Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Salisbury

  • Democracy Café

    The November 2021 meeting of the Café took place during a tumultuous ten days in British political life with scarcely a day passing without some revelation about the goings on in Westminster. The resignation of Owen Paterson MP following a report into his breaking of lobbying rules on behalf of commercial firms, was quickly followed by revelations about Geoffrey Cox MP, the former attorney general, with the use of his office for private purposes and for spending considerable time working for the British Virgin Islands tax haven for which he received £900,000 in fees. Many other MPs were caught up in the second jobs scandal and collectively 90 of them earn around £4m in addition to their MP salaries. This was against a background of stories focusing on sleaze.

    It was scarcely surprising therefore that the question which jointly won the vote was ‘Is Britain ceasing to be a democracy?’ The first point to be made was the mismatch between what people want in connection with climate change for example and how this is not reflected in government policy. It was linked to the belief that in a safe seat like Salisbury, one’s vote does not count. It was suggested that the only way to get heard, regrettably, was through direct action: Insulate Britain was instanced and historically, the suffragists who argued peacefully for six decades and only achieved success when they took violent action and were renamed ‘suffragettes’, a disparaging term coined by the Daily Mail.

    We were quickly brought up short by the question: ‘have we ever had democracy?’ There is somehow the belief – inherent in the question being debated – that we once had a functioning democracy and now we are somehow losing it. The point was amplified by asking were we being too narrow in our outlook by simply looking at laws and administrative aspects? What about financial matters (highlighted this very week with the revelations about MP’s lobbying and their second jobs) and ownership of the media. If democracy was to mean anything then the lack of democratic control of our print media has also to be addressed. The name ‘Murdoch’ quickly surfaced. Also the presence of so many old Etonians in the current scandals in Westminster. We were also reminded of social media also without any democratic control. The media was in prime position to influence opinion according to the views or prejudices of its – mostly overseas – owners.

    Our attention was then drawn to a range of bills currently before parliament which both individually and collectively will have a deleterious effect on democracy. These were the Electoral bill with its plans for photo IDs, the Police and Crime bill, changing the voting system for mayors to FPTP, and the Judicial bill. It was pointed out that the Police and Crime bill would prevent any lawyer from attending a demonstration of any kind. If such a demonstration was declared illegal by the police or Home Office then anyone arrested would be barred from future practice in the law.

    The politicisation of appointment boards was also mentioned in particular the Electoral Commission. Someone who recently met John Glen (MP for Salisbury) said he dismissed organisations like the Good Law Project as merely ‘lobbying groups’.

    This nibbling away at laws and democratic processes had some parallels with what happened in Germany in the ’30s it was claimed. The Turkish writer Ece Temekuran, the author of How to Lose a Country* was mentioned who discussed the seven steps needed to move from democracy to a dictatorship.

    How can we have a democracy when we still have a Royal Family? Also the House of Lords. It was pointed out that many aristocratic families thought highly of Hitler before the war.

    The concept of ‘techo-feudalism‘ was mentioned, a concept put forward by Yanis Varoufakis. Essentially, that corporations exert power through oligopolistic behaviours which mimic the feudal power structures in the Middle Ages.

    The session ended with a reminder from the chair of the Salisbury Democracy Alliance that we were still trying to secure a Citizens’ Jury in Salisbury. All the political parties with the exception of the Conservatives were in support of the concept.

    The second half of the Café discussed the question: ‘is Britain a corrupt country?’ As in the first debate, this was topical not least because it had arisen at Cop 26 in Glasgow this week with the prime minister Boris Johnson saying that ‘the UK is not remotely a corrupt country’ in response to a spate of recent events which suggested that things might be otherwise.

    There was no shortage of views on this subject. Some who worked in the NHS said that procurement rules were strict yet the government had largely ignored them during the pandemic. The scandal of Track and Trace was mentioned. We had already discussed lobbying and conflicts of interest. Tax havens were inevitably mentioned with Britain’s leading role in facilitating this activity. ‘Buying’ a seat in the House of Lords – another story to surface this week – the going rate being £3m apparently.

    Water Companies and the recent scandal of the pollution of our rivers on a massive scale was brought up. Although they were required to invest in the necessary infrastructure, they preferred to pay the fines and continue to pay dividends rather than meet these obligations. The government seemed reluctant to act – was this a form of corruption?

    This week it had emerged that the fossil fuel companies were present in force in Glasgow at the climate conference.

    Was ‘corruption’ the right word someone asked? Was it not more about entitlement and ‘these rules don’t apply to me?’ Perhaps, but these beliefs are likely to lead to corruption in any event.

    Ministers, senior civil servants and senior military personnel, often retired to take up directorships and consultancies with the very organisations they were dealing with while in office. Transparency International has published a report on what is termed the ‘revolving door’ and articles have appeared in Private Eye from time to time. The scale of this activity is very large and controls almost non-existent. [Two days after this post, an article discussing the scale of the revolving door was published in the Guardian].

    It was suggested that more time should be devoted in schools to engage young people in these issues. More time should be spent on obligations in addition to time spent on what their rights were. School assemblies were an opportunity although they were often concerned with school matters and not so much about the wider world. There were classes on citizenship and there are also lessons on PHSE.

    Finally, the idea of a return to religious values was put forward. The problem here was which religion and that within some religions there were some fairly extreme beliefs: the denial of Darwin’s evolution theory in some American states because of pressure from evangelicals was an example quoted. Some religion’s active involvement and support for slavery in the nineteenth century was also noted.

    Two debates which ranged far and wide. That they were able to do so with so many examples is itself quite shocking. Someone asked ‘are we too tolerant as a nation?’ and it is a legitimate question. Have we become so inured to the failings in our democratic process that we have little faith that things will ever change? Would Owen Paterson and will Geoffrey Cox be turfed out of their safe seats despite their egregious carryings on? Perhaps a religious person at this point might say ‘we can but pray’.

    Peter Curbishley

    [Updated: 15th November]

    *How to Lose a Country: the seven steps from democracy to dictatorship, Ece Temekuran, 2019, Harper Collins.

    Next meeting at 10am on 11 December in Brown Street

  • People in the Park

    We had a busy day on Saturday 18 September at the People in the Park event in Salisbury. We were blessed by the weather and a steady flow of people through the day. Our SDA stall was well attended and we ran out of Democracy Café leaflets.

    There was interest in the Citizens’ Jury concept which has received a degree of local publicity in last few weeks. It was briefly debated in the City Council last week. There were many questions: what is it? isn’t it expensive? and don’t we have councillors whom we elect to decide these things anyway (and can ultimately vote out if we don’t like them)? Well yes and no.

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance in action!

    The basic concept is a randomly selected group of people who come together over 3 weekends to discuss a topic of political interest. They are advised by experts in the topic. The randomness is important as the problem is often that ‘consultation’ just means a narrow group of people talking to each other. Many feel excluded and public meetings are often populated by only a small part of the population as a whole. The young are only rarely seen or heard from.

    It is quite expensive. Participants have to be paid, selection costs money as do the experts. Then there is room rental etc. But just think of the huge sums spent by Wiltshire Council on half-baked schemes which get nowhere and on their consultation exercises. Wouldn’t it be better to get a more broadly based set of views rather than from council officers in Trowbridge? Consultation in their terms actually means telling us about their plans. How much credence is given to different ideas or suggestions which are contrary to the political beliefs of those in Trowbridge?

    ‘We elect councillors’ is a frequent refrain so why invent a new (and expensive) system? So how many people engage in lengthy and complex discussions with their councillor on these topics? Very, very few I wager. Councillors over the years tell me that their contact with electors are about holes in the road, hedges not being cut, planning application moans and about fly tipping. All important in their way but hardly strategic topics which affect our futures.

    Finally, the process is considerably more ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’. It can be argued that it is genuinely more informed by randomly selected people who have had having had the benefit of expert advice and which is much more likely to recommend practical and doable projects.

    That is why we believe that citizens’ juries are a superior form of policy making than the current system. One person spoke to me who was dead against the idea mostly for the reasons above. He had been a councillor. As we discussed the idea the conversation slowly morphed into how he found being a councillor unsatisfactory and inefficient and he ultimately stood down. On the one hand he was wedded to the current system but, as time went by, he found it more and more unsatisfactory and left. I suppose the moral is that people are so inured to the system that despite its manifest failings, they find radical change of this nature hard to accept.

    At both the national and local level, the way we do politics is failing us. Surely it is time for radical change?

    Peter Curbishley

    Picture: SDA

  • Democracy Café, September

    First in person meeting since the Covid crisis struck

    After a long hiatus, we were delighted to hold a democracy café again in the flesh so to speak and at a new venue in Brown Street. Some will remember the Alzheimer building opposite the car park. This has now been bought and is now a mixed venue, café and bar. Numbers were smaller than when we last met in person at the Playhouse but we hope to build up to previous numbers as time goes by.

    The topic which won most votes concerned issues of biological sex, gender and how we balance being inclusive and intrusive. There has been a lot of government interest in this topic for example cloning, choice of gender, human fertilisation and immunology. It is an issue which many politicians find embarrassing and too difficult to deal with.

    It was agreed that public opinion has come a long way: it was not too long ago that homosexuality was illegal. Despite these changes, the issue of toilets and changing rooms was still a sensitive one. Women are still a little uneasy about transgender women using female toilets and changing rooms. It touched on women feeling vulnerable in society as a whole and the after effects of the Sarah Everade murder.

    It was pointed out however that the Green Party is split on the issue of trans rights and it has been a major problem for them.

    Was it a feature of British prudery? Visitors to the Low Countries often found women collecting money in men’s toilets and in some parts of southern Europe, male toilets were open to public view.

    The point was made that to an extent it was a generational issue. Some people of mature years did find the ideas of changed genders and similar matters, difficult to accept although it was pointed out that not all people over 60 are intolerant!

    The discussion moved on to more clinical matters. The question of sexing a baby was not always obvious at birth and doctors sometimes had to decide. The ‘true’ sex then becomes apparent at puberty which can clearly cause distress. There are also around 8 to 10 thousand people born each year who’s sex is indeterminate. This was not the same as people who are gay.

    Perhaps the final comment was that there were political consequences which arise from how we think. This was a complex and sensitive topic and the implications for some individuals, are profound.

    The second topic was the balance between a government having powers to protect the population versus the individual’s right to liberty and the right to choose. This has arisen in the case of the current Covid crisis and a suggested requirement that all people working in health or care should be vaccinated.

    The first question was ‘who’s liberty?’ The state has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Where the state has taken action, for example with the law on wearing seat belts, the aim was to protect the wearer. It would also save costs with medical and social care resulting from an injury to someone not wearing a belt. In the case of vaccination, it was to help society as a whole. We were reminded of diseases such as polio, smallpox and diphtheria which have been eliminated from our society due to past vaccination programmes.

    During the war, everyone had to have blackout to protect the population as a whole.

    One of the problems today is that we have social media which is able to promote antivax views. This had contributed to a lack of trust in the government. Trust was essential in vaccination programmes since the government is asking citizens to forgo a piece of individual liberty in return for improved safety for the community as a whole. The government were doing little to counter mis and disinformation. There were vaccination risks for a small number of people so it came down to a matter of balance: a risk for a small number in contrast to benefits for the many.

    There were some who felt that ‘their body was theirs’ and it was up to them to decide on vaccination. Long term side effects were another worry.

    It was noted that government was trying to shift responsibility onto the people. They had retreated from laying down hard and fast rules into offering advice and guidance. Was this valid in the case of a virus as dangerous as Covid? Another point was that the government often seemed to be primarily concerned at the risk of the NHS being overrun.

    Two difficult topics without clear answers to either. Perhaps a common theme was that society was complex. There were no certainties. All policy interventions were a balance of risks. In these circumstances, access to good and unbiased information was crucial. Trust in government and its agencies was crucial and this loss of trust was much to be regretted.

    We shall be meeting in Brown St. next for next month’s meeting which is on 9th October starting at 10:00 as usual

  • Citizens’ Jury: progress

    One of the projects the Alliance is keen to progress is to hold a Citizens’ Jury in Salisbury. The idea is to assemble a randomly chosen group of people to discuss a particular problem or topic in some depth. Advised by experts in the topic, the group comes together over several weekends and aims to come to some kind of conclusion. The idea is particularly useful with those knotty and difficult issues which can divide communities sometimes for many years. Salisbury has several of those for example, traffic, pedestrianisation and how the city should adapt to climate change. Views can become entrenched and often detached from any rational examination of the evidence.

    At a meeting of the core group today, we heard of the progress being made. Several political parties have CJs in their manifesto. A meeting was held with Kendal Town Council who held a jury on the topic of climate. Kendal is relevant because they are a parish council like Salisbury.

    We discussed the prospects for funding through the Area Board. We also considered how we could secure a majority of councillors keen to support the idea. On that front, progress is being made although there are some councillors who are not in favour. In view of recent voting results, there may be more of a groundswell of support by people who feel their views were being ignored and this in turn may be reflected in some politician’s attitudes.

    Further meetings are due to be held to see if the idea can be progressed into an actual project. For now, we can say there is cautious optimism that we may be successful in securing agreement and funding for a jury to be held.

    PC

  • Democracy Café: June 2021

    A discussion on ‘Wokeness’ and then the role of charities in society

    Woke has become a political factor which is being used to try and divide people into ‘woke’ and those who are not. One of the features of the new channel to be launched tomorrow (13 June 2021), GB News run by Andrew Neil, is to host debates and provide a platform to counter the claimed domination of our existing media by wokeness.

    One of the politicians promoting the ‘war on woke’ is the Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden, who has issued instructions to cultural institutions saying the government does not support the removal of statues (a serious issue in 2020 in Bristol and elsewhere), that approach to contested heritage should be in line with the government’s position, reminding them of the spending review and asking for them to notify the department in advance of any actions or public statements in relation to contested heritage and history.

    The issue has also flared up in connection with ‘taking the knee’ at football matches. The government refused to condemn the booing which took place at a recent match when players kneeled. It was noted that the England Gareth Southgate asked players if they wanted to do this and the response was unanimously ‘yes’. It was suggested the discord it engendered was ‘manna from heaven’ for the government who wanted to create a divide.

    What does woke mean? One definition is: having an active awareness of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those related to civil, racial and human rights. Which seems harmless enough but there is an attempt to make it sound like something you shouldn’t have. There was a deliberate tactic it was suggested to bring in other factors, such as defund the police, to add to the criticism.

    In this connection, the process of diversity training was mentioned and how some organisations see it as ‘a joke’. A YouTube video was mentioned called White Fragility in which the author discusses the reaction and responses to racism among white people in the USA. It seems the antipathy was based on fear. This was especially so in America where there is genuine concern that the white population will be in the minority in around two decades time. This fear was also evident in the UK where, although the numbers were a lot smaller, there was still this worry about being taken over or ‘swamped’ by refugees and immigrants. The recent debates about slavery had also caused mixed responses: some felt it was appropriate that this unsavoury part of our past should be discussed and brought into the open. Others (in the wider public) felt it was all in the past and we should ‘move on’. In this connection, a post on the Salisbury Soap Box Facebook page which said: No white person alive today ever owned a slave. No black person alive today was ever a slave. We can’t move forward if people want to keep living in the past was mentioned and the fact it had been ‘liked’ well over a hundred times, presumably by mostly Salisbury people. Many people had written to object to the post but it did reveal an attitude of mind.

    The murder of George Floyd in the USA – and the Black Lives Matter movement which it spawned – had changed the world. We were reminded on the Rodney King attack a quarter of a century ago where a black man had been savagely beaten by police who were subsequently acquitted resulting in riots. This time, the policeman was convicted of his death.

    Someone mentioned seeing a poster displayed in a house saying ‘British values: kindness’. This drew the immediate response that victims of slavery, those conquered in the pursuit of empire, and victims of the opium trade in China may not see it is as particular British quality. It also rather implied that non-British people were unkind.

    The second half of the session debated the relationship between the state and charities from the point of view of who does what. One view was that charities like Help for Heroes should not exist as charities: the government sent soldiers into theatres of war and it has a duty to look after them if they are injured. Using a charity partially absolved the government and the MoD from this duty. It was suggested that this was part of the Conservative philosophy of small government and low taxes. The Cameron notion of the Big Society was mentioned. What did happen to that?

    It was also felt that basic needs – housing, health, education and transport were instanced – should be the responsibility of government since it was important that all citizens had reasonable access to these things. Prof Guy Standing suggests that it ‘was a way to procure services on the cheap, transferring activities done by professional employees to those on precarious contracts and ‘volunteers”. He notes that half charity’s income comes from government. It was suggested that charitable activity should be ‘icing on the cake’ not the whole cake.

    It was pointed out that disposition of charities was very uneven around the country. The prosperous south had large numbers of people who could afford the time to devote to a cause. In poorer parts of the country, where the need was greatest, had fewer people able to devote such time.

    Looking at what charities do reveals that there are popular causes which attract huge sums and other causes which are less popular which struggle to raise money. It was very uneven. A look at the top charities in the UK shows 4 animal charities in the top 20 for example. It was also noted that in the area of disability, the under 18s had fairly generous provision, but once they reached 18, this abruptly stops. Giving was strongly influenced by emotional factors rather than on need.

    Another issue was billionaires who sponsored causes close to their hearts. This meant who got help depended on the beliefs of these individuals not on what society felt might be needed. Many paid no tax so that denied the ability of government to offer more help.

    Charities did however enable people to offer help and this was a good thing in itself.

    We moved onto the question of who helps Syrian refugees for example – should it be the state or charities? Our response was compared unfavourably to Portugal. The worry was expressed that if we were too welcoming this would act as a draw and more would come. Our performance in this regard can be seen on the UNHCR site which discusses some of the myths and misinformation which is common in the press and elsewhere. There was no ‘regular’ way for refugees to enter the country.

    Finally, it was noted that it was harder for charities to make problems known because of recent legislation designed to limit lobbying. This has had a ‘chilling effect’ on the ability of charities to voice concerns on behalf of the causes and people they represented. So although charities were playing an important role in society, legislation made it hard for them to speak about it.

    Two interesting debates and for once, not closely related.

    Books mentioned:

    The Precariat, Guy Standing, 2011, Bloomsbury

    Black and British: A Forgotten History, David Olusoga, 2021, Picador

    Not mentioned but readers may find this book interesting in relation to our slaving history:

    The Interest: How the British Establishment Resisted the Abolition of Slavery, Michael Taylor, 2020, The Bodley Head

    Peter Curbishley

  • Trusting the people

    On several occasions on this site we have talked about Citizens’ Assemblies or Citizens’ Juries where a carefully and randomly selected group of people come together to discuss a topic of local interest. They have been used more and more around the world to try and find solutions to those tricky decisions that can so divide communities. People have great faith in democracy the assumption being that electing people who believe in certain things will result in good government, local or national. A quick look around us should have put paid to that belief.

    Shortly, we shall be having local elections. We have been trying to persuade the various local parties to include CAs in their manifestos with some success. A letter by Dickie Bellringer in today’s Salisbury Journal (29 April 2021) discusses progress so far:

    “There is one political party holding out against People Power in the upcoming local elections – the Conservatives. Before last week’s online candidates’ hustings , organised by the Salisbury Transition City, two Parties – Labour and the LibDems – had already committed to the idea of Citizens’ Assemblies in their manifestos.

    “LibDem candidate Victoria Charleston confirmed that commitment during the debate. The idea is in the Green Party’s national manifesto and the Green candidate Rick Page nailed his Party’s flag to the local Citizens’ Assembly mast.

    “Independent candidate Annie Riddle said we would needed to develop more grass roots democracy including CAs. We don’t know yet what the other Independents think. And Labour’s Clare Moody and Green’s Sarah Prinsloo made the important point, in answer to a question about how to educate people sufficiently to take part in CAs, that participants received information from expert witnesses so that they can make informed decisions.

    “At Salisbury Democracy Alliance we have kept the flame flickering for Citizens’ Assemblies over the past four years despite a cold wind of indifference from the Conservatives – apart from a glimmer of hope when the former City Council leader Jeremy Nettle warmed to the idea.

    “There was, however, silence from the Conservatives on the issue at the hustings and there is nothing in their manifesto. So, if the Conservatives don’t change their minds and if you don’t want to live under what Conservative peer Lord Hailsham called ‘elective dictatorship‘ don’t vote Conservative!”

    Dickie Bellringer is a member of SDA

    Peter Curbishley

  • What does -‘Independent’ mean?

    Increasingly frustrated by poor decisions being taken by local politicians in Salisbury, several people are standing as independents in the forthcoming May elections. Here, SDA member Dickie Bellringer cautions getting too carried away with the idea that independents will automatically solve problems in a letter to the Salisbury Journal two weeks ago.

    “AS a member of Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) and the Labour Party, I welcome independents who want to stand in local elections.  However, it should be pointed out that the description ‘independent’ is not necessarily the same as the description ‘apolitical’.  All independence means for sure is that the candidate is not a member of a political party. It may mean that they are also apolitical in the sense of having no interest in politics but this is not guaranteed.

    “In other words, independents may be just as political as members of political parties – we just don’t know what those politics are. And, by the way, Labour does not have a whip on the city council.  Further, simply standing for election, whether as a member of a political party or not, does not mean you are partaking in a democratic process tout court.

    “It could be argued that what we have would be better described as representative government in which the wishes of the voting public are kept as far away from the policy decision-making process as possible.  Which is why SDA is campaigning for Citizens’ Assemblies in which members of the public are randomly selected to deliberate and advise elected representatives on important local issues.

    “To date two political parties – Labour and the Lib Dems – are known to have included Citizens’ Assemblies in their manifestos as part of their plans for more open local government.

    “Let’s inject some real democracy into our community!”

    Dickie Bellringer

  • People power

    This is the title of a letter from our chair published in the Salisbury Journal on Thursday 15 April 2021 on the subject of Citizens’ Assemblies.

    It is time to restore the faith of the citizens of Salisbury in the political process.  To that end, it is heartening to see so many candidates for the City and County elections to be held on May 6th embracing the idea of giving a voice to a wide cross section of the citizens of Salisbury.  Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Independent candidates have all pledged their support for the idea of Citizens’ Assemblies or Citizens’ Juries to consider deeply issues like how to meet the climate emergency or how to revitalise our city centre.  The Conservatives are the notable exception.  Have they not learned that they need to restore the faith of the citizens of Salisbury after their shabby treatment of us in recent years?

    Members of Citizens’ Assemblies/Juries  are chosen by a process called ‘sortition‘, where letters are sent out inviting citizens to participate and those who respond positively are then chosen at random to be representative of the make up or our community in terms of income level, ethnicity, gender and age.  The citizens who are chosen to attend are paid to attend much like a jury in a trial.  This process ensures that people who would not normally be engaged in such issues are give n the means to participate.  

    The participants study the evidence from all sides and make recommendations for our community which are not based on political dogma, sectional interests or personal favour.  Councillors – for all their commitment and hard work – rarely have the opportunity to focus so closely on one issue, hear from the experts scrutinise the evidence and work collaboratively with others to make fully informed recommendations.  This deliberative process is being used in communities throughout the world.   A recent OECD report covered 300 examples world wide.

    Why will the Conservatives at both city and county level not back a process which gives power to members of our community in Salisbury?  We have seen the consequences of poor decision making by the councils for our city.  It is time to restore power to our community. 

    Dr Mark Potts

    Chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance

  • Democracy Café – April

    The chosen topic this month was ‘have we become inured to corruption in the UK?’ The question was posed following a fairly long stream of events over the past year or so but with little in the way of reaction and no resignations in prospect. The planning row with Robert Jenrick; the same minister awarding funds from the Towns Fund to his fairly prosperous constituency in a secret process; contracts awarded to a range of individuals without due process, some of whom are Conservative party funders; Boris Johnson and the Jennifer Arcuri influence case, and most recently, the Greensill saga and David Cameron’s attempts at influencing the Chancellor and other Treasury ministers to award it funds before the firm’s collapse. A lengthy but incomplete list. The question though, was why no fuss? Why no resignations, nor indeed any shame? Has sleaze actually become the new norm?

    It was suggested that it probably started back in the days of the Blair government when the practice of employing large numbers of outside consultants got under way. They were brought in to advise on some quite ludicrous tasks such how to communicate with other departments.

    Was it the system itself which engendered corruption? The example of affordable housing allocations was given in which council planning officers meet developers to agree on what percentage of a development should be for affordable housing. This was done in private meetings. There was also an imbalance of power since the developers could afford a range of high quality advice whereas LPAs, following cuts, could not. The issue here was not corruption but a lack of democratic accountability. ‘Democracy dies in darkness’ someone noted.

    Expectations of our politicians is lower now. There was a general discussion around whether there has always been a degree of corruption but the media in previous times had not published it for a variety of reasons. The argument went both ways on this. The example of Peter Oborne at the Daily Telegraph was quoted who exposed HSBC’s bank for the wealthy in Geneva to enable them to hide funds from the taxman. This was spiked because HSBC was a major advertiser and Oborne resigned. Not many other journalists could afford to do this however. There have been a series of articles in the media about the ‘chumocracy’ the word itself having entered the language. It had been quite widely reported including in the Sunday Times. The extent of it was much greater now however. The sums involved ran into millions.

    Was it because it didn’t affect the local population much? A worry was that a common response was ‘they [politicians] are all the same’. This meant people did not feel a change would not have any effect – just a different set of politicians with their noses in the trough. Another problem was that some of it involved esoteric financial matters. Whereas people understood someone in their community who was a scrounger, the complex financial shenanigans of an organisation like Greensill Capital was less well understood.

    On the positive side, it was noted that young people did seem to be more interested these days.

    Was it because that politicians were drawn from a narrow pool? This was a reference to the public school sense of entitlement and simply not recognising that there was anything wrong with the behaviour. Once upon a time, it would lead to resignation – now it didn’t. Profumo was mentioned and in particular, that he did not expect to be ‘outed’ in the media because of the old boy network and was genuinely surprised when it went public and became a major scandal.

    The media came up again and someone said they found watching or listening to the interviews quite difficult these days because obvious questions were not asked. Andrew Marr was mentioned as someone who was too soft on interviewees.

    The theme of the effect of corruption on our democracy surfaced several times. There was real sense of crisis and how impossible it was to achieve change. Were we indeed heading for a fascist state? The opposition parties were weak and spent too much time in internal arguments it was said. There was some sign of life however, with Labour pressing for answers with the Greensill saga but there was a need for a progressive alliance to be formed to challenge the status quo. This was the theme of a Compass paper. The loss of so many One Nation Tories from the party was lamented. Too many sensible voices had been lost and recent events in Northern Ireland were almost certainly a direct result.

    The environment and the role of the public and democracy was discussed with the example of the proposed coal mine in Cumbria. This arose from a comment about the government’s desire to build its way out of our economic troubles. There were two sides to this argument it was noted: on the one hand, people didn’t really have much power since the planning system meant decisions were made on planning grounds only and relating to the various planning acts. Appeals went to the Secretary of State. On the other, local people wanted the mine because of the promise of economic prosperity – jobs etc. They seemed little concerned with the environment.

    The increase in populist governing was discussed. It was the case that MPs voted according to their consciences and their own judgement in the Burkean sense. Now they tended to see themselves as delegates and followed what they thought to be the popular will. Brexit was a case in point. The death penalty was an example where, left to MPs, it would never be re-introduced but if they followed the popular will, it could be voted back in. It was pointed out however that there was a narrow overall majority against its re-introduction.

    We then went on to discuss the second topic – do we have a free press? One answer straight away was that we had a reasonably free press but not an unbiased one. Another question was what facts? It was as much about the selection of which facts or stories to report as much as the facts or reporting itself. There was concern at great swathes of the media were owned by a handful of oligarchs who were free to push their agendas. It was noted however that newspapers were commercial enterprises and needed to sell their papers to be viable. If their views did not match those of their readers, then they would not sell. The views expressed in the tabloids especially, represented what many people thought and believed therefore.

    Examples included a front page story of someone given a £2m house in Kensington which was, it was claimed, biased. Another example was a photograph of an apparent nose to nose confrontation between a policeman and a protester. It was later revealed that the space between them had been cropped. The Battle for Orgreave was shown as the miners charging the police. It was later revealed that the footage had been reversed and the police had charged first. To this day however, the story of aggressive miners lives on. This reversal of footage was likely to have been a simple mistake however. These came up in the context of a biased media.

    The print media is in steady decline and it was social media in its various forms where many, especially younger – people obtained their news nowadays.

    A major point was the importance of distinguishing between opinion and facts ‘comment is free, facts are sacred’ as the Guardian puts it. Several newspapers make this clear distinction but others mix the two.

    ‘Balance’ was mentioned and in connection with the BBC in particular. The problem had been for a long time, climate scientists were put against climate denialists in debates who, although were for the most part not from the scientific community, made the discussion seem much more balanced than it actually was. The BBC no longer invites denialists onto these discussions following many protests.

    The two discussions were closely linked since what we believe and what we know is heavily influenced by the media. Bias or simply not reporting inconvenient news will distort our view of the world. However, the media is a collection of mostly commercial enterprises who have to sell their product to a sceptical public. To an extent therefore they are a window into what the majority believe and think. If that public is relaxed about corrupt goings on in Westminster, then that will be reflected in the coverage. Despite considerable media and political interest in the level of immigration, very little has been said about the potential for large numbers of Hong Kong Chinese to settle here.

    An interesting debate around two topics which were in the event closely related.

    We were delighted to welcome two new members to today’s discussion both of whom are hoping to set up democracy café events in their home area.

    Book mentioned: How Democracies Die, 2018, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Viking

    Peter Curbishley

  • Annual meeting

    The officers held an annual meeting today (31 March 2021) to review progress and plan the future. Overall, the chair said, we have made good progress and the idea of both Democracy Cafés and Citizens’ Assemblies were both gaining ground. Dickie had set up a second Democracy Café in Bemerton Heath and this was slowly gathering members. There were now some 300 assemblies which have taken place around the world. Unfortunately, the CA idea had not been enthusiastically received either by John Glen MP nor the leader of Wiltshire Council Cllr Philip Whitehead. They both felt that they already represent everyone so it is not necessary.

    Account

    The bank account was in funds with little activity at present. As TSB had closed in Salisbury there was the question of where to bank in future.

    Officers

    The Committee was Mark Potts, Dickie Bellringer, Mike Hodgson, Jill Cheatle, Lesley Curbishley and Peter Curbishley. Officers were elected as follows:

    • Mark Potts, Chair,
    • Andrew Hemmings, Treasurer
    • Peter Curbishley, Secretary and website
    • Dickie Bellringer, Membership secretary

    Elections

    Elections are to be held in May and there have been attempts to interest the various parties to adopt policies to encourage Citizens’ Assemblies. Good progress has been made:

    • Labour’s manifesto for Wiltshire has included the policy of ‘trialling the use of a Citizen’s Assembly’.
    • The Labour group on the city council has, in its Statement of Intent, included ‘… supports the use of Citizens’ Assemblies’
    • The LibDems have a policy of encouraging and supporting CAs and has an immediate priority of ‘initiating planning for Citizens’ Assemblies’. Further details can be found from this link.

    Updates

    • A Zoom meeting was held on PR hosted by the LibDems and the local representative of Make Votes Matter will make contact with DB.
    • OECD had published a report Catching the Deliberative Wave which discusses the 300 different models and experiences around the world
    • The People in the Park event has been postponed until September 18th. We have been invited to attend and to speak. We will plan a leaflet or factsheet nearer the time.
    • The Hampshire Equality Trust are considering a Democracy Café which will not be exactly like normal one but will focus on equality issues.
    • A Democracy Café was held with RSA which split into two groups. There will be another meeting in Devon on 11 May.
    • On 18 May there is to be a Zoom meeting with the polymath, Prof Raymond Tallis. A link will be provided in due course. Early registration is advised.
    • The talks to schools are on hold as they will be concentrating on restarting the education programme and catching up on lost time.
    • Dickie spoke of the reading group he runs under the aegis of the Library.
    • The Talkshop event, cancelled at the outbreak of the pandemic, is still on hold. It was agreed that we would not consider restarting the project until we had resumed a face-to-face Democracy Café at the Playhouse. When they re-open we did not know at present.

    Readers would be welcome to join our next Democracy Café which takes place on Saturday 10 April at 10:00 am. Leave a message here to let us know and we will send you the link.