Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Salisbury

  • March Democracy Café

    March 2024

    The March edition of the Democracy Café will take place on Saturday, 9th March starting at 10am upstairs in Salisbury Library. Come along for a drink and some stimulating conversation about issues that you deem to be important. A summary of the conversations from the February Café are available to read on our website – Democracy Café – Salisbury Democracy Alliance

    As a postscript to the first topic that we discussed at the February café, Mark Potts, the chair of SDA, is expecting the Salisbury Journal to publish a letter regarding the issues around John Glen in next week’s paper, or on their website. Discussions with the editor have been ongoing.

    Just a reminder that our partner organisation, the RSA, are holding an event in Salisbury Library this coming Thursday, 7th March, to mark World Book Day. Details of the event and registration can be found here – RSA Salisbury: World Book Day – RSA (thersa.org)

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    A good turnout for two debates as usual the first being a bit of a surprise. The New Statesman in its 2 – 8th February edition had made two serious allegations concerning the MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen, in a piece entitled: The Rotten State: How corruption and chumocracy are pulling the British Nation apart (subscription needed). The first debate centred on these allegations and what it meant for the future of the MP and the constituency in the forthcoming general election. 

    The two allegations were as follows: ’[…] the Future Fund, established in 2020 by the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, at a cost of £1.1bn to support British start-ups. The taxpayer has lost almost £300m on the Future Fund, which has given money to the businesses of centimillionaire wife, Ashata Murty, [and] the cabinet office minister John Glen […]’. Mr Glen has shares in a sub-Saharan African mining firm. The second allegation was that Mr Glen attended meetings (which he probably chaired as the City Minister) with the banks to arrange £71bn in loans as part of the Covid recovery. The article suggests that £17bn of this has gone missing according to the Public Accounts Committee. When attempts were made to provide details the journalist was told by the Treasury ‘we do not hold minutes of the meeting’. 

    The proposer of the topic has written to Mr Glen but his answers were somewhat vague. It was up to the Treasury to keep minutes he said. It was quickly noted that this was becoming part of a pattern with large numbers of WhatsApp messages being deleted both in Scotland and in England in connection with the Covid enquiry. It was simply not satisfactory for the business of the country to be run this way with politicians able to delete the records at will or, in the case of Mr Glen, for their to be no record in the first place.

    It was suggested that Covid was an event to enable a large sum of money to be transferred to a small number of people. It was not clear if everyone agreed with this point. The same speaker mentioned Walter Lippmann who spoke about how people were deliberately distracted from the main issue. 

    The fact that there was no mention of these allegations in the Salisbury Journal was a surprise it was suggested. They do not seem to have asked any questions of him or sought a response. Maybe we should all write to the Journal and ask ‘why not?!’ Did it matter who was the MP? someone said. Yes it did and we right to expect a certain standard of honesty and integrity from those who represented us. 

    One speaker said she always got a response when she wrote but many others said they did not. They only got a reply if it was a ‘standard’ one they said. One member had written to him about matters in the Maldives for example which Mr Glen has said he has a special interest in since there was a group of Maldivians who lived in the City. No reply has been received**. Another response was to say as a minister he was unable to interfere in another department. 

    Back to the Journal and it was asked how influential was it? Difficult to answer but it did have a much lower readership which was true of all newspapers it was noted. However, it did give Mr Glen a column each week in which he can tell us what he is doing and as such was a ‘mouthpiece’ for him. 

    There was a brief discussion about the need to improve local journalism and the Trust News Initiative was mentioned.

    The second debate centred on Palestine and ideas around creating a state. The war in Gaza was in full spate at present with a reported 27,000 dead and many thousands missing. The proposer noted that Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, had mooted the idea of a separate Palestinian state. But who would fix the boundaries especially as the Israelis wanted to take more land? Would not be better if the countries of the Middle East held centre stage rather than ‘outside’ countries such as the US?

    One speaker noted that Palestine had been offered statehood in 1948, again after the Yom Kippur war and also after Camp David talks. Each time they have refused. At elections they have voted for Hamas who murdered the opposition and who’s only motive is the extinction of the Jewish State. It was also noted the leadership lived in Qatar. While this may be true, it was noted that Hamas had also been supported by Mr Netanyahu partly to destabilise the Palestinian leadership. 

    This narrative overlooked the significant role played by the US in the region and the powerful influence they had on Middle Eastern politics. The real issue is the relationship between the US and Iran which was a key driver of the politics of the area.

    Several speakers referred to outside influences over history – one even went back to the Romans! Perhaps they might ask in the area ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?’ More recently, Britain took a keen interest because we wanted a secure route for Persian oil through the Suez Canal. Mention was also made of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the role of Lloyd George in seeking Jewish support to get the US into WWI. We played a role in the UN Mandate in what was then called Palestine. There was also the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between France and Britain concerning post-war and post Ottoman spheres of influence in the area. One comment was from someone who served with Army in the area in 1948 in an attempt to keep the peace. He referred to the 900 or so British soldiers who were murdered during this time. Wounds run deep. 

    Latterly, the Americans have held sway. A solution can only come it was said if there was a regional deal. To achieve this some of the Palestinian leadership needed to be released from Israeli gaols. 

    But the overriding series of comments centred on the role of outside influence of one kind or another. The selling of arms by several western countries particularly the US and Britain although Russian and China are involved, can only inflame the situation. The Abrahamic Accords in 2020 were mentioned and the commitment to recognise both sides diplomatically. They were called ‘Abrahamic’ because they recognised Abraham as a common link between the two religions.

    South Africa was mentioned who had launched the case against Israel in the International Criminal Court accusing them of genocide in Gaza which Israel has denied. Could they be mediators? The crucial point someone said was what was needed was a country which didn’t have history in the area. This would rule out USA, Britain, France and some others, all of whom have meddled or had a role in pursuing their interests over the interests of the people who live there. A related factor is possibly a sense of collective and almost atavistic guilt in some of the powers involved especially their bad treatment of Jews over the centuries: their expulsion from York in the twelfth century for example, their expulsion from Spain and so on, not to mention the Holocaust itself. 

    Northern Ireland was mentioned and the decades of the ‘Troubles’. It was eventually resolved by negotiation, pressure on the UK from the US, and a Canadian negotiator. These things can be resolved. In this connection, António Guterres*, the UN General Secretary was suggested as a possible mediator.

    As a final note, the practice of calling someone ‘anti-Semitic’ when they criticised Israel was deprecated. 

    For once, two unrelated debates as different as chalk and cheese (a good Wiltshire based expression). The next meeting is on Saturday 9th March, same place, same time.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Guterres is Portuguese.

    ** Correction 16 February: a reply has now been received and Mr Glen said he will raise the matter with the FCO.

    Books:

    The Palestine – Israel Conflict, 2015, Dan Cohen-Sherbok and Dawoud El-Alami, Oneworld.

    The Balfour Declaration. 2018, Bernard Regan, Verso.

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    The next meeting of the café is this Saturday, 10 February at 10:00 as usual in the Library (upstairs) and all are welcome. If you haven’t been before, have a look at the write-ups of previous cafés to get a feel of what we talk about. The meetings last 2 hours with a short break in the middle. We look forward to seeing you there.

    PC

  • Last meeting

    The last meeting of the Café was held this Saturday, 9th December in Salisbury Library. If you haven’t been before – and we do seem to get one or two new members to each meeting – the idea is that we ask people to suggest a topic of a broadly political or philosophical nature upon which we vote and the winning suggestion is debated. Typically we debate two topics in a meeting. You can read the reviews of previous meetings elsewhere on this site to give you an idea.

    A report will appear shortly.

    PC

  • November 2023 Democracy Café

    There was a good turnout at Salisbury Library for the November 2023 Democracy Café. The two-minute silence to mark Armistice Day was preceded by a discussion based on the question:

    Do we have the right to protest?

    The first comment was that technically we do not have the right to protest. We have the right to assemble and to express ourselves, two rights which are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, which, according to Liberty, gives us the right to protest.

    Discussion ensued on what is meant by protest? It was suggested that it takes the form of fairly passive forms of action, such as writing letters to the local newspaper or to our MP and more active forms, such as attacking infrastructure. These more disruptive forms of protest are more contentious and it was mentioned that there is a danger that the use of such tactics can turn the narrative away from the issues that are being protested towards the tactics themselves. This could be counter productive for the protestors, especially as the media can play a major role in influencing the narrative as has been seen with Just Stop Oil. The purpose of protest, it was suggested, is to cut through but there is a danger that in doing so the message is lost, which is why Extinction Rebellion have moved away from illegal methods of protest. The counter argument proposed was that illegal protests have in the past influenced important legislative changes. Two examples given were illegal actions taken by the suffragettes and the gay rights movement.

    The discussion turned to the importance of the right to protest in a democracy. It was suggested that it is just as important in a healthy democracy to defend the right of those supporting right wing causes, such as the EDL, to protest as it is to defend those supporting causes which we might be more supportive of.

    There was some dismay about the lack of impact of protests in effecting policy change and reference was made to the march of one million people to protest against the invasion of Iraq in London in February 2003. This protest march was one of 800 held in cities around the world and was recorded in the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the biggest ever held. It did not immediately impact the main protagonist’s approach. However, it was suggested that it influenced government’s future approaches to similar situations as it demonstrated that mass support for invasions could not be taken for granted. Similarly, protests about gay rights took many years to bear fruit in terms of influencing public opinion and eventually law making.

    After the break another topical issue was discussed in answering the question:

    Does a country have the right to do anything in the name of its’ own defence?

    It was pointed out that in the UK before we had a Ministry of Defence we had a Ministry of War, which is perhaps a more honest reflection of the role of the ministry.

    There was some discussion about what is meant by “defence”. One suggestion was that defence is a more passive act whereas offence is more active. Then, it was suggested that attack can be seen as the best form of defence and a military response to a credible threat can be a defence. It was pointed out that if such an attack is over aggressive it can lead to further enmity and spark further conflict in the future. Several references were made to the current conflict in Israel/Palestine in this respect. 

    If a military response as a form of defence is pursued then what are the boundaries within which combatants should engage? The just war theory is a tradition of military ethics, part of which concerns the moral conduct of participants within war. This suggests that there are two main principles which are proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality regards how much force is necessary and morally appropriate to the ends being sought and the injustice suffered. The principle of discrimination determines who are the legitimate targets in a war, and specifically makes a separation between combatants, who it is permissible to kill, and non-combatants, who it is not. Failure to follow these rules can result in the loss of legitimacy for the war.  

    Discussion turned to the framework of international law which limits the actions of a nation state when engaged in its’ own defence. It was suggested that in the absence of an international body capable of enforcing the framework, it was not an effective limit. It was pointed out that the United Nations has been unable to act to prosecute those accused of crimes against humanity in nations such as Syria. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that the state of nature is the “war of every man against every man,” in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. Hence, he argued, in his book the Leviathan, the need for a governing body which would achieve peace through a social contract. Is the UN capable of playing that role, or is it too weak?

    The discussion moved on to consider whether war was always wrong with the view expressed that war can be useful in leading to the resolution of conflict between states, as with the second world war and the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. It was suggested that the current and ongoing conflict in the Middle East may have been avoided if the war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine in the 1940s had been allowed to play itself out. Some questioned the premise that war can be an effective way of resolving disputes.

    Two good discussions which were highly appropriate for Armistice Day.

    Mark Potts

  • Democracy Café

    September 2023

    Met during a blisteringly hot day, probably a record breaker for September, and we were pleased to welcome two new members to the fold. The most popular topic concerned the state of the prison estate. The situation in our prisons had made the news this week following the escape of terror suspect Daniel Khalife from Wandsworth prison a couple of days ago where he was being held on remand. Coincidentally, he was recaptured while we were meeting. Many statements about our prisons were made which few could disagree with. We were reminded of Douglas Hurd’s comment that prison simply made bad people worse.

    The rapid movement of prisoners around the estate meant training programmes often went uncompleted making rehabilitation largely ineffective. The high absence rate – said to be 30% at Wandsworth – combined with high staff turnover, meant the proper management of prisoners and their rehabilitation was compromised. The language of some of our judges at sentencing drew some criticism. The majority of our prisoners were from poor backgrounds and often had poor literacy skills. This was not to excuse their behaviour but did seem to point to a range of social issues behind crime. Many were ‘damaged people’ someone said.

    The Nordic model was mentioned several times. The example of the Netherlands was quoted and the fact that the country was busy selling off its prisons and reducing the number of prisoners. That has not led to an increase in serious crime levels which remained largely unchanged. This seemed to demonstrate quite clearly that the notion of ‘prison works’ is fallacious. Other Nordic countries were doing much the same.

    So why did we stick to the prison works model and continue to pack our prisons with more and more people sometimes two to a cell? We have just under 86,000 prisoners in England and Wales and the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe (House of Commons statistics [accessed 9 September]). Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Yet we go on packing our prisons. Why is this?

    The role of the tabloids immediately came up and several thought that it was political suicide to seek to reform the system, reduce the prison population or try other sentencing options. Any politician daring to reduce sentences, and hence the size of the prison population, would likely face immediate screaming headlines suggesting the public would not be able to venture safely out of their homes or be murdered in their beds, followed by the swift departure of said minister to the backbenches or Northern Ireland. To spend money on the estate and to replace Victorian era prisons was deemed almost impossible some thought summed up in the quote “you’re going to spend money on the man who robbed me not on my pension”.

    As ever in these debates, the causal factors are what interests. Politicians follow the tabloids and the tabloids follow public opinion. So why do the public adhere to the idea of more draconian sentences and a desire for vengeance? One answer was a need to educate the public. If the facts of prison life and our high rate of recidivism was made more evident then maybe people could be weaned off the kneejerk ‘prison works’ model. That prisons are ‘holiday camps‘ is still a sentiment expressed including by some politicians. All was not gloom however and it was suggested there was a slight shift in tabloid comments towards victims and away from the criminals. The New Zealand model of confronting offenders with victims was mentioned. But changes in opinion can happen and the example of homosexuality was put forward: where once it was a crime and homosexuals suffered persecution and criminalisation, the Sexual Offences Act (1967) changed the climate considerably in favour of toleration. In the context of prisons it was strange that the Howard League for Penal Reform seldom gained a mention.

    Rory Stewart was mentioned in connection with his attempts, as the Minister concerned, at reform by reducing the number of pointless short sentences and introducing more rehabilitation efforts. He did not last long in post. The privatisation of the probation service by his predecessor Chris Grayling MP was a disaster and had to be undone. Why was not more use made of parole? someone asked.

    It was noted that even in Republican states in the US, positive reforms can take place. A cross-party consensus was clearly needed in the UK to ‘depoliticise’ this issue. Select Committees can also be effective it was noted. So this session did end with a soupcon of hope: that the tide of ignorance promoted by the likes of the Daily Mail – seemingly reflecting public opinion – may not in fact be the majority view and with education attitudes might be encouraged to shift. It was perhaps a topic which a Citizens’ Assembly could tackle? Bringing together evidence and experts is just the kind of exercise which a CA could bring about change.

    So overall, a sense of despair mixed with some optimism that things can change over time the key being sufficient numbers of the public to realise that the current system, in addition to being expensive and inhumane, was simply not working.

    Our second topic was something of an abrupt change and concerned Saudi Arabia and the planned visit by Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to the UK. Should we treat Saudi Arabia as a partner? was the question. The proposer listed the problems of the country: the poor treatment of women and gays; the lack of free speech; the war engaged by Saudi in the Yemen and later in the discussion, the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, allegedly on the orders of MBS. It was pointed out that Saudi has now executed 100 people so far this year.

    The reason for this courtship as someone expressed it was twofold: Saudi was a major purchaser of our arms and secondly, they were a major oil producer which, following problems with Russia, was an important factor. Since arms sales were one of the nations growth industries, good relations with countries like Saudi were important. It was not just arms and oil someone said. Saudi was a kingdom and there were close relationships between MBS and our royal family with gifts of valuable bloodstock between the two.

    In relation to the Khashoggi murder, it was pointed out that the CIA had carried out a number of murders over the years so it was not all one-sided. We claim to have a special relationship with the US so how genuine was the outrage expressed about the Khashoggi murder at the time?

    In relation to arms sales, the UK’s role in promoting arms sales at the DSEI exhibition was noted. Also, it was often said that ‘if we didn’t sell arms, others would’ but a recent report by Campaign Against the Arms Trade questioned that. It reveals that sales of arms by both Russia and China have fallen recently: in Russia’s case because of the war in Ukraine which is consuming large amounts of military materiel, and by China because it is building up its store of weapons probably in preparation for an invasion of Taiwan. Further details can be found on the Salisbury Amnesty site in which these issues are discussed in more depth.

    The nub of this debate concerned government’s role in relations with other countries especially those where human rights were weakly observed or not observed at all. To what extent does – or should – morality be a consideration? We need to sell arms it seems if we want money to spend on schools and hospitals. We need oil to run our economy and to enable us to drive our cars. Saudi has a big role to play in each. Can we afford to adopt a moral position is the key question? As with the previous debate someone suggested we needed to look for that small event which might lead to significant change – a hint of the butterfly effect if you will.

    In sum, and not just in relation to Saudi, there was a real risk to democracy someone thought, perhaps a topic for a future debate. We did agree it was a hard subject.

    Finally, with a little time to spare, we briefly discussed the conviction and sentencing of Lucy Letby the nurse convicted recently for murdering babies in a neo-natal ward in Chester. The proposer made the point it was obvious she was an extremely sick young woman. There has been nothing about a psychological assessment or her future treatment. She will have to go on Rule 43 because of the likely risks from other prisoners.

    There was a call for her to be executed as an ‘evil person’ but this was not supported by those present. There was a risk of starting to find excuses for her behaviour: some people were just ‘evil’.

    Someone with hospital experience said that a feature of neo-natal units is that they are based on team working since premature infants needed constant attention. They thought others must have noticed which in fact did happen to an extent. It was noted that the hospital concerned was more interested in their reputation rather than investigating the incidents properly. Although every hospital was different, it was an example of ‘silo working’. Those who had medical friends did sometimes note the hostility that is sometimes expressed by clinical staff towards managers. There did seem to be a gulf between them and the Robinson programme on the BBC some years ago was mentioned where this hostility was amply illustrated.

    There did seem to be a similarity between the NHS and the prison system. Both organisations needed reform and investment yet did not get more than token activity by a succession of ministers none of whom seemed able, or were in post long enough, to tackle the major issues involved.

    Three interesting debates.

    Peter Curbishley

    Note: a claim about how Vancouver sentenced people was made but we have not been able to verify this.

  • Democracy café – August

    August 2023

    These are the notes of the Democracy Café held on 12 August 2023.

    A number of people were away for a variety of reasons so attendance was low.

    Four topics suggested, two (Citizens Assembly, Stonehenge tunnel) were politely set aside.

    We kicked off with What response should we give to our MP John Glen, given his unsatisfactory response to a letter about the pending legislation on Freedom to Demonstrate?

    Unfortunately, neither the letter (written by one of us regulars) nor JG’s reply was tabled. Since we couldn’t read the exchange in detail, it was hard to provide an effective/cogent rejoinder.

    The discussion brought out many concerns, including: foreign policy outside the reach of local constituencies; the UK’s image/reputation abroad; the particular threat to teachers and solicitors who might face the loss of career if found ‘guilty’ of causing public disturbance; UK status/ credibility within the European Court of Human Rights.

    Having agreed we could not prepare a draft a letter to John Glen, we broadened the debate/airing of concerns and opinions, actually encroaching on some of the stuff that would have come up had we opted for the shelved Citizens Assembly theme, and ideas that were to come up after coffee in the National Autonomy.

    Shifting semantics means that the words liberal (Liberal?) and conservative (Conservative?) cannot be tossed around with confidence.

    The second topic, which triggered another wide-ranging discussion (and the voicing of opinions which varied according to individuals’ depth of research and ‘urge to comply’ vs ‘defiance’) was Should we sacrifice national autonomy in – for example – pandemic preparedness as we collaborate with the World Health Organisation?

    The next meeting of the Café is on 9 September.

  • Democracy Café: July

    July 2023

    A full house at the July 2023 Democracy Café to discuss two topics, both of which are at the top of people’s minds at present: the state of the two party system and immigration.

    The first topic was around the question How do we get out of the two party system? One of the first comments to be made was that we had an adversarial system exemplified by the knockabout prime minsters questions once a week. Surely it would be better if efforts were directed at how to improve matters (the economy and social concerns for example) rather than spend time on this political theatre.

    Some pointed to other countries which had coalitions which of course we had at the beginning of the last decade. Several of the problems the country has faced recently had a cross party feel to them eg, Northern Ireland, Covid and even Brexit. This indicated that problems were in fact bigger than the parties. It was suggested that with coalitions, minority parties assumed disproportionate power. Some disagreed with this assertion saying they thought it was something of a myth. It probably does depend on the numbers.

    The argument was forcibly put for a written constitution. This led on to the need to separate the government from the House of Commons. The present system meant the governing party and the HoC were almost one thus neutralising the Commons and MPs. The result was it almost became a dictatorship (the elective dictatorship we have discussed previously). The sole purpose of the HoC it was argued was to pass legislation and agree the budget.

    The role of MPs in relation to their constituents was mentioned. Those who contacted their local MP – who in the case of Salisbury was a member of government – were met with the response that he could do nothing because he was barred by collective responsibility. Or they got a anodyne response that was simply the party line.

    With emails and organisations urging the public to ‘get in touch with their MP’, can he or she cope with the volume of material? Was it worthwhile doing so? ‘Yes’ was the response and it can work.

    A dissenting voice was the problem with coalitions was that they tended to be slow. The first past the post system (FPTP) did give rise to strong government it was suggested. There was a tension between authoritarianism and democracy and the tendency of governments is towards the former came up several times.

    The prevailing mood of the discussion so far was the feeling that the ordinary voter was overlooked in the system we have. How could voters voices be heard? What mattered in the process was the swing voter who were critical in some constituencies. As if to counter this pessimistic view the role of protest groups in changing the political climate was noted. The example given was the suffragettes which was true to an extent although the suffragists laboured for four decades without success and it took further two decades for the suffragettes to get votes for women.

    The debate was predicated on the notion of two parties being distinct and with little opportunity for other parties to make headway. However, quite how different were the two parties? If the Conservatives were truly a right wing party then government expenditure would be cut and no doubt other typically right wing polices would be enacted. It was in fact difficult sometimes to see them apart. Indeed, a problem for the Labour party was their policy ideas being taken from them by the government, the windfall tax a recent example.

    Which other countries have FPTP it was asked? Belarus was the answer, hardly an ideal exemplar and which seemed to sum things up quite well. We should not get carried away by claims about the authoritarian nature of the government – we do still have fundamental freedoms. The very fact we were able to meet and have a perfectly free debate would not be possible in other truly authoritarian states.

    People fundamentally wanted to see good decision making. The calibre of those going into parliament – and perhaps more to the point – high calibre people not going into parliament, was depressing. It was still difficult for women to make headway particularly in view of the large number of abuse cases (‘pestminster’) currently being investigated. The culture within politics was discouraging it was suggested.

    How to get change? We do get the politics and politicians we deserve to an extent which pointed to making sure people were educated about the system. This included schools but it seems that civics classes are no more. Whether outside people should go into schools was queried – surely they would import bias? The purpose of such talks was about the system of government, not party policies. Groups like ourselves debating these issues was part of the mix it was noted.

    Conclusions? One thought was that many problems came down to one of two solutions which pointed to two political parties. Historically, the Conservatives represented the owners of capital and Labour the wage earners (somewhat oversimplified) which again suggested a two party system. We were depressed by the quality of the people who represent us but, it is we who vote them in. Would a better educated electorate make a difference? Perhaps. Change was possible however and campaign groups can effect change. The FPTP system has hindered change as we have noted before – UKIP with its 3 million votes but had only one MP.

    The second debate was should we welcome migrants or not? A question of considerable political salience at present. The first problem was defining terms – was it refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants we were talking about? The question was left hanging.

    Migration of one kind of another had been with us since the dawn of time, we originated in Africa after all. Many of those in the room will have some foreign blood. The problem today it was claimed was coloured migrants – we seemed to be reasonably unconcerned about people coming here from America, Canada, Australia and so on, but those stepping off the boats caused fury.

    One curiosity was people expressing great pride with their sons or daughters going to foreign climes and doing well there. But people coming here are regarded with hostility by many. What exactly is the difference? We are proud of our emigrants but hostile to other’s immigrants. A question left unanswered was ‘what criteria should we apply to judge if someone was to be made welcome here?’

    Those who had spent time in the USA said the system was a little different and it was important to gain accreditation i.e. the green card. In the UK it was less clear cut.

    Many people leaving their homes were doing so not because they wanted to but because of war, persecution, climate problems and similar factors. If we were so angered by a proportion of them ending up on our shores – literally in the case of the Channel crossings – then we should do more to improve matters where they live. Yet the government has cut foreign aid. In a similar vein, many were fleeing areas like the middle east – places like Syria and Iraq – where western policies, especially those of the UK and France after WWI, were the root cause of problems today.

    The situation in the health service was noted. The service depended on a vast number of overseas staff many of whom left because of feeling unwelcome during the Referendum and latterly, we were losing significant numbers of clinical staff to Australia, Canada and elsewhere.

    The attitude of Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel, drew almost universal disdain. They were descendants of immigrants welcomed here yet were now vociferously campaigning against those coming after them.

    A view was expressed that immigrants were a cost to the taxpayer. It was pointed out however that if they were allowed to work, they would contribute to the economy and pay tax. So far from being a burden they would be a benefit. There was need of a culture change and to see such people in a more positive light. This might change attitudes. The contrast with Sicily was noted where people buying and doing up properties were welcomed as they were a boost to the local economy.

    We are an island with a very clear border namely the sea. There are countries where borders have shifted considerably especially in eastern Europe for example Poland and Romania. Yet there were still hatreds and enmities suggesting that the problem was connected with culture, ethnicity or language. It was not just an issue of borders and nationality.

    One of the aspects of the political scene was how politicians tried to take the high moral ground: it wasn’t prejudice or animosity towards immigrants they claimed, it was instead a war against the people smugglers. It was a pity more did not recognise this attempted sleight of hand. The smugglers were capitalising on a problem that existed, not creating it.

    Someone had seen a minister claim on TV that we needed immigrants to keep wages down and hence solve inflation.

    On the subject of Rwanda, the country had been used by Israel with the same purpose in mind. They had abandoned it because it just seemed to increase the incidence of smuggling. All those sent there left immediately and attempted to return to Europe.

    To encourage or deter – two opposite policies which mimicked the two party system – which is where we sort of came in …

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on 12 August at 10:00 am and in Salisbury Library

  • Citizens’ Assemblies ‘an investment’

    July 2023

    Another letter in the Salisbury Journal this week (July 6) arguing that CAs are ‘an investment’

    Following on from previous week’s letters to the Journal, this week saw a letter from Mike Hodgson arguing that it was wrong to see Citizens’ Assemblies as a cost.

    “I agree with Dickie Bellringer and his assessment of the benefits of Citizens’ Assemblies. He says that councillors and the political parties see CAs as a cost. I see them as an investment, ensuring good planning results in the effective implementation of schemes; not just assessing them in terms of cost, but also in terms of them being fit for purpose and achieving the desired objectives.

    “With £18k spent on a CA the People Friendly Streets scheme may not have happened as it did, thereby saving considerably more than the £18k [which would have been] spent. CAs are an investment. An investment in doing the job right in the first place and as such, save money not waste it.

    “Councillors seem to assume CA overrides their democratically elected decision-making powers, rendering them redundant. It does not. While councillors fulfil and important elected role safeguarding the people and the people’s purse strings, a CA is an information gathering tool and exercise in understanding the issue in question, the pros and cons,the problems and opportunities.

    “As such it is a democratic adjunct to quality decision-making providing high quality information from informed citizens. The final decision will always reside with the council and the councillors, because they are the elected decision makers and are democratically in control of the budget.

    “However, as Sir Winston Churchill once said, having good quality information is critical to making good decisions”.

    Mike Hodgson

  • Citizens’ Assemblies letter

    A second letter on Citizens’ Assemblies is published in the Salisbury Journal. We also write to the Area Board on this topic

    June 2023

    A second letter is published in today’s Salisbury Journal arguing for a CA to be held to consider the future of the City Hall (29 June 2023). There is also a letter arguing for greater involvement by local people and not for consultations to take place when in fact, decisions have already taken place.

    The first letter from Mark Potts:

    “Dickie Bellringer is right to suggest that the Salisbury City Council (SCC) administration should consider pushing Citizens’ Assemblies back up the agenda [in his letter to the Journal on] 22 June.

    “With the future of the City Hall to be decided, SCC needs to be putting pressure on Wiltshire Council (WC) to involve the people of Salisbury in determining its future through a Citizens’ Assembly.

    “Regarding the City Hall, Ian Blair-Pilling says that WC is focused on bring a long-term solution to Salisbury. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are fully involved in deciding the future of the City Hall and this is best done through a CA.

    “Too often decisions like this that impact on Salisbury have been taken without sufficient involvement of Salisbury citizens. Fully involved does not mean a consultation exercise whereby we are asked what we think about a decision once it has been made. It means something like a Citizens’ Assembly where a randomly selected representative group of Salisbury citizens hear the evidence and make informed recommendations based on the evidence.

    “Wiltshire Council can then say that they have truly listened to the people of Salisbury and made a decision based on their recommendations. This is what many other councils around the country have done on similar issues.

    “At a fraction of the cost of a parish poll, Citizens’ Assemblies give those who are not usually heard a chance to fully engage with the arguments and influence the future of our city.”

    Sentiments expressed in the above comments are repeated in a letter from Anne Trevett. Some extracts of which are:

    “The situation around [the] City Hall is complex and the current proposal by Wiltshire Council to develop a splendid new library and cultural centre is not without merit. It could be transformative for Salisbury as it has in places like Chester. But it is also high risk.

    […] “But there is a very real problem around the decision making process and its transparency. The present decision to explore a new building option has been taken by WC’s cabinet and if the discussion in the Salisbury Area Boards is any indication, does not have the full support of local councillors or the community.

    […] “Meantime, discussion of an alternative solution harnessing community energies in a way that has been shown to be hugely successful by numerous voluntary group in our City, from the Trussell Trust and Alabaré to more recently St John’s Place, are dismissed out of hand. Yet these organisation are Salisbury’s glory – example of social enterprise that have been seen as national exemplars of how to get things done.

    “Of course, the Council’s own solution will be to put up for “consultation” but only after months and years and massive expenditure on the plans. Not for the first time, I and many others are asking for our views to be considered in the drawing up of plans, not at the very end, at the point when decisions are already taken.”

    Both these letters express the concern about the manner of decision making.

    Mark Potts has also written to the Area Board in the following terms:

    “I am writing to you as Chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) to make the case for a Citizens’ Assembly/Jury (CA/J) as part of the process to determine the future of the City Hall in Salisbury.  If you look at social media and read the local newspaper you will know that there is a perception amongst many people in Salisbury that decisions about our city are made by Wiltshire representatives living some distance away from us.

    “Whether this is a justified perception or not, it is prevalent and needs to be addressed. There is a perception that Wiltshire Council (WC) adopts a DAD approach to decision making for Salisbury. DAD stands for Decide, Announce, Defend. In essence, WC decides what it wants to do, announces it and invites responses. Then it seeks to defend its position if there are counter views. The problem is that people do not feel that they were involved in the decision making process and it leaves people thinking that the consultation process is little more than a sham.  EDD by contrast, stands for Engage, Deliberate and Decide. Engagement has the advantage of involving people in the decision making process from the start giving people an opportunity to contribute ideas with some chance that they will be incorporated, or at least considered. This is precisely what a CA/J enables to happen.

    “Many people in Salisbury reference the People Friendly Streets scheme as a recent example of the failed DAD approach. Whilst the rationale behind it had many merits, the lack of involvement of Salisbury citizens in its’ implementation meant that it was doomed to failure. Lessons need to be learned from that. 

    “From previous conversations with councillors, I am aware that there are concerns about the cost of running a CA/J. We at SDA have explored the costs and we are confident that a CA/J could be run at a cost to the Council of around £20k. I can provide more details on this should it be required. When we consider that the recent parish poll cost double that amount, this does not seem a large amount of money to restore some faith in the democratic nature of decision making. 

    “I am sure you realise that the City Hall is a building which is much treasured by the people of Salisbury. Its future use is a topic that is being hotly debated. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are given the opportunity to engage with the evidence, deliberate on it and contribute ideas to determine what happens to the Hall going forward. Of course, the final decision rightly rests with the elected representatives, but I hope that you recognise that engaging citizens in the process through a CA/J will further legitimise the decisions that are made“. 

    PC