Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Salisbury

  • Letter to the Journal

    A letter was published in the Salisbury Journal on the subject of Citizens’ Assemblies

    June 2023

    Dickie Bellringer of this parish wrote to the Salisbury Journal who published his letter on June 22nd.

    “Ian Curr is right to suggest that citizens assemblies (CAs) ‘may prove the next step forward’ (June 8th). Indeed the current Labour, LibDem and Independent leadership all expressed support for the idea when they were candidates for the election. But then the realities of of a stretched public purse kicked in and CAs have slipped down the agenda, largely because of the cost.

    “As I said in may last letter however, Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) expects to be able to deliver a CA for less than £18,000, with the help of local partners and if we got a firm commitment from Salisbury City Council (SCC), then the SDA would commit to raising a significant proportion.

    “As of March 31 this year the SCC’s readily accessible reserves stood at £2.01 million presumbly less the cost of the parish polls. Those reserves are about £800,000 more than minimum required by the council’s Financial Regulations. No doubt it makes sense to have in reserve more than the bare minimum, especially in these uncertain economic times. Nevertheless, it seems that the council’s financial position is relatively healthy, which is a tribute to the efficiency of the administration and officers.

    “All I ask is that, with £12,000 already set aside in the budget for community engagement and SDA’s commitment to raise money itself, the SCC administration consider pushing CAs back up the agenda.”

    Dickie Bellringer

    (founding member of SDA)

  • Democracy Café

    June 2023

    A small, but perfectly formed group, met in the Library on Saturday 10 June 2023 and two topics were voted for discussion. It was held after the fairly momentous day in national politics when Boris Johnson had stepped down as MP having received a draft of the privileges committee report which is apparently damming of his behaviour. His honours list was also published with various individuals of dubious merit being ennobled or honoured in some way including his hair dresser which might come as a surprise to those who assumed it was mown rather than cut.

    The first topic asked whether Sir Keir Starmer risked throwing out the baby with the bathwater by seeking to appeal to the middle ground. One worry was the decision to deselect the sitting North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll for sharing a platform with Ken Loach the film maker who himself was expelled from the party for his associations with proscribed groups. This worried several people as it seems to be a sign of eliminating anyone who disagrees with the party line.

    One theme, which was expressed at several moments during the debate was the lack of vision by the Labour party. Some also thought he (Sir Keir Starmer) was floundering and that he was not a good communicator. Others also wondered if the policies would in fact be put into practice if and when they formed a government. He lacked charisma and perhaps most seriously, did not give people a sense of hope.

    Others disagreed most particularly with the idea he was floundering. It has to be recognised that the opposition has so much against it. If it spelt out policies too soon they would either be trashed or taken by the government, witness the windfall tax on the oil companies. There is a need to believe in him it was suggested. The difference between the two main parties was noted: the Conservatives for their loyalty (although that was somewhat doubtful at present) and the Labour party where there were often splits or major differences of policy and direction to be seen.

    As ever, we moved on to discuss how the media treat the parties and it was noted that the announcement by Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, that the proposed £28bn spend on green infrastructure would not take place straightaway, was pounced on by nearly all of the media but by contrast, the multiple spending promises dropped by the Conservatives received much less prominence.

    The reluctance of the party to take on the media in contrast to Prince Harry’s battle with the Mirror was commented on. There was a different media landscape now with very few young people buying or reading a newspaper. It was claimed that young people were more idealistic and perhaps the point here was that they were not attracted to the tabloid end of the market with its kiss and tell type stories. By contrast it was claimed that the new TV stations such as GB News with its fairly partisan approach was said to be popular with young people.

    What a lot of the media coverage lacked was nuance. Few issues were black and white, right or wrong and yet coverage was often cast in an unnuanced way.

    To be ‘left wing’ was something of an insult it was noted. A curious observation and poses the question why? It went with ‘woke’ and meant it was an easy insult to throw at someone or a party. Why this should be we didn’t explore and it might be a question for a future debate.

    Can an honest politician survive today? Could someone who ‘told it how it was’ and what is needed to fix our economy, society generally, the need for higher taxes and perhaps a tax on property, could such a person ever be elected? Almost certainly not although Mick Lynch was mentioned (who is not actually a politician). Are all politicians doomed to tell lies to get elected and then attempt to do what they think needs to be done afterwards? Which sort of brought us back to Sir Keir – not the suggestion of lying – but the need to steer a careful course, not spell out policy positions too soon for fear of being attacked.

    The second debate was quite different. This was the question Julian Assange has lost his appeal, should we be worried? This concerns the extended legal battle against extradition to the US which has been trying to get him to trial for a number of years. It came a day after Donald Trump was charged on 37 counts relating to removing top secret documents from the White House and leaving them lying around in various places in his house in Florida.

    The first point was that this was about freedom of speech and the press and Assange has performed a public service by revealing some of the activities being carried out by our governments. He was doing his job as a journalist including revealing some of the appalling activities being perpetrated in Guantanamo Bay. It was not clear if his revelations had done any actual harm.

    It was admitted that he was a strange personality and he had been accused of sexual assault in Sweden, charges now dropped. However, there was a principle at stake.

    A different view was to ask ‘why are we seeking to override the law in America?’ Surely it was up to the Americans to decide his fate? But what about the Sacoolas case and Harry Dunn? She fled the UK claiming diplomatic immunity following the accidental death of Harry Dunn? The extradition treaty was very one-sided it was noted: the Americans can extradite from the UK but refuse to allow Americans to be sent here for trial. Sacoolas will not come to the UK to stand trial.

    Could Assange receive a fair trial in the US? Anyone with knowledge of the American legal system would doubt that.

    Governments want to curtail freedom of the press. Around the world, journalists are arrested, abducted or murdered.

    However, governments were entitled to hold some secrets. However distasteful, our government engages in espionage with a view, partly at least, to protect our interests and to be aware of countries or other entities which might wish to do us harm. The problem was when this spilled over into unwarranted intrusion of private individuals, in short it was a matter of trust. People’s trust in our government was not high and many no longer had trust in the government not hide secrets we should know about. It was observed that we were supposed to be a society controlled by law but the problem was that the vast majority of us could not afford access to it because of the enormous cost. The quality and impartiality of the judiciary was also called in question.

    This led to a discussion of the case of Carol Cadwalladr who had done sterling work in exposing vote rigging in connection with Aaron Bank’s alleged activities and his many meetings with Kremlin officials (which he denies). Outrage has been caused by a judge’s ruling in the latest appeal by Banks that she will have to pay some of his costs which will amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Her journalism has performed a public service yet by some esoteric legal reasoning she is made financially the poorer. Other media did not develop the story possibly because it exposed wrongdoing with the Brexit vote. She was insultingly referred to by Andrew Neil as ‘Carol Codswallop’ among other insults. The judges’ decision was yet another expensive blow to the freedom of the press and the free speech generally.

    Final word: a fair trial for Julian Assange was ‘for the birds.’

    Peter Curbishley

  • Second Talkshop

    Second Talkshop held in May 2023

    The second Talkshop was held on Saturday 27 May in Brown Street with two hours spent on debating a variety of issues.  The event was run by dividing attendees into groups of around half a dozen who were given a variety of cards upon which were described successful projects that have been run elsewhere in the country or indeed the world.  The result was three ideas which could be applied in Salisbury.  If there was a common theme it was the need for improved involvement in decision making. 

    SDA has been promoting the idea of a citizens’ assembly for some time now so far without success.  The idea of an assembly is to invite a carefully selected and representative group of people – who are then sorted for demographic balance – to debate, with the help of experts, a problem or proposed policy with a view to arriving at an informed result or recommendation.  It has the advantage of involving local people in decision making and in subjecting a proposal or policy to some kind of rigorous analysis before it is put into effect.  It has been successfully applied in a number of locations usually with beneficial results. 

    Cost has been one of the arguments deployed against using the assembly technique and it was coincidental that a row erupted in the City Council concerning a parish poll it held in March this year and there is an article on the subject in the Salisbury Journal (Parish poll will cost city double projected figure, June 1, 2023). The poll is likely to cost £40,000 against an original budget of £18,000.  Very few people took part and it is unclear what value was derived from the exercise. 

    A citizens’ assembly by contrast would cost less than this (and SDA will engage in fundraising to lessen the burden on the Council) and is almost certain to achieve positive results.  One of the factors which emerged in the Talkshop, which all authorities have to recognise today, is the high degree of scepticism and cynicism concerning politics both nationally and locally.  To an extent, local politics has been unfairly coloured by the goings on in Westminster which hardly needs any explanation here.  Scarcely a day passes without some new example of poor policy making, corrupt dealings or serious misjudgement.  ‘A plague on all your houses’ is a familiar refrain from many which as I say, unfairly tarnishes the work of local politicians.

    Involvement

    Part of the problem centres on involvement and participation.  There is also an issue when the local authority does engage in consultation about how real that is.  There are two forms which have the acronyms DAD and EDD.  DAD stands for Decide, Announce, and Defend.  In essence, the local authority decides on 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 the quality of the original decision and whether it has looked at other options.  It frequently 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 at the start which provides an opportunity for people to contribute ideas with some chance they will be incorporated or at least considered. Of course, no method is perfect and policy makers may say it can be difficult for people to contribute to policy making if they are not provided with options and suggestions to begin with.  Community events can end up with arguments over small details and an avoidance of more strategic issues. Deliberation is important because it gives participants an opportunity to consider the evidence for and against different options before deciding on the recommended ones.

    Talkshop

    But back to the Talkshop.  The three topics which emerged were: making a more concerted effort to involve those who, for one reason or another, are disengaged with local politics; participatory budgeting and finally ‘forum theatre’ – using the arts as a way to engage local people in decision making.  We hope to work on these ideas over the coming months and we are setting up a second event in the autumn to take things forward.  We were delighted to welcome three city councillors who took an active part in the morning and the discussions.

    Those we spoke to after the event felt it was worthwhile.  It was a pity the sudden arrival of warm weather and a bank holiday weekend, reduced the numbers attending.  A deep frustration was evident concerning how we are governed now: people do not seem to believe we are best served by the current system. 

    SDA believes there is a better way and it is within our grasp to make it happen.  At least locally, and here in Salisbury, we can do something to get better decisions and demonstrate to residents that they have a role – a real role – in the management of the city’s affairs.  There will however, have to be a culture change.  Involvement has to mean something tangible and a move away from the DAD (see above) approach we have now.  The councillor who proposed the parish poll is quoted in the Journal as saying “you cannot put a price on democracy”.   Quite so. 

    Peter Curbishley

  • Citizens’ juries

    Exchange of correspondence on the issue, and cost, of Citizens’s Juries

    If there is one thing that is guaranteed to get people agitated is the issue of tax and its related topic, community charge. A key promise by politicians of all shapes and sizes – almost always broken – is that they will keep such taxes low or at least not raise them. They also promise to do this and that policy to improve our lives which usually requires, in some form, er … tax. We will tackle waiting lists (but not raise your taxes), we will sort out the pot holes (but not raise your community charge), we will improve … well you get the idea (but not …).

    I claim no scientific basis for the following but it seems to me that people respond to this issue in one of three broad ways. Firstly, there are those that say ‘they don’t mind paying more tax as long as it’s spent on X’ where X is something they favour e.g. the health service. This is the hypothecation view and it has many problems one of which is different people favour different things they want taxes to be spent on. How do you decide?

    The second group is ‘I wouldn’t mind paying more tax but they only waste it’. ‘Waste’ here can mean many things but it often means, on enquiry, money spent on things they don’t approve of: in the current climate that will be hotel accommodation for the boat people.

    Finally, there are those that believe that lower tax means everyone is better off. It overlooks the simple fact that yes, you can buy some new clothes or go out for a meal or two with the money saved but you can’t buy yourself better roads, a health service, defence and all the other things that make life bearable. Some things just have to be done collectively or they won’t get done at all. Tax is our contribution to a good society.

    So this is part of the backdrop to an exchange of letters in the Salisbury Journal. The Parish Poll conducted by Salisbury City Council recently has produced a huge amount of correspondence and in turn led Cllr Charles McGrath (Con) to write on 27 April, complaining about the conduct of the poll which voted for a cap of 5% on the precept. He then says “This is the administration that pledged to make ‘Your voice Heard’ in their Strategic Plan for Salisbury City Council, and once supported the concept of of self-selecting Citizens’ Juries which have cost some councils £40k – over twice the amount of a parish poll” (our italics).

    This week (4 May) Dickie Bellringer, a member of SDA, replied […] “I would like to correct a piece of misinformation disseminated by Cllr Charles McGrath in last week’s postbag the citizens’ juries are self-selecting. This is untrue. Citizens’ Juries are examples of deliberative democracy for which residents are selected randomly in order to deliberate on important local issues.

    “They can draw on, and interrogate expert witnesses who will provide information.

    “[…] Cllr McGrath writes that Citizens’ Juries have cost some councils £40,000 but Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for Citizens’ Juries for many years and, by working with local partners, should be able to produce a Citizens’ Jury for less than £18,000”.

    He finishes by referring to the Talkshop event mentioned in our last post, which takes place on 27 May.

    The idea of letting people’s voices to be heard is a familiar one but few are in possession of the time or expertise to make significant contributions. There is a need for advice, and time for people to digest and understand the complex issues around a local economy. The Strategic plan – referred to by Cllr McGrath – is my view flawed in many respects. See the link above. I wonder how many will have read all the reports and supporting material? Whether it’s £18,000 or Cllr McGrath’s exaggerated £40,000, isn’t it better to find a way to sound and achievable solutions than following the path of a somewhat flawed plan?

    But the backdrop is always the issue of tax and how much we should pay. Politicians are never able to say that lower taxes do not automatically make you better off. The years following austerity has seen spend on a wide range of public services and local authorities decline precipitately with the results we are now witnessing.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Talkshop: UPDATE

    This is the second post about our second Talkshop due to take place today, 27th May starting at 10:00 at 29 Brown Street Salisbury finishing at 12:00 prompt. Most of the places are now taken so if you are interested in coming and taking part, you do need to book straight away. It is free but we ask for a parting collection to help with our costs.

    The event is run in partnership with the RSA and we are grateful for their help. This is our second event of this kind and the first help spawn the EcoHub project which is now doing well and has a site in the Market most Saturdays.

    The event is part of the Alliance’s efforts to see citizens more involved in the politics of our community and to try and get a higher standard of decision making. We are pleased that some councillors are planning to come which might help secure ideas such as citizen’s assemblies become a feature of how decisions are made locally.

    The event will be run much as before. We assemble in small groups of around 6 each and examine a range of cards with ideas where citizens have been involved in the democratic process. After discussion, each group will select 2 or 3 which they think might be of use and relevance locally. During a break, we look at other team’s efforts and come up with some final ideas. It’s both fun and has a serious intent.

    One of our aims is to move away from so-called ‘consultation’ exercises where plans and policies are presented for us to look at but where in fact decisions have largely been taken and other options may not even have been looked at.

    Interested? Then you need to book up using the following link:

    https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/new-local-politics-involving-citizens-in-local-decision-making-tickets-597656295067

    May we please ask that if you do book and are unable to come, to let us know so your space can be offered to someone else. Thanks. See you there.

    Photo: SDA

    We also run the Democracy Café which meets once a month in the Library. The next one is May 13th and starts at 10:00 am and finishes at noon. If you scan this site you will find reports of our previous meetings and the sorts of things we have discussed.

    PC

  • Second Talkshop event

    We are please to invite you to the second of our TALKSHOP events in collaboration with the RSA at 29 Brown Street between 10am and noon on Saturday 27 May. Last year’s event was very successful and resulted in the creation of the Eco Hub who have a presence in the Market Square.

    This time we will exploring how we can do politics differently in Salisbury and how we can engage more citizens in our local democracy. Participants will be given examples of how politics can work differently both from the UK and throughout the world and select some ideas that are achievable locally. You can find out more by clicking on the link above.

    More details will be provided soon.

  • Democracy Café, April

    April 2023

    Despite it being Easter weekend, we had a good attendance at this meeting in the Library and we were pleased to welcome two new participants. We had two interesting debates and we could well have gone beyond our allotted time.

    The first was Is representative government truly democratic? We started with the famous President Lincoln quote of 1863 after the battle of Gettysburg: ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth’. The problem is the combination of representation and democracy, two concepts which do not necessarily fit together. Apparently, it was Robespierre, who met an untimely end, who combined these two ideas. We were also reminded that Plato’s idea of representation was to limit it to those who were capable of reason.

    Brexit was an example of representative democracy it was pointed out and the result was it did tie the hands of the government to this decision (for good or ill). This immediately brought up the point that in our electoral system: MPs are representatives of their constituencies, not delegates. But who, it was asked, is being represented? The assumption that it was the ordinary elector is unrealistic. It was the wealthy and corporate interests who really held sway [the debate took place in the week when a Conservative MP was caught in a sting by Times’ reporters offering to sell his services to a fictitious gambling company for a fee of £10,000. This came a fortnight after two ex-ministers were caught in a similar sting].

    It was further suggested that the premise was wrong: MPs are selected not elected. The ‘elective dictatorship’ of Lord Hailsham was mentioned. Some have been groomed for some years for senior positions in their parties. This linked to the comment that historically, MPs were older whereas nowadays they had little of no real work experience outside the political milieu. They left university and spent their years in the Westminster environment before becoming an MP.

    The general tone of the discussion was a sense of dissatisfaction with our politicians but it was pointed out that a lot of good work was done in parliament – evident if you read Hansard – but this was almost never reported. We only read of the conflicts and scandals.

    We moved on to voting and the Australian rule that everyone had to vote. The counter view was that if people don’t want to vote why should they be forced? It was a dilemma. Belgium was mentioned in connection with MPs becoming part of the executive so who then do they represent, their constituents or the government? In that country, if the equivalent of an MP becomes a minister, they resign their seat and and there is a by-election. If they are sacked one assumes they leave the government altogether … [now there’s an idea]. Later, the question of voter apathy was mentioned.

    Do people vote for the individual or their policies? Some said the former; some the latter. It was suggested that parliament is a reflection of our views, the collective zeitgeist so to speak. We had a diversion into what Andrew Bridgen MP said in parliament and this link gives the background to that. It concerned claims – since retracted – about the risks and effectiveness of Covid vaccines. The attempt to introduce equal pay for women by Barbara Castle was mentioned where attempts to introduce it were frustrated by what was thought to be the will of the (male?) public. It was suggested that women do now have equal pay. Legislation introduced by Theresa May requiring companies with over 200 employees shows however, that women definitely do not receive equal pay for equal work.

    What we know is mediated by the media – a familiar point in these meetings. The necessity for good information was stressed and the need to hold the media to account: the issue of social media was mentioned which is largely unregulated. Inevitably, all information was filtered and imperfect it was noted. Information was about power and the process of infantilization, i.e. keeping us (the public) away from the real decisions by deflecting us towards things that don’t matter was suggested. Different countries had differing approaches and the current unrest in France demonstrated that country’s approach to political change which was often violent. The ‘British don’t go on marches, instead we go on shuffles’.

    At several times there was the suggestion that decisions should be made at the lowest level in the political process and in that connection, Flatpack Democracy in Frome was mentioned. A post from 2017 reports on the talk given to the Compass group gives more details.

    But back to the question and that the melding of democracy and representation was imperfect and sometimes muddled. It was sort of assumed that they were much the same and as we have debated, who represents us, how they are selected (or elected) and who they actually represent is by no means clear and whether it gives us ‘democracy’ is perhaps to be doubted. The need for a constitution was suggested but this point was not developed.

    The fact that Switzerland holds regular referenda was mentioned.

    Finally, a Channel 4 programme about a hotel in a village being occupied by asylum seekers was mentioned as a kind of example which reflected some of the points we discussed. A hotel had been block-booked by the Home Office to house a significant number of refugees and asylum seekers. There had been no prior consultation. The village was split: some were hostile some were sympathetic. It shows the problem of democracy in that how do you represent such profoundly different views? Whether it’s representation, a referendum or any other form, there are those who are fierce in their antipathy and those who are not. It wasn’t about what system therefore, it was about people and their attitudes.

    Which segues nicely into our second debate which was What are the benefits of Brexit? Well, it has to be said that there were few put forward. The news this week was of long queues at Dover because, it was thought, to be the result of the need to stamp all passports now we have left the EU although this was denied by the government.

    One argument was the failure of some banks in Europe in particular Credit Suisse although it was pointed out that Switzerland was not in the EU and some American banks had failed as well. The Swiss bank failed because of mismanagement and it had little to do with the EU. The nonsense of Greece being treated the same fiscally as Germany was mentioned which led to a crisis in that country.

    “Now we left the EU we can no longer go on blaming them for everything, now it’s us”.

    One profound point was made and that was we can no longer blame the EU for our troubles. We had got into the habit of blaming the EU so now we have left, that excuse is no longer available. Perhaps it was an opportunity for the country to grow up. Governments have always tried to deflect bad news elsewhere to detract from their own failings.

    A big benefit for Brexit was said to be sovereignty and the slogan ‘take back control’ was a key rallying cry during the run up to the Referendum. The argument was that we were in hock to ‘unelected European judges’ rather ignoring the fact that European judges are elected and UK ones aren’t. It was quickly pointed out that our decision to leave demonstrated we did have sovereignty. The judicial system is not part of the EU.

    Walter Lipman’s quote about the bewildered herd was mentioned again – see the January Café. In that connection the speaker went on to refer to the purchase by JP Morgan of 25 of the most influential newspapers in the US in 1917 in order to influence the decision to get the country to enter the European war then raging. The point being how the media, or more particularly the owners of media, can influence debate, attitudes and decisions in a country.

    A lot of subsequent comments focused on the benefits of EU membership and the EU generally. For example, Europe has been riven by wars, certainly since the fifteenth century, including two major world wars and one lasting for almost a hundred years. Yet since the last war, Europe has seen the longest period of peace in a millennia. [Ukraine was not mentioned but that is not a war between two or more European states].

    Historically, France had a system of internal tariffs introduced by the ‘July Monarchy’ in 1830 as people moved from region to region. When these were abolished, everyone prospered. Several noted the ability to move around the continent once free movement was introduced (back to the queues at Dover). Free movement and free trade benefited the ordinary people it was suggested.

    It seems that some people are beginning to change their minds. The government (even if they wanted to) would find changing theirs extremely difficult. Will we ever be able to have an honest discussion someone asked and perhaps be able to admit we were wrong?

    A possible benefit, following the shortages of salads imported from Europe, was an increased interest in self-sufficiency.

    And whatever happened to the £350m that we will save by no longer being members of the EU? This had to remain an open question.

    There was a brief discussion about the role of the City of London.

    Two interesting debates and actually linked in many ways. The need for informed decisions was crucial for good government. When a poorly informed populace elected MPs, some of whom had been selected for them, a media which was partisan, an unregulated social media and a government which was heavily influenced by commercial and corporate interests, it was perhaps a wonder we weren’t in a bigger pickle than we are.

    Peter Curbishley

    An interesting take on democracy and the Brexit debate is Peter Geoghan’s book Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics, 2020, Head of Zeus Ltd , which is well worth reading.

  • Democracy Cafe, February

    February 2023

    Some cross-over in the topics put up for discussion today but the first one chosen was How important would it be if the UK withdrew from the European Court of Human Rights? This desire is one put forward by several Conservative politicians and some cabinet ministers including the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. It became a hot topic when the Court overruled the intended deportation of immigrants to Rwanda.

    The proposer said that it was a threat to our rights. We had signed the Universal Declaration in 1948 and subsequently, the European Convention of Human Rights. Withdrawal from that risked us becoming a ‘tiny little country’. It was all part of Brexit and the idea of ‘taking back control’ particularly our borders. The current government didn’t want anyone telling us what to do. This was particularly relevant in the context of the channel boat crossings. If we left the ECtHR it would give the government more power and the citizens less.

    A counter view was that the UN Declaration and the ECtHR were both mistaken since it gave states the legitimacy to remove them (our rights). Our rights came from God it was argued.

    Concern was expressed over the power struggle with our relations with Europe. There was a kind of ‘thuggishness’ in our government at present, not just around the bullying allegations against the Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab (which are denied), but the aspect of our role with Europe and the desire to leave the jurisdiction of the court. There was a kind of desire to appear strong. They were keen to show themselves to be above the judges and were seemingly happy to engage in battles with the Good Law Project. That it was a Conservative, Winston Churchill, who was a moving force in the signing of the UN Declaration seems to have been forgotten by some members of that party. We were reminded that the justice system was in crisis at present with massive waits for cases to be heard.

    It was pointed out that we got the Human Rights Act because the government was constantly running into problems with the court in Strasbourg. They were overturning decisions by our courts which was proving embarrassing. People seem to have forgotten that our judges were quite reactionary. Examples included rights for disabled people and the right of elderly people to live together in a care home where the decisions of our courts were overturned.

    The discussion moved on to discuss the Shamima Begum case. She was one of the three girls who fled to Turkey, thence to Syria, to join ISIS. The debate was around did the government have the right to remove her citizenship and to make her stateless? She currently lives in a camp in Syria. One view was that we should not be concerned about her welfare: she went of her own accord to join a murderous and fanatical group. What happens to her now was on no consequence.

    Others pointed out that she was an immature teenager when she left and would have been easily misled. She had become the object of a media hate campaign. Would it not be better to accept that she has British citizenship, to bring her home and put her on trial? Another suggestion was to send her round to schools to explain the severe results of doing something such as she did?

    This case – and our earlier discussion – both brought up the role of the media in generating negative ideas about the European Court and cases like Shamima Begum. Was the fact that she was a person of colour important in her demonisation someone wondered? It was important someone stressed, that rights existed for people you don’t like as well as those you do.

    This discussion drew to a close with some remarks about our media, with their predominantly overseas ownership. Our rights were hard won over centuries (yes, Magna Carta was mentioned) yet there was a libertarian trend, promoted by some of the foreign media owners, who wanted more deregulation and who believed in increased libertarianism. It was these beliefs which led to the Grenfell Tower tragedy it was suggested. It was pointed out on the other hand that the print media was in danger of losing touch with younger readers in particular who no longer bought papers and often did not agree with their views.

    We then moved on to discuss the question Do we need more immigration? a matter which arouses considerable controversy at present. The question was posed in the context of large numbers of European workers having left because of Brexit and sometimes because of the hostile environment. Many of those who came here were not allowed to work.

    The economic argument was put forward namely, that British firms had relied on cheap labour, whether indigenous or imported, instead of investing in new kit and skills training. Corporate welfare was mentioned which meant that firms externalised their costs and employees were receiving benefits from the state and some were forced to use foodbanks.  It was not just low investment but economic uncertainty which also contributed to our economic problems.

    Was the nation’s attitude a reflection of being an island nation it was asked?  Other nations had borders which had moved over the centuries with mixed populations.  Britain was an island so its borders were fixed.  This had engendered an ‘island mentality’.

    The contrast in speaking to people whose family members had emigrated and the pride they expressed at their success and evidence of enterprise and ‘get up and go’, with attitudes towards those who came here was interesting. If our people go there, it’s good. If they come here, not good.

    Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the need to frighten people to work was brought up.  However, it was noted that the number of registered disabled had increased significantly so that, it was claimed, something like 20% of the working population was so designated (this figure was disputed). Many people suffered chronic illnesses it was said.

    The discussion moved on to other issues to do with the labour supply and mobility was mentioned. We needed more labour mobility, both nationally and internationally: people needed to go where the work is. Some of the barriers are the housing supply and frictional costs in moving, and affordable childcare.  Significant numbers of older people had left the workforce as a result of Covid but many had not returned.  Perhaps training to encourage them back might be a solution.  It was harder for older people to return however.

    Should we in fact promote emigration?  A period working abroad could be an attractive option for many. 

    Two interesting debates, both connected with our attitudes towards the outside world.  They concerned a widely held and suspicious view of Europe closely connected with a fear and hostility towards immigrants.  Our ‘island mentality’ has no doubt played a part.  But it was interesting that just over half a million Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong have come to the UK almost without anyone noticing, whereas the 40,000 boat people had generated considerable anger and almost frenzied media attention.  That seemed to point to a basic humanity which still exists in contrast to the hostility which grabs the headlines.

    Peter Curbishley

    Venue. There are some issues about out venue but we hope to know more before the next meeting on 11 March. Details will be posted here.

  • Democracy Café, January 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

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

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

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

  • New Year, New venue!

    SDA kicks off the New Year with a new venue in Endless Street. Today

    As we enter what I think may be our seventh year, we do so in a different venue in Endless Street in the Progress Café. We must thank Amanda enormously for allowing us to meet in Brown Street for the past few years which did also have the advantage of being able to meet outside during the pandemic.

    The meeting is on 14th January 2023 starting at 10:00 as usual and finishing at noon. What to talk about? Whether it’s local or national, democracy seems to have taken a bashing over the last 12 months and the prospects for 2023 do not look too promising either. But you might be an optimist and can see brightness where others see gloom! Whatever your political bent or outlook, you will be welcome and we look forward to welcoming you at our new venue.

    For those not familiar with Salisbury, Endless Street is in the north east corner off the Market Square.

    Peter Curbishley