the returns will be have to be a little higher to sell the project to investors.

    What is striking in the Salisbury Journal article (Council leader’s vision for future as Maltings site is sold, March 3, 2022) is actually the absence of any vision. The quote: ‘Despite “nothing specific” tabled for the area right now, Cllr Clewer added, “I’m sure Catella has its own ideas for the site, we need to understand what it wants to do taking this forward and we look forward to working with them” more or less sums it up (my italics). It will be Catella deciding on what it wants for the site. If the quote is accurate, it represents a depressing state of affairs where, without any clear vision for the site or proper consideration of Salisbury’s wider shopping and recreation needs – and certainly no consultation or input from the citizenry – the site is sold for a property company to basically do what it wants with it.

    So what is likely to happen? Catella will do their analysis of the site and look at rentals and how it can be redeveloped to provide a return likely to be attractive to a future investor. A proposal with a strong commercial emphasis will be put forward and there is likely to be a consultation of some kind at that stage. There will then be several weeks of sturm and drang with letters in the Journal complaining about this and that (‘missed opportunity’ is guaranteed to be said) and Catella may agree to some minor changes. Then to planning and basically it will all be over. Thus an opportunity to think carefully about how the site might be developed to enhance the wider prosperity of the city will have been lost.

    Many years ago, C Northcote Parkinson wrote The Pursuit of Progress, famous for its law about work filling the time available. But he also, if I recall correctly, talked about how council committees would wave through major projects they did not understand but would argue passionately about the bicycle sheds which they did. I don’t wish to be unkind, but I am reminded of this here. This would have been a golden opportunity to set up a Citizens’ Assembly and to develop a vision for the site, a vision where we the citizens would have an input into what could happen. Of course, commercial realities may temper the vision, but simply to sell a key site without any vision and wait for a developer to give you one is, in my view, a very poor show.

    Peter Curbishley

    [These views are not necessarily those of other members of SDA]

  • Democracy Café: October 2021

    The Café was able to meet outside for a third time since lockdown

    Not only were we able to meet again but there were several new members and numbers attending were over 20 again. We discussed two topics from the eight that were voted for: ‘More houses for Salisbury – what are the facts?’ and ‘Global Britain – is it a force for good or a force for the bad?’

    We started with the housing question. Anyone driving around Salisbury, Amesbury and Wilton will have noticed the vast increase in the number of houses and huge new estates opening up where once there were green fields. Both ends of the A345 Amesbury Road have seen almost new townships opening up. The proposer noted that the 2006 – 26 allocation for South Wiltshire is around 10,400 houses and the current level of permissions is well over 11,000. In other words, WC has granted permission for more homes than the government requires it to. This extra building brings with it needs for more infrastructure, schools, roads and medical services in particular. Would it not be better to spend more money, not on new properties, but on refurbishing many sub-standard older properties?

    The issue of social housing quickly made its appearance. Although many new houses were being built, only a small proportion were affordable for those on low wages or for the young. Provision for those with disabilities was also poor. The point was made that the right to buy policy was skewed because the funds were returned to the Treasury and were not available to the local authority to construct new council houses (for rent). It was explained that the funds were originally Treasury funds so rightfully went back to them. The government could have changed the legislation if it wished however but chose not to do so.

    The debate broadened into the language we used. We talk in terms of ‘housing’ not ‘homes’, indeed, in the quote of the morning it was pointed out we only use the latter word in connection with second homes which aren’t homes at all. Should we not consider needs more? The system it was suggested should focus more on these needs rather than just responding to the market. This was part of the purpose of the planning system it was pointed out which is not popular and is being curtailed.

    Back to the issue of refurbishment and one of the problems is that new build does not attract VAT whereas refurbishment does. At 20% this is a serious disincentive. A change in the VAT rules would be of immediate benefit.

    One speaker thought part of the answer might be in increasing the level of council tax on second homes. There were 550,000 of these and around 300,000 on waiting lists suggesting he thought a ready solution. However, not all second homes were where the demand or the jobs were, some councils already charge a higher community charge for second home owners (one speaker knew this because her sister owned such a house in Wales and paid more) and would a higher charge induce someone to sell anyway? It was noted that not all second homes were for personal use but were rented out i.e. a home for someone.

    It was noted that some people are stuck in unsaleable flats because of the cladding scandal.

    Land was mentioned. It was noted that agricultural land might sell for around £5,000 and acre but with the benefit of planning, it could fetch a thousand times more. A key element of the price of a house therefore was the land it stood on. Yet there were no policies to tackle this currently and the last attempt – Betterment Levy – was abolished in 1970. A single owner can reap a huge windfall from a sale of land which adds considerably to the cost of a house (or should I say home).

    The role of finance and the mortgage industry discussed. Britain was fairly unusual in Europe and USA in having such large freehold tenure. The majority rented in countries like Germany. This meant a home became an investment not just a place to live. The result was a very large finance industry which it was argued, shifted power away from politicians and towards the financiers. The equity that people had in their homes also led to issues of inheritance and the expectation that it would pass unencumbered to their descendants.

    On the subject of new build, the fact that new houses were not being built to high enough insulation standards was thought to be shocking. Few of the estates had solar panels fitted as standard, an optimum time to do so when being built.

    In Salisbury itself, the development of several large developments for the retired was altering the balance of the city. There was an absence it was claimed of people in the 20 to 40 age band. They tended to leave and only return in middle age.

    If there was a theme to emerge it was that the market was not serving the people but was determined by the power and will of the developers. Their motivation was of course profit maximisation.

    After a break we tackled the second topic about the meaning of ‘global Britain’. What was our place in the world? Has it been coloured by by our colonial past? Do we as a nation spend too much time ‘in the past’?

    In Asia, the perception of Britain was of a ‘chocolate box museum’. In China, where memories are long, our role in the Opium War and colonial repression is still remembered. Talk of human rights do not readily impress. In Europe, their view of us is bafflement (following Brexit it is assumed). The special relationship with America is viewed as something of a joke. All sobering thoughts. It suggested we should show a bit more humility.

    Globalisation was not universal however. Capital was free to move sometimes at the press of a button, and goods are services could sold around the world with only limited restrictions. People were not free to move on the other hand which meant globalisation have different implications for different people.

    On the other hand, the English language was a huge asset and influence and contributed to our soft power. Our cultural influence was extremely strong as was our academic excellence and scientific prowess which is still admired around the world. We were still a relatively uncorrupt country. Perhaps we shouldn’t talk ourselves down too much: we still have some prestige for tolerance, liberty and human rights.

    Progress on this topic was difficult and we were left with the thought – was it little more than a slogan? Did global Britain actually have any meaning? Perhaps ‘Britain in the world’ might be better but it was less catchy.

    Two interesting if quite different debates and the next meeting is on 13 November at 29 Brown Street, our new home.

    Peter Curbishley