Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Salisbury

  • Democracy Café: March

    Café took place following tumultuous events in USA

    March 2025

    The Café started with a short introduction by the facilitator reporting back on the People’s Assembly which had been run the previous week. Around 40 attended, 50 all told, and the event secured good coverage in the local media. The next event is on 13 April and to secure a place contact mapotts53@gmail.com. We were also delighted to welcome a visitor from Horsham in E Sussex who is thinking of setting up a café in that town.

    We are grateful to Salisbury Library for their generous offer to use their space for our meetings.

    The Café took place in the week following the unseemly meeting in the White House between President Zelensky of Ukraine and President Trump and his team.

    The first question which won the vote was would we agree to a return of conscription? Conscription ended in the UK in 1963. Some saw it as having benefits for our youth: imbuing discipline in young people although it was noted that politicians were keen for it for other people’s children not their own. What was the difference between national service and conscription someone asked: there probably isn’t in reality. Were we desperate enough yet for this someone asked?

    The previous government had talked about a form of national service for school leavers. The problem was a hotchpotch of programmes for young people with little coherence for those who did not go to university, the less able and those with special needs. Someone felt that education had failed young people. Many parents don’t like their children going to school it was suggested and there had been a rise in home schooling. Echoing a discussion last time, there was little attention paid to the teaching of values they thought.

    A Quaker insisted that there was a right to object. He felt there was something of an obsession with military matters. In this context, it was noted that the nation faced threats which were not of a military nature eg cyber attacks, financial and bacteriological threats. We should be alive to these just as much as recruiting for the armed services. It wasn’t all boots on the ground. Someone who was a conscientious objector spoke of his service in an ambulance unit. Should we not aim for societies to live in a world without wars? It didn’t matter how you killed: what was the difference between a soldier in the field and someone sitting in front of a screen thousands of miles away pressing a button? Both had effects on the individual. Julian Assange and Wikileaks had revealed the extent of killing at a distance mainly by the US.

    The Quaker approach was questioned: what do they do to defend themselves? They did have a right to react (in reference to the Ukraine invasion) was the answer. The example of Einstein was mentioned who was in the US when Hitler came to power and decided not to go back to Germany. At that point he renounced his pacifism. After Hiroshima (which his discoveries in physics helped bring about) he became a pacifist again. The point being that people can change their minds.

    The government’s change of focus was introduced (the decision to reduce overseas aid funding to put more money into defence to reach 2.5% of GDP). We were never asked about this it was noted. It was suggested that it was a debate our leaders wanted us to have, to create enemies, even suggesting it was our leaders were the real enemies. The thinker and writer Prof. Mearsheimer was mentioned in the context of Ukraine (by now we had drifted away somewhat from conscription) and a lengthy essay on his thinking is available here. You will note that many do not agree with his views. Jeffrey Sachs was mentioned and his views about the eastward push of NATO and the idea that Americans had taken over the role the British Empire had in earlier times. His speech to the EU is a recommended read. Both suggested a need for our own foreign policy (divorced from the US was implied). The impetus behind the creation of the EEC, which was partly to end the centuries of wars which had taken place between European nations, has been forgotten it was said.

    It was suggested that every war since Vietnam has been a war of choice. This related to the references in the previous paragraph about America’s role in the world.

    Back to the plot and the problems within the armed services needed addressing. Issues of bullying and sexual harassment were common. This touched on the problem of retention of people within the services. The process in the Nordic nations and Switzerland where all able bodied men and women are required to do some kind of military service, Militärdienst (Switzerland). A recent referendum there voted 73% in favour of maintaining conscription.

    In relation to Ukraine, why weren’t we talking the language of diplomacy someone asked? The democratic process had been undermined at speed by the actions of Donald Trump someone said. There had been no time for the parliamentary process to have its say. The speed was deliberate it was suggested, the process of ‘flooding the zone’ (©Steve Bannon). It was a question of getting used to uncertainty.

    Well, we didn’t really answer the question! Conscription arose in times of war and that is unlikely as far as the UK is concerned. It might arise in connection with troops being sent to Ukraine a matter we did not directly discuss. Since the armed services have seen funding fall to seriously low levels and the standing army was at a very low ebb, maybe conscription might be needed. The debate circled around events in Ukraine which led us to part two …

    The second half kicked off with the question is the Trump approach to Ukraine the only practical one? There was a review of the current situation. Biden’s leadership saw no prospect of an end to the fighting; Putin has too much as stake to give up now especially after recent events; Trump is providing a solution which is not what Ukrainians want; he is forcing – or trying to force – Zelensky to concede. Debate.

    The similarities to the ’30s was mentioned and the policy of appeasement. A lot depends on Putin’s intentions someone thought: will he be satisfied with what he’s got (the implication being he won’t be)? Thousands have died but Trump’s way is giving Putin all the cards. We returned to some of the points in the first half debate. We were led to believe ‘Russia bad’ ‘America good’ but both had imperial ambitions as the above references will attest. The eastward push of NATO was a factor in recent events although it was noted that these new members wanted to join for their protection.

    Trump’s approach was purely transactional it was noted with an eye on securing mineral deals in Ukraine – no doubt at favourable prices – for American mining companies.

    Putin was fundamentally different someone noted, he was a liar and did not stick to agreements. The Minsk agreement was referred to which demanded nothing of Russia and was a precursor to the 2022 invasion. Remember the Novichok attack in Salisbury. At this point, Craig Murray’s take on the Skripal’s and Navalny was brought up, essentially disbelieving the received narrative of Putin ordering assassinations. We were reminded of the Katyn massacre of Polish soldiers carried out by the NKVD in WWII.

    It felt wrong it was said, that is to allow Russia to get away with invading which might lead to further actions in places like Moldova and the Baltic states.

    A bit of Russian history was mentioned namely that they were late to democracy. Attempts in the late nineteenth centuries to install a democratic system failed until the eventual October revolution took place. They had a sense of inferiority and this, it was suggested, was a factor in their thinking. They had been frequently invaded by Napoleon, Hitler and by western ‘White’ forces after the revolution. Ukraine had its own history and previous domination under the Tsars led to the policy of attempted Russification, suppression of the language and deportations of thousands of members of the intelligentsia.

    There was discussion, frankly difficult to summarise, around the eastward push of NATO being a factor, the role of the CIA and a quote by Kissinger ‘to be a enemy of the USA is dangerous, to be a friend, fatal’.

    The two debates circled around the same topic really and that was Ukraine. But we did discuss the changing perceptions of the USA brought into stark focus with the recent statements and actions from the White House. The USA was effectively an empire and had carried out a range of activities around the world to destabilise nations or leaders who tried to resist their power (see the books mentioned below). This power was used for the benefit of American firms, a factor plainly evident in Trump’s approach to Ukraine. So there is nothing new in his attitudes. This was forcing an urgent rethink of policy on defence and ultimately much else in Europe. Perhaps people were beginning to recast their view of America? Maybe we will see conscription …

    Next meeting on 12 April.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    The Racket: a rogue reporter vs the American Empire, 2024, Matt Kennard

    The New Rulers of the World, 2016, John Pilger

    Would you like to join us? We are a small team and would welcome anyone interested in democracy and people having their say. Next café is on 12th April and that would be a good moment to have a word.

  • 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 Assembly

    First People’s Assembly held and was a great success

    March 2025

    [UPDATE: 14 April. The Football Club will now be the location for the third People’s Assembly on 1 June]

    We held our first People’s Assembly on Saturday March 1st at which around 40 attended with a further 10 of us, with spirited debates on some of the key problems which face Salisbury. The idea is part of the Assemble movement and after two more of these assemblies are held, our final suggestions will go to the national event to be held in July.

    To some extent, people have lost some faith in the political process. We have elections and we listen to speeches and read manifestos, but in reality, what we the people think seems to matter less and less. It is media interests – many of them based in America – and commercial firms which seem to call the tune. Elon Musk and his various outrageous and incorrect posts about grooming gangs is a recent example. His statements forced the government’s hand and the Home Secretary has announced an enquiry. So an American has driven policy, not the people who voted for the government last year. The malign role of the Murdoch media has been well aired.

    It is also timely as the struggle to reform the House of Lords continues. This archaic institution which is largely white and elderly, is resisting efforts at reform, reform that is long overdue (long as in centuries). This is just one of the campaigns to encourage the voice of ordinary people to be heard.

    The idea of these meetings is first, to ask people to say what they think the problems facing Salisbury are and second, to suggest solutions. A variety of ideas and problems emerged including concerns about housing issues. People felt aggrieved that developers were able to dodge their planning obligations by not providing sufficient affordable homes. Building homes that weren’t fully insulated was another complaint as was not allowing building on the flood plains. Housing estates going up around Salisbury without infrastructure such as medical centres was another concern.

    More council built homes was suggested. Perhaps the effects of ‘right to buy,’ the flagship policy of the Thatcher era, are now being understood. We should remember that it was originally a Labour party policy but the problem when it was introduced was not allowing LAs to use the receipts to build more homes.

    Transport was a topic of interest and people wanted to see a more comprehensive and realistic transport plan with car free zones, people friendly routes and more cycle ways. More pedestrianisation was also suggested in Salisbury.

    Perhaps a surprising suggestion was for Salisbury to have a College for the Performing Arts which would complement the Playhouse and provide opportunities for young people to gain skills in this important part of our society.

    Most found the afternoon interesting and certainly there was a lot of earnest debate in each of the groups. Some were disappointed at the lack of opportunity to debate or explore some of the problems and the suggestions being put forward. They felt it was a tad rushed and they would have liked more time. Another worry was that some good ideas seem to get lost in the voting process. But hey, Rome wasn’t built in a day. We are looking carefully at the timings and overall timescale and may well alter things for the second meeting to be held on 13 April.

    Another issue which emerged was the status of Salisbury. Being a parish, means it has only limited powers to do make changes. It also meant focusing the debates and suggestions quite difficult since where did the responsibility lie?

    Some photos of the event are below. Clockwise from the left: Mark Potts; plenary session; a speaker feeding back from her group; groups debating their topics; assembling before the event.

    The next meeting takes place on Sunday 13 April at St Gregory’s Hall (SP1 2SF, St Gregory’s Avenue off the Devizes Road) at 2pm. It is free to attend with a parting collection. The third is 1st June at the Football Club. You can come to either or both. To register your interest please leave a note here or contact mapotts53@gmail.com.

    Be part of a new force and make your views known.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: February

    February 2025

    Largest assembly for the Café since its formation

    The room in the Library was full for our café on 8th February and we discussed two quite unrelated topics. But first, it is timely to thank Salisbury Library for giving us this space. Libraries have had a tough time in recent years with one report saying 180 have closed since 2016. We much appreciate them for enabling us to meet there.

    There were a large number of topics suggested (around 16) and the one which won the most votes was How do we get growth, and do we want it? This of course arose following speeches by Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer who have nailed the Labour party’s flag to the growth mast as the solution to the country’s many ills. ‘To believe in growth on a planet with finite resources is either a madman or an economist’ thus spake David Attenborough. The third runway idea seemed to ignore environmental issues which appeared at one time to be an important element of Labour’s policy. But how to change the narrative was the question. The assumption that growth was the answer to problems is almost assumed wisdom without it ever being questioned.

    The idea of a third runway at Heathrow was unlikely to be successful it was thought: interestingly, the reasons didn’t need to be spelled out. Kate Raworth’s book Doughnut Economics was mentioned which included a critique on the very topic we are discussing.

    Tax should be reframed as a social good

    Tax (as ever) was mentioned and the observation that people want services but the moment raising taxes to pay for them is mentioned it was political death. There was no sense of pride in paying tax as a contribution to the public realm. Tax was always presented negatively as a cost not a contribution. It should be reframed as a social good (this was the first time a remark was applauded in the history of the Café!). The results of not doing things (as in not spending on schools, hospitals etc I think was meant) never seemed to be discussed. ‘Living Danishley’ was mentioned – an economy with higher taxes but also higher welfare where there did seem to be higher levels of contentment. One hopes the people of Greenland agree.

    It was pointed out that there were two aspects to growth: the short term focusing on GDP and the longer term which was concerned with matters such as productivity, improvements in which have defeated politicians for decades. We must not lose sight we were reminded of some of the benefits of growth, the reduction in poverty for example

    A fundamental point which seems to escape most politicians, is what matters is that those with assets already tend to gain the most whilst those without assets tend to lose out. Almost Biblical in fact: “for he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.” Which seems apposite in Trumpworld. It was about the distribution of wealth. It was noted that just 62 people own half the world’s wealth. Since much of this wealth was in a tax haven somewhere, it was ‘dead money’. One of the consequences of not investing was the huge rise in child poverty. Estimates vary depending on definitions and whether relative or absolute poverty was meant, but what was clear was a huge rise in the numbers. It was not all right for many with poverty and poor housing common.

    The point was made that GDP (Gross Domestic Product in case you weren’t paying attention in your economics class) didn’t measure everything. In fact it measures income and there are many aspects which make life worth living which are not measured. The Happiness Index being used in Bhutan was an interesting observation (and the link is well worth a look if this is new to you). Another point is that changes in GDP were incremental and often very small amounts of a percentage or fractions of a percent. Distribution (of wealth) was much more significant.

    The book The Spirit Level was mentioned and one of its key findings that inequality hurts all people not just those at the bottom of the heap so to speak. It was noted that the welfare state introduced after the war had been ‘bypassed’ as it was expressed and politicians today don’t promote social responsibility. This was linked to the tax point above. The state was increasingly relying on charities to step in and do the things the state used to do.

    ‘Getting rich’ was the only philosophy

    No Democracy Café is complete without mention of the media. It was suggested that one problem was the media’s desire to glamorise rich people so that wealth was regarded as a good thing in itself. Do we trust social media? ‘No’ was the answer (unfortunately, many do). However, it was pointed out that not all social media was the same and it did allow for a diversity of views. It devoted too much time to discredit reliable sources someone said. The failure by the government to enunciate a coherent philosophy didn’t help it was suggested leaving the idea that to get rich was the (only) way forward. Bad news makes the headlines someone observed. Large elements of our media were owned by foreign oligarchs who were able to control the narrative.

    Overall, a general conclusion that growth by itself was of little value unless more was done to ensure it was distributed more fairly. Ignoring the environment to achieve it didn’t find favour either.

    The second topic was What are the burning issues facing Salisbury and what are the solutions? Transport was quick out of the blocks followed by the numbers of empty shops. A big rise in foodbank use was mentioned and flooding.

    On transport, the related issue of congestion was brought up. Charging people to enter the town centre was suggested. A suggestion to one of the Area Boards a few years ago that the City centre be pedestrianised was not met with enthusiasm to put it mildly. There was a strong car lobby in the City. Attempts to make Salisbury more people friendly didn’t always get far. The Cycling Opportunities Group for Salisbury (COGS) had suggested safe cycle routes for example which did not fully succeed.

    Building houses on the flood plain was mentioned by several and was unsurprisingly, not seen as a good idea. As water levels rise … well you get the idea. At this point it was noted that several of the suggestions were beyond the powers of the City Council to do anything about. It was after all – absurdly – a parish council with very limited powers. It was also limited to the City boundary and did not include adjacent villages or places like Wilton. The Council may well object to housing on the flood plain but housebuilders had huge resources to be able to defy the council and the minister would overrule any objections [that very day, the Guardian reported ministers’ intentions to build thousands of houses on such areas]. Halt Harnham Housebuilding was mentioned. The drivers for change were not local.

    On the topic of housing two matters were mentioned. Many older people lived in large properties and might like to downsize. It was not easy however and the costs of some supported housing were high and uncertain. Second homes were criticised although Salisbury is not such a centre for this. Some places in Cornwall and Wales were plagued by them.

    What the vision was for Salisbury was questioned. What will the City look like (at some future time)?

    What was there to keep young people in Salisbury? What reasons were there for them to stay here? Things like the LGBQ café had closed down for example. Someone asked ‘why should I come to Salisbury?’ With closed shops and an increase in cafés and hairdressers, it lacked excitement they thought. It was observed that in some Baltic states, multiple shop owners had to relocate on the periphery and only small retailers allowed in the centre. However, someone said that the most common question they get asked is ‘where is Marks and Spencers?’

    It was suggested that part of the problem was that Trowbridge felt remote. The Plain was a definite barrier with poor communications. There was an argument for the county to be split into two, north and south (forgive me for adding a link to a piece on this subject).

    The role of private contracts with the local hospital was mentioned. This was a concern and ‘backdoor’ privatisation of the NHS was a worry generally. Trying to find out the true story here is not easy with company take overs and such like. Twenty20 Capital is an ex Virgin organisation and we must be worried that a venture capital entity is taking over the local hospital. Will it follow the usual practice of these companies to strip the place bare and ‘do a water industry’?

    There was some discussion on the College which now apparently did little in the way of further education. It was a result someone said of ‘Ofstedisation’ that is learning which was all about outcomes and outputs. Several issues discussed and we were reminded of the forthcoming People’s Assemblies in Salisbury that attendees might be interested in.

    Peter Curbishley

    Items mentioned:

    Simon Schama: History of Us BBC iPlayer

    The Spirit Level, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, 2009, Allen Lane

    Doughnut Economics, Kate Raworth, Penguin

  • Next Democracy Café

    January 2025

    Past event

    Yes, this is the first Democracy Café of the New Year, today, Saturday, 11th January at 10:00 in the Library. With Donald Trump about to become President again in a short while, and with Elon Musk as his assistant, we’re in for a bumpy ride. Talking of Musk—who seems to fill the news these days—his announcement about the leader of Reform was a great surprise: we all thought he was set to donate a vast sum to the party (which it isn’t technically). One minute they’re all posing for a photo, next he wants Farage out.

    At home, things seem to be going spiffingly well for the Labour Party with approval ratings for Sir Keir dropping like a stone. The not quite poor enough elderly have lost their heating allowance and the farmers are still angry. The economy is flatlining. Business confidence at a low ebb it was reported this morning. So lots to discuss: or something quite different (and less gloomy?).

    The Café is part of the Salisbury Democracy Alliance and we are still keen on having a Citizens’ Assembly sometime. Would an Assembly have suggested the £3.2m Fisherton Street works as a way to improve the economy and amenity of the City for example? So far we have received little more than polite interest from the powers that be.

    Would you be interested in joining us in this endeavour? Our next meeting is at the Boston Tea Party on 28th at 2pm. Or have a word at the Café.

    Look forward to seeing you TODAY and a Happy New Year to you all!

    PC

  • Assisted dying

    The Bill raises troubling aspects about our democracy

    November 2024

    On Friday 29th November, the House of Commons will debate the private members bill to allow assisted dying. Views about this are very varied. Some, who may have experienced a loved one suffer at the end of their life, may be in favour. Others, and sometimes for religious reasons, are opposed to it. Still others worry that it will be abused and that it is the ‘thin end of the wedge’. Elderly people are known to worry about ‘being a burden’ and might consent to the procedure for quite the wrong reasons. There may be the occasional family keen to hasten the end of a parent with the aim of securing their inheritance sooner. Medical staff, committed to saving life, may be reluctant to be drawn into doing the exact opposite.

    There are matters both of conscience and practicalities. The latter to ensure that there are watertight procedures to prevent abuse of any kind. Recent medical scandals have shown however, that the profession cannot be relied upon to police itself reliably. Medical people who whistle blow are treated shabbily by the NHS and often driven out of the profession altogether. Our judicial system is less than perfect with miscarriages of justice galore. You only have to say the words ‘Post Office’ to see into a world of corruption, incompetence and the mass failure of our various institutions to do the basic business of acting with honesty and integrity. Dare one mention Archbishop Welby exposing yet another institution failing spectacularly. All around, whether it’s government, police, the judiciary, NHS, Anglican and Catholic churches, there are examples of gross failure to protect the vulnerable, to act honestly, to be open or admit failure.

    Given these facts, it is not too surprising that there are some who are reluctant to put themselves into the trust of such flawed institutions.

    However, accepting that there are many – and by some polls, a majority – who would like this to be law, the question is how, as ordinary citizens do we make our views known? In Salisbury, our two MPs are John Glen and Danny Kruger. The latter was exposed in the Observer for allegedly being a kind of ‘front’ for evangelical Christians who have contributed £55,000 to the campaign against the bill. He is being investigated by the Commons Standards body and we must await their findings. We do not know what Glen’s views are but he is also an evangelical Christian and often mentions his faith as a guiding force in his life.

    Is our democracy working?

    This raises interesting questions about our democracy and how it works in our corner of the world. Both these are likely to vote against the bill (Kruger definitely, Glen probably) on the basis of their religious beliefs. Yet, the recent census shows that the number of people who are Christian is now a minority at 46%. It has declined significantly from the previous census. Those who actually take an active part in the religion is much smaller still.

    Do either of them know what their constituents think about this? I very much doubt it. Although some MPs have honourably and assiduously gone around their constituencies and attended various meetings to find out, I am not aware of either of ours having done this. Parenthetically, if it passes its second reading it will go to the Lords where a collection of bishops will have their say: the same bishops who are part of the deeply flawed CofE. There is at last a move to have the bishops removed from the Lords. [It did pass its second reading. Both Kruger and Glen voted against the bill]

    So the MPs, in all probability, will vote against the bill based on their personal and religious beliefs. In a personal capacity – the same as anyone else – they are free to express their views for religious or any other reason. But they are supposed to represent the constituency and not just the religious people within it.

    Citizens’ Assembly

    These arguments suggest that we should have had a Citizens’ Assembly on this matter. That would have enabled an informed debate to take place and for a wide section of the community to take part. The failure to do so, and an almost complete failure in the media and elsewhere to suggest that such a thing should take place, points to a breakdown in our political process. Not only do our MPs not know what their constituents think about this important issue, but many in Kruger’s constituency will be unaware he is being investigated over the matter. Neither the Salisbury Journal nor the Gazette and Herald have reported it. [Correction: 29 November. both G&H and SJ have now reported it on line.] Glen reveals that the majority view of his constituents was for the bill which passed its second reading today.

    This is an important moment and the Assisted Dying bill is the latest example of people being given the power to decide their own fates and it not being determined by church or state. If the bill falls, it will be a long time before it is put forward again. As citizens of south and east Wiltshire, we are surely entitled to have our views known and taken account of. Instead, we have one MP acting surreptitiously, it is alleged, on behalf of a religious group and another driven by his evangelical beliefs. To what extent are they reflecting the views of those they are paid to represent? The answer I suggest, is not at all.

    Peter Curbishley

    UPDATE, 28 November. Mr Glen devotes his entire column in the Salisbury Journal today to this subject. Although not actually saying he will vote against, the tenor of the piece is that he will. It is based he says on discussions with people and medics and doubts some of which are similar to those mentioned above. He also mentions his own family. He makes no mention of his religious beliefs.

  • 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].

    IMG_0001Download

    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 …

  • Democracy Café – October

    The debate covered what was worth knowing and arms sales to Israel

    October 2024

    Full house for the October meeting with two lively debates.  We were also pleased to welcome several new members.  The first debate which won the vote was What is worth knowing? which quickly changed into a debate about what was taught in schools.  The first suggestion was ‘all that they need to know after they leave school’.  Another thought knowing the names of things important especially as it related to the natural world. This was followed by the suggestion that children should be taught the (true) history of the monarchy and what scoundrels and ‘thugs’ many were.

    A deeper question centred around knowledge or wisdom.  This point was made by several in the course of the debate and concerned the distinction between facts and the capacity to think critically about them. 

    In a similar vein, the importance of relationships was stressed.  Indeed, there was a torrent of suggestions which included the importance of an appreciation of the arts and music; to develop a passion for something in young people; to teach young people to trust their own instincts; teaching how to look for information and the need to teach practical skills especially as so much was spent at the keyboard.

    Critical thinking was mentioned more than once.  It was felt by several that facts alone were not sufficient but there was a need to foster enquiry and scepticism.  In Dicken’s Hard Times, currently being serialised on Radio 4, the main character’s insistence on facts and only facts, that’s what’s wanted – should not be the sole the focus of education.  Was education just about learning stuff to get a job (which sometimes seems to be a government view)?  This brought us to the national curriculum which was seen as something of a straitjacket.  This arose in a discussion about citizenship which some thought had disappeared because of time pressures and the need to get through the national curriculum and pass exams.  It turned out from a quick google search that it’s still around but it is very narrow and focuses on local government and similar parochial matters. 

    One speaker said how disturbed they were to see in a school a chart on a wall with a grading of children on it.

    Faith schools were introduced into the debate.  There are many in the country and a sizeable number were unregulated.  Creationism was still being taught in a few for example. One said ‘faith in schools’ was important rather than faith schools per se.  Spiritual awareness was important.  On the other hand, we now live in a secular society, faith should be a family thing.  The morning assembly was mentioned – a requirement of the 1944 act – but has now been replaced by what is termed an ‘act of collective worship’.  One person said that it used to be the case that non CofE pupils (Jews for example) were excluded from morning assembly.  It seemed to be agreed that teaching pupils about religion was important in view of its significance in our history and culture.  You needed to know about it to evaluate it one said. 

    We were reminded of a pertinent fact namely: children are naturally curious.  Why is it that this seems to get lost?  We did not debate this but the tenor of our discussion was about didactics and what should be learnt.  Yet the system seemed one way or another to dampen this natural curiosity found in children. 

    The mania for exams and qualifications was mentioned in connection with the College. It ran a course called ‘philosophy of our time’.  However, when the government introduced the lifelong learning initiative, perversely it required a qualification at the end and the tutor decided to run it privately. 

    Of course arguments about what should be taught in schools are as old as the hills.  How we acquire knowledge is changing rapidly, one said that their previous role as a librarian has all but disappeared.  What children need for life is also changing rapidly.  There seemed to be a consensus around the problem of government-imposed restrictions.  This meant that time given to ‘life skills’ (however defined) was limited.  There was a real need to facilitate critical thinking and a questioning attitude. 

    The second session after a break, tackled the vexed question How do we stop selling arms to Israel?  The question inevitably morphed into should we still be selling arms? There were several interventions concerning the history of the area.  Historically, British and French interests focused on the Suez Canal’s importance. It was a crucial link to India. At the beginning of the last century, oil also became significant. They did not want Arab run states on both banks of the canal.  The UK’s role in setting up the state in 1948 and the violence which followed was mentioned.  Balfour also got a mention and by implication the Sykes – Picot Agreement which divided up spheres of interest in the region after the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

    It was noted that, however much we might disapprove of the weapons sales and the use to which they are put, Israel thinks it is fighting and existential war.  Hamas and Hezbollah – as proxies for Iran – are devoted to the destruction of the country and to drive all Jews into the sea.

    While some may have agreed with this, the worry was the disproportionate nature of the destruction.  The seemingly wanton destruction of entire blocks of flats allegedly because it contained a terrorist. The ‘human shield‘ justification was often quoted but seldom evidenced.

    A problem was the hard right and hawkish elements in Israel who were influential it was said.  Although diplomacy was mentioned several times, the present Israeli government is not in any mood to engage in it.  Aggression was ever present with a ‘you kill one of ours and we will kill a hundred of yours’ philosophy.  Both sides have to want peace for a solution eventually to be found.  Israel had to establish relationships with those in the region and – a point made more than once – they were all the same people and shared the same DNA.  Indeed, it was noted that historically in the Middle East, all sorts of communities: Christian, Jewish, Moslem and others lived and traded together in city after city.  It was not true to say there has been a perpetual state of animosity. 

    The role of the Jewish lobby in the US was discussed.  They are influential and powerful and able to get Senators and academics sacked it was claimed.  It was noted that the US supplies the bulk of military materiel: around two thirds of Israel’s needs.  What the UK supplies is small by comparison although we do make parts of the F35 which are not included in the embargo.  When questioned about this the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said ‘it was part of a global contract’.  Make of that what you will.  It was also noted that an Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems has a plant in the UK near Bristol.  It is not just arms we supply but it was claimed the UK provides aircraft based in Cyprus to overfly Gaza for intelligence purposes.

    What will be the situation if Trump wins the presidential election next month someone asked?  It was Trump, when president, who ended the deal with Iran.

    It was suggested that a root issue is trauma and Thomas Hübl was mentioned.  The trauma was not just about the holocaust it was claimed. 

    We were reminded that this issue of arms supplies to Israel is not a new one.  Both Mrs Thatcher and Edward Heath imposed sanctions on the country in the past.  In fact, this link shows that six prime ministers have imposed sanctions and hence Labour’s decision is one of a long line of such decisions.

    Another point concerned war crimes and the International Court of Justice. If it is decided against Israel, then the UK will be obliged to end arms sales. 

    We were chided for not answering the question put namely how do we stop the arms sales?  Perhaps another day …

    Peter Curbishley

    In an article by Kenan Malik in the Observer (13 October) he reminds us that Netanyahu supported Hamas as a means to divide the PLO and prevent a Palestinian state.

    [amendment made 13/10: F15 should have been F35]

  • Democracy Café

    October 2024

    Don’t forget it’s the Café today, Saturday 12th in the Library starting at 10:00 for 2 hours. All are welcome. Browse this site for examples of previous debates. You can suggest your own topic or vote for someone else’s.

  • Democracy Café: September

    The power of the media: influence and control

    The group (17 strong this week) met on September 14th as usual in the Library with 2 topics chosen by vote for discussion.

    The first of these was  ”Should the power of the media be in the hands of the people who currently control it?” The media has been a fairly constant topic in our discussions, both national and local.

    Much of the debate centred around trying to understand how influenced people are by the media, both the press and social media. The newspaper market is small and elderly, but dominates politics. It was suggested that papers used to be driven by their readers, but that now the owners choose what is important, and this can be dangerous. Defined as “framing”, this means the reader receiving a partial view, which can be resistant to persuasion. (It was said that positive ideas need 5 times more effort than negative to have an effect).

    Politicians are afraid of the media, but, as one member said, they should “grow a backbone.”

    It was also pointed out that a factor in news reporting is the prevalence of SLAPPS (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), by which the judiciary can interfere with the publishing of unwelcome information about a person or organization, simply because of the cost of pursuing a case, if charged with defamation. The practice of wealthy litigants paying a sum into court means plaintiffs run the risk of having to pay both sides costs – which runs into millions – if they loose. The Murdochs have paid over £1bn to keep phone hacking out of the news using methods such as this. It’s called ‘British justice’.

    But those under 40 don’t tend to read papers. Social media gives access to your preferences and this leads to confirmation bias. For many, social media is where they are getting nearly all their news. A possible remedy would be to make the algorithms available to the public. (There may also be a need for opportunities to be created to re-educate older people about social media)

    Another suggestion was that The Guardian model of the newspaper being owned by a Trust could be a better option than ownership? Someone else observed that podcasts are a better source of information.

    Likewise with social media sites – open source sites such as Bluesky or Signal don’t use the algorithms that X or TikTok do.

    The recent riots have been a useful indicator of the issues. Certain parts of the Press could be accused of adding fuel to the fire, while ostensibly standing aside. The people on the streets were prosecuted, but not those who incited them. The Government’s subsequent prosecutions did not include some who were implicated in the background.

    In conclusion, we were left wondering “why do people believe what they believe?” Whether we are nearer an answer remains to be seen.

    The second discussion concerned whether the Government should stop selling arms to Israel. Some attendees felt (quite strongly) that there was no justification at all for selling arms, believing that claims of genocide were true. Others were concerned about the possible loss of influence it would involve.

    Questions were asked about the extent of British involvement – we are low on the list of suppliers, but arms sales generally are big business (8-10% of our exports), and it is important in our area, even if more through agencies than actual manufacture. The Foreign Office has an open licence policy, but the new government has withdrawn 30 licences out of about 350 over concerns about international humanitarian law.

    Concern was expressed about proportionality. It was pointed out that Israel’s targeting ability was greater than events would suggest which may have a bearing on what we should sell. They are a powerful military, the most powerful in the region.

    The comparison with our sales to Ukraine was made. The racial angle of the distinction was noted.

    International bodies have agreed that the regime is one of apartheid. This seems to be part of a change in attitude over the course of the war. It was questioned whether younger people who don’t get news from the newspapers (see above; the difficulty of journalists getting to the war zones was also noted) might have a different understanding of the situation. Generally the fear was that (partly due to the change in attitude in the US to its historic policing role) a sense of paralysis has set in. The situation was described as the economic colonization of Israel by the US and the political colonization of the US by Israel.

    A view was expressed that Israel may have no wish to agree a peace deal since off the coast of Gaza is a vast oil and gas field. Were a Palestinian state to have access to this resource, it would alter the politics of the region immensely.

    Clearly not an issue that is going to be resolved soon, but the debate was thoughtful and informative. As so often happens with our debates, the two topics were related since our view of the conflict in Gaza has been powerfully influenced by media coverage and the lack of independent coverage from Gaza itself.

    Andrew Hemming

    – For those interested in further details of arms sales generally, please go the the Campaign Against the Arms Trade site.

    – Glasgow University has a keen interest in media matters and publishes research of interest. Scroll to articles published by the late Greg Philo in particular. See also Bad News (Routledge & Kegan Paul pub)