Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Category: Uncategorized

  • Democracy Cafe

    TODAY!

    A reminder that the Cafe meets this Saturday 12 November starting at 10 am as usual for 2 hours. We meet in Brown Street. Lots to discuss at present. There’s quite a lot of debate about the decision which is likely to put the police station up at Highpost. This is the latest in this saga which has involved closing the station on the Wilton Road; sighting it at Bourne Hill in a building not designed for the purpose; using Melksham to put people under arrest and now Highpost which is apparently the only option, so why a consultation?

    Attached is an interesting piece by Dickie Bellringer.

    Why are we stuck in a rut?

  • Democracy Cafe – October

    The cafe resumes after a hiatus following the Queen’s death. Two topics were discussed

    Following the death of the Queen last month, Prince Charles became King Charles III and this resulted in the first topic: Do we need a king? Closely related, was the news that the King would not be going to Egypt for the next COP conference, because it was claimed, 10 Downing Street did not want him to.

    So, do we need a king? The case against centred on a number of objections. Firstly, that someone should not be appointed solely on the basis of inheritance, and not by a form of selection. Secondly, it is often claimed by those in favour of a monarchy, that one of the benefits is that it brings in lots of revenue, especially from tourists, however, as far as anyone was aware, no proper cost benefit analysis has been done to demonstrate this point. The point was made that the argument was back to front in any event: we do not create an institution of this nature for the benefit of tourism. The House of Lords should also be based on some kind of appointment system not on inheritance (it is partly that now).

    The Queen, and now King Charles, enjoy considerable influence often exercised behind closed doors. The issue of Prince Charles’s ‘spider memos’ to Ministers has been mentioned in previous meetings and it took a huge and prolonged struggle for some of these to be made available and published. Recent revelations have shown the royal family’s interference in parliamentary bills to protect their financial and other interests. The prince’s alleged role in ending in the tenure of Prof. Edzard Ernst’s role at Exeter University because he criticised the prince’s championing homeopathy was also quoted. It was also noted that the Queen failed to act when Boris Johnson when prime minister, wanted – illegally as it turned out – to prorogue parliament. The BBC came in for criticism for not investigating these and other matters: it was suggested that they were too frightened to. In addition to the monarchy itself, there was a huge retinue of people and sycophants whose future depended on them.

    In addition to being our royal family, the King was now head of the Commonwealth although it is not a hereditary position. The Queen ‘championed’ Prince Charles’s (as he then was) appointment to overcome alternative suggestions for an alternative head.

    These remarks prompted the question ‘do we need a head of state and what is the role for?’ I am not sure we progressed this fundamental question much further. We are hard-wired to need leaders it was suggested – an interesting point.

    Another point was that the monarchy was the tip of an iceberg under which was a pyramid of privilege. Aside from the Lords, there was Eton and other ‘posh’ schools, grammar schools all of which played a part in cementing privilege and advantage in our society. But how to replace them? A meritocracy? This led to a mention of democracy and was it that perfect? We had to reckon with the fact that a series of unsatisfactory individuals have been voted into parliament. We might rail at the incompetence or manifest inadequacy of several ministers, but they were there because we put them there.

    Back to King Charles and the Cop27 in Egypt to which the government is reluctant to allow him to go. The problem is that his views on the environment are well known and his presence there will have political significance and the King is now said to be keen to be seen to be neutral. The other point is that we may well support his presence in Egypt because we applaud and support his views on the question of the environment. But if we support him in that, how can we object to some of his other views such as his somewhat doubtful opinions on education and as we have mentioned, his dotty views on homeopathy.

    Perhaps it was a pity that there were no monarchists present in the debate to promote their cause and the continuation of the status quo.

    Part two was on the question ‘is neoliberalism dead?’ inspired by the recent non-budget by the Chancellor and the speech by Liz Truss at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham. This belief, basically around the idea of a small state, low taxes and reduced regimes of regulation saw the light of day in the Thatcher/Reagan years but it was assumed it had largely died at the time of the financial crash. Yet here it was, live and well, at the party conference.

    Some thought it was dead. They felt that although there were some ideologues around, the general public has moved on. More were in favour today of government intervention. Some were even happy with higher taxes and were keen to see some of the poorly performing utilities renationalised – the water companies most obviously. The negative reaction to the budget was also heartening some thought. It would seem the government was out of touch with what people were thinking.

    The debate moved on to more economic considerations and one of the long-identified problems of the British economy – short-termism and the unavailability of long-term risk capital – a problem identified by Macmillan when Chancellor before the war. Could the ‘green new deal’ replace neoliberalism and see greater investment in the economy by the state? Perhaps this could be linked to more localism. Green ideas were popular with the young it was noted.

    One of the ideas to re-emerge recently was that of trickle down. This was behind the proposals to reduce taxes on the rich (subsequently abandoned) and the ending of controls over bankers’ bonuses. The idea was that the more wealth created, the more it ‘trickled down’ through the economy for the benefit of all. The problem is it didn’t work. It merely increases income inequality. The wealthy don’t spend all their wealth and are able to afford sophisticated tax advice to enable them to protect it, to avoid taxation and for it to be moved offshore. A more useful concept was trickle up since the middle classes and below spend a higher proportion of their income thus benefiting the economy. We briefly touched on the circulation of money at this point.

    We touched on issues such as the creation of money, the Thatcher era ideas from Milton Friedman of the Chicago school which argued all you needed to do was control the money supply an idea which so divided the party at the time. It was clear there was a lot of ignorance around and pointed to the need for better education of the public. Politicians were able to come up with hare brained ideas and get elected largely because so many did not understand how the economy worked.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Cafe

    CANCELLATION

    Following the sad news of Her Majesty the Queen’s death, the Democracy Cafe due to be held on 10th September was cancelled. We hope to resume in October.

  • Democracy Café

    Meeting of the Democracy Café via Zoom on 10 October 2020

    We started with the intriguing question ‘was it wrong to wish ill of the President of the USA, Donald Trump?’  Trump has recently tested positive for the Covid-19 virus and spent some time in hospital.

    It would be fair to say that everyone was in a quandary with this question since while no one would wish ill of anyone, Trump’s actions in relation to the pandemic, particularly his many statements about not wearing a mask, and also his treatment of Julian Assange led one to believe we would be a lot better off without him.

    It was an example of the ends justifying the means.  It was pointed out however that Trump represented the views of many millions of Americans – witness the packed out rallies and vast crowds wherever he went.  He stirred visceral emotions which would remain even if he was no more.  Grayson Perry’s recent programme was referred to and how he found it difficult to find people who were in the middle in America and not extreme right or left.

    In America there is a rising movement of far right people with violent intentions.  We were reminded of this following a series of R4 programmes about the Oklahoma bombings and Timothy McVeigh.  It was suggested that members of these groups might react violently if Trump loses the election next month.

    The question was posed: ‘what if Adolf Hitler had been assassinated in 1939?’  What would have the course of history looked like?  Both arguments (POTUS or Hitler) assumed that by removing one man, the problem would be solved.  What if they were replaced by someone worse?  In any event, we were left with very difficult moral arguments.  We were reminded that this very day was the World Day Against the Death Penalty.  So wishing someone dead didn’t feel right.

    The concept of virtue ethics was raised and the idea of intrinsic morality.

    The discussion moved onto the whole issue of how it was that Trump was able (or ‘allow’ someone said) to say the things he does.  He seems to destroy any notion of truth.  Some find it funny but his lies are not challenged.  There are Republicans who are uneasy it was noted.  Whatever the result of the election, the country will remain deeply divided.

    This session ended with a kind of lament about both the UK and America – why can we not have evidence based government?  Why indeed.

    The second half of the debate moved on to discuss a related topic namely the role of science in decision making.  The government has frequently claimed to be ‘following the science’ in its handling of the pandemic yet they seemed to misunderstand what science was about.  Science can only ever give a best guess about what the truth was at any given moment.  This is subject to constant refinement and revision as new evidence emerged.  Science should inform government decision making but it cannot be slavishly followed.

    It was felt that we were not told or reminded of previous epidemics.  A number had occurred and various responses tried.  Some had serious effects whereas others had not become as serious as was once believed SARS for example.  It was not always clear that lessons were being learned.  We were reminded that so-called ‘Spanish ‘flu’ (which actually started in Kansas) was of the H1N1 type the same as Covid-19.

    The point was made that the government were in a kind of ideological bind.  On the one hand they were believers in small government, the superiority of the private sector, low taxes and minimal state intervention but on the other – to deal with the pandemic – they were being forced to act like a socialist government with massive intervention and high levels of state control.  This ideological split might be making it difficult for them to decide on what to do hence the abrupt changes in policy.

    There were arguments looking at costs and benefits of different approaches of not following lockdown.  If one weighed up the costs and took into account the hidden cost to those in isolation for example, then lockdown does not seem such a good idea.

    Finally, we noted the changing attitudes to risk which in a way have become unrealistic.  Once upon a time we used to accept a level of risk as a normal part of life.  In recent decades we have become progressively risk averse and more and more laws and regulations have been passed to contain them.  It was however impossible to be perfectly risk averse.

    Altogether, an interesting debate about how government governs with some ideas about why it fails to do so, spectacularly so in both America and the UK.

    Peter Curbishley

    Relevant books:

    • The Good Ancestor, 2020, Roman Krznaric, WH Allen
    • Plagues and Peoples, 1976, William H McNeill, PBS
    • The Rules of Contagion, 2020, Adam Kucharski, Profile Books

    Update 12 October. An article discussing this topic was in Psychology Today

  • Virtual Democracy Café

    About ten of us met for a Democracy Café meeting on Saturday 8 August via Zoom. I say ‘about’ because one member had a lot of buffering and did not make the second half and one came for the second half only. We are at least keeping the flag flying.

    The proposed topics were all sort of related: the increase in apparent cronyism with contracts going to friends of friends without announcement or tender (wouldn’t be so bad if the projects worked but they don’t even do that); is Black Lives Matter a distraction? and the Tory party’s view of community.

    The week had started with the announcement of a proposed wholesale reform of the planning system by ‘honest Bob’ Jenrick the minister concerned. The ideas is to introduce three zones which would allocate land for various types of development and would give developers a fast track to development (it is claimed). Trevor (who lives in Devizes) said he was hoping to meet his local MP, Danny Kruger, to discuss the issue of community led planning. The Conservatives were said to be keen on the idea although the question was, will they resource it? It does not always seem to be recognised that running and managing ‘community’ events costs money. It will be interesting to hear what Kruger says. The government were once keen on the idea of citizens’ juries but dropped them because many of the proposals emerged from Labour run authorities.

    Local Governance

    It was noted that the government has an almost visceral dislike of local government which has been evident during the pandemic. They are happy to give funds to the likes of Serco rather than support existing LA health teams run down during austerity. Why government is giving out these contracts is being challenged by the Good Law Project. But, it was pointed out, the government had put more into local government recently. Maybe this could herald a change in attitude? We were reminded of the Lansley reforms of the NHS which caused such immense harm and drastically reduced local input.

    Covid-19 had seen a rise in volunteering, community involvement and the activity of local groups and charities. Since local government was not functioning as it should, could the use of community groups be a better way to run things in future? Burke’s idea of ‘little platoons’ had been taken over however by the rise in extreme libertarianism.

    A problem with local involvement it was pointed out was that people often choose what were termed ‘cuddly’ projects to contibute or give money to. Effort and resources may not go to areas of real need if this process was pushed too far. Encouraging people to think strategically was also difficult it was noted. This could be alleviated with proper guidance such as with a citizens’ jury process.

    Linked to this was the issue of ‘infantilising’ of the general public by government ministers. They were aided in this by the echo chamber of social media. It would seem the prime minister and his aids were quite happy to promote this process. Local government was in a pretty poor state and the government should have done more to reverse this: that it hadn’t reflected perhaps its dislike of them and a desire for control.

    Science

    This part of the debate was around influence, the media and social media. I had been listening to the BBC’s How They Made us Doubt Everything (still available) which discussed how the tobacco and oil companies had systematically developed systems and methods to sow doubt on the science. For example, scientists always refer to the ‘uncertainty’ of their results and this was misused to claim that the science as a whole is uncertain. As we have discussed before, the need for balance in TV and Radio reporting meant climate deniers had equal say, leaving the impression that the science was less certain than it is. These arguments are also set out in the book Merchants of Doubt.

    One person said about their son who disbelieved ‘the media’ ie the BBC, newspapers and so on, and preferred to believe what they read on social media. The latter were promoting – or rather allowing the promotion of – anti vaccination for example. Media organisations filter out extremes or wholly unsupported assertions whereas anything can get published on social media which made it attractive to some. It gave them the sense they were getting at the truth which mainstream media was denying them access to. It did give people the opportunity to challenge received opinion.

    Paradoxically, it was noted that the government always said it was ‘following the science’ when it made an announcement. But whose science since the alternative Sage group and WHO often said different things? Maybe it was part of its desire to shift blame with the implied assumption that science is always right.

    We ended with a brief discussion about the future and whether Salisbury Democracy Alliance should have something to say in the local elections. Not to be a party seeking votes but to promote ideas of better government and decisions by using citizens’ juries for example. The meeting took place after the ‘will it, won’t it’ debate about pedestrianisation in Salisbury. [Indeed, one of our participants, Mark, had a letter printed in the Salisbury Journal on this subject (6 August 2020)]. An announcement made, then backtracked and little sign of serious research or consultation. Snafu* as the Americans would say. It was in the long term interests of democracy that better decisions were made. Thus we ended on a positive note.

    Peter Curbishley

    *situation normal all fouled up, although sometimes ‘fouled’ is replaced with something stronger

  • Can we make democracy work?

    Can we make democracy work?

    13 June 2020

    In a period of sustained social, economic and environmental turbulence, we desperately need a political system that delivers fairer and more effective policies and decisions

    Authors

    Trevor Cherrett

    Author

    In the UK we, along with much of the rest of the world, are in the middle of the biggest economic muddle in generations. Global capitalism, which roundly triumphed over the collective models of communism in the 20th Century, is itself now facing an existential crisis. Sovereign nations struggle to cope with massive debt and the EU is in disarray. International financial markets plunge wildly in a perfect storm of uncertainty about the future.

    I wrote this paragraph in November 2011, following the economic crash of 2008. Now in 2020 we have an even bigger crisis to face with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. The perfect storm has got stormier.

    But we are still here. The political and economic arguments about the balance between austerity and growth after 2008 ended up with governments shoring up the banks and assuaging the markets, while `ordinary` people looked on, often feeling disgusted but helpless. Fierce public protests around the world such as the Occupy movement gradually fizzled out, as they were bound to. In Britain Jeremy Corbyn`s Labour Party attracted huge support for a growth agenda which sank into the sands of Brexit. But this tension between the political and economic arguments never really went away, and in the pending aftermath of the pandemic, it will be even greater, and not just because the economic fall-out is likely to be even larger than a decade ago.

    Since the 2008 crash something else happened. Liberal democracies came under attack from populist parties – mainly on the right but also on the left –  who tapped into the anger of those who lost out from the banking bust-ups, often dubbed the so-called ‘left behind’. In sum, nationalism is on the rise, and globalism is in retreat.

    So far, so familiar. But leaving aside the substantive arguments about what policies should be delivered to address urgent  economic, social and indeed environmental issues for a moment – such as whether we should once again attempt to reduce debt, or invest in a green economy, and so on – there is an existential question about how we should be governed, how policies and decisions should be made, and how our whole political system works.

    Many questions abound about how we can now move forward. Does the rise of populist politics threaten the very notion of representative democracy?  Do we need to defend democracy, and if so what exactly needs to be done to strengthen it, or should we begin to acknowledge that it`s day is done and that we need to look for a different model of government?

    Churchill`s often quoted (and misquoted) maxim that ‘Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time’ has a lot to answer for. I believe it has contributed to a complacent view that things might be bad in Europe and the UK, but that we cannot do much about it, and that things still aren’t as bad as they are in other places. But the rise of authoritarianism in China and populism in the USA and Europe are surely warnings for us too. [1] Given how bad things are at this juncture, should we not at least take a hard look at our democratic processes, to see how we can improve and strengthen them?

    Five ways to rehabilitate representative democracy

    My starting point is that Churchill was fundamentally right: democracy is the foundation for the fairest and least damaging form of politics, but that it can and should be radically improved – even rehabilitated –  to properly address the challenges it faces. So I am not arguing for revolution, but for a radical reform of representative democracy in the tradition of the Hobbesian state.

    It has also evolved partly from my own experience of working within national and local government in different capacities. Thus, like all commentators, I am viewing the political scene through a particular prism. Through this prism I have witnessed many chronic deficiencies in the operation of the UK state across both the national and local levels. These problems deserve more detailed explanation[2] but for the purposes of this brief discussion I would summarise them as follows:

    • Political decisions are rarely based on the best evidence or science – that is, the best surveys, analysis, and lessons learnt from previous experiences.[3]
    • The UK government is far too centralised when it comes to making and delivering policy designed to meet the needs of very different geographical, social and economic conditions within the country.
    • The ‘First Past The Post’ (FPTP) electoral system is unfair and inefficient at electing political representatives
    • The House of Lords is something of an anachronism, but provides a valuable `second opinion` which deserves to be strengthened.
    • Political parties tend to reduce debate to a `football match` between parties, resulting in decisions that are less likely to be based on an informed debate on the substantive issues.

    Most if not all of these criticisms have been rehearsed many times. Not everybody will agree with them, but they are not new arguments. Each of them are substantial in themselves, and together they create a massive dysfunction in the fair and effective running of a representative democracy.

    Yet very little headway has been made on them over recent decades. Inertia and the threat they pose to vested interests appear to block the way.

    In this paper I propose five major reforms that I think would make representative democracy work properly for our country, and that would help to resolve some of the damaging political tensions that have grown at all levels since the 2008 economic crash and amid the turmoil of the Brexit process,  and which will threaten us again in the aftermath of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

    Justifying policies and decisions on the basis of firm evidence

    I believe we need to strengthen the evidence–based advisory role of the current civil service and local government officials through more coherent and transparent channels of information and analysis. An `Advisory Commission` (working title) would operate on the basis of the `scientific` approach[4], drawing upon the best peer-reviewed evidence from all sources including academia, independent think tanks, NGOs, and professions. Rather than Government drawing upon its favourite, often idiosyncratic, sources, decisions would rather be informed by the best available scientific evidence from a wide range of sources. This evidence would be peer-reviewed, and open to all and would provide the necessary foundation for a fully informed debate by elected representatives. Crucially, policy and decision-makers would be required by law to demonstrate how their decisions were taken in response to the available evidence. [5]

    Devolving more power and resources from the centre

    The UK is one of the most highly centralised countries in the world.  If we are serious about `levelling up` then we must devolve more power to regions, local authorities and local communities[6] The recently published UK 2070 Commission Inquiry into Regional Inequalities has called for new devolved , decentralised and inclusive administrative structures and resources which are sensitive to national and regional differences and local circumstances, and which  should also engage more people in the political and policy processes.

    Make elections fairer

    FPTP is manifestly not truly representative. There is nothing new here – the case for a more proportional representational (PR) voting system goes back for more than half a century, and for good reason. FPTP often sees national elections decided by battles in a small number of marginal constituencies. Alongside the US, the UK is one of only a handful of countries that do not have some kind of PR system. There is a body of evidence showing that countries with proportional electoral systems have considerably lower income inequalities, higher spending on social welfare, stronger environmental policies, have a better record on effective government and policy making, and significantly less involvement in armed conflict. [7]

    But when it comes to electoral reform, party interests and public inertia – a lack of interest induced by what appears to be abstract, complicated and boring rules of engagement –  conspire to block change. Even when the greatest exponents of PR, the Lib Dems, finally secured a referendum of the subject as part of the 2010 coalition programme for government, it was squandered on the unattractive option of the alternative vote – which is arguably not a truly PR system in the first place. Now in the aftermath of Brexit the two-party state has returned with depressing familiarity, and there is no incentive for either party to change it, with the Conservatives opting for the status quo, for obvious reasons following their massive gains in the 2019 general election, and with Labour seemingly committed to `one more heave` under the estimable Keir Starmer, despite a lively campaign for electoral reform within the party.  So, it will be difficult to dislodge the tribal ambitions of political parties striving for absolute power.

    Abolish and replace the House of Lords

    Another reform that has been on the table for decades, and still only partially enacted, relates to the role of the House of Lords. The hereditary principle has of course no place in a representative democracy, but there is a case for replacing it with both a House made up of people with outstanding experience and skills which could function as the House of Lords partly does now, that is responsible for scrutinising legislation, and with a Citizens` Forum,  drawn by lot from the electoral register and charged with debating and advising on policies and decisions, informed again by the best information and analysis from the aforementioned Advisory Commission[8]. Both these houses would have significant responsibilities and powers to influence and modify government decisions, with terms of reference that would need to be carefully worked out to reflect their importance, and with responsibilities ranging from making amendments to outright veto power.

    Limit the powers of political Parties

    This is the most difficult and contentious area for change, but I believe strongly that the motivations and behaviour of political parties themselves lie at the heart of the malaise in our system of governance. While in previous centuries such behaviours grew out of a desire to represent particular interests – classically capital and labour – they now compete to run a complex state divided by many interests that are impossible to encapsulate in any one party. So, politics has become a football match between (and within) different teams competing for power – essentially a game in which victory often goes to the team that appears least worst to a public that are often already cynical about politics. And many take it as normal that the business of government is organised to keep the party of government in power, rather than necessarily to make the best decisions for the country. [9]

    But isn’t there a better way? We cannot abolish political parties, but it should be possible to limit them by giving greater opportunities and support for alternative and independent candidates for election;  by giving elected representatives the responsibility for electing the executive – the prime minister and the senior ministers of state – via some kind of electoral college, and by limiting the power of party whips to force elected members to vote in a particular way. In this way, electors could elect the local representatives who best represent their interests.

    What could possibly go wrong ?

    Apart perhaps from the final proposal above – an electoral college of representatives who choose the prime minister and senior cabinet members –  none of these recommendations are unfamiliar. In fact most of them have been put forward at one time or another over recent decades. So, I am calling for comprehensive reform rather than revolution.

    The fact that these reforms have not happened points to the inertia of our political system and the entrenched positions of those who benefit from it.

    But leaving aside the barriers to implementing these reforms, what are the downsides? One argument would be that an executive elected by parliamentary representatives would not necessarily make a coherent team. But although the `team` chosen by a prime minister or a party may best represent a particular political `movement`, is it really in the best interests of the country? Is it not more likely to respond to the evidence presented by their selected advisors, rather than a broader base of evidence collated by a peer-reviewed advisory commission?  Even more pertinently, our history shows that executive government is characterised by rivalry, division and conflict, as much as unity or coherence.

    A more general criticism is that this system would be too bureaucratic, bogged down in policy reviews and scrutiny, mired in the machinations of advisors and the debates of scientific experts. This was Max Weber`s argument in 1919, when he looked to the charismatic leaders of Western democracy for the way forward in the chaotic aftermath of World War 1, while being unable to foresee the events that followed in Nazi Germany.

    And would today`s society accept the abolition of the presidential style election system in the UK, and the ‘X-factor style’ contest between competing politicians? The media would of course also resist this, as much of the `personality` would be taken out of politics. But the record of the last few decades in the UK – and the USA – suggests that the choice of strong, charismatic leaders such as Thatcher, Trump  and Johnson has created or exacerbated divisions in  society, divisions which highlight inequality and conflict.  It may be old-fashioned, but my argument here is that this kind of popular voting  may be fine for sport, entertainment, and celebrity culture, but  not for the political leadership of a complex  Western democracy.

    Towards a better democratic model

    In this paper I am arguing for a model of democracy that makes far better use of the knowledge, skills and understanding we have over vast areas of economic, social and environmental issues. This evidence is ignored too frequently in our political culture, for the tribal reasons I have outlined. By strengthening the link between policy and evidence, and strengthening the link between voter and politicians, I believe that we could make much better decisions for the good of our society. Those decisions will not always be` right` and will inevitably change as new evidence is gathered, and they will be interpreted differently by different value systems and cultures.  That is part of the scientific learning approach that has served us well in medicine, technology and many other fields of endeavour.

    These are radical proposals, and in the UK we do not have a strong tradition of radical reform. Organic change, disjointed incrementalism – muddling through – is more the order of the day. But my argument is that muddling through is no longer adequate. Deep divisions in our society by ethnicity, generation and wealth, recently coming to the fore with public  protests against police behaviour and the toppling of emblems of imperialism, disaffection with existing politicians, and above all the apparent susceptibility of many in the population to populist rhetoric,  all seriously threaten the effective running of elected democracy. The coronavirus  pandemic potentially provides a `moment` that threatens to break up the current order, but also an opportunity for reform.

    Essentially my thesis is that representative democracy in the UK and across the West is still stronger and fairer than the alternatives – but only if it is radically strengthened and improved by the kinds of measures I have set out. Otherwise I fear that it could be overtaken by its alternative models, with  demagogues attaining power through charismatic populist appeals to the people, or even with the emergence of totalitarian regimes like in China, that embrace capitalism to deliver the goods to the people but that stamp out personal freedoms.  I believe that by radically reforming representative democracy we can deliver outcomes that would be much fairer and more effective than many of the tribal, prejudiced, and populist decisions made today under cover of a complacent and cynical acceptance of the current distorted conditions of democracy.

    And in a period of sustained social, economic and environmental turbulence, we desperately need a political system that delivers fairer and more effective policies and decisions, and that brings people together rather than dividing them.

    [1] See The new battle for democracy, by Steve Bloomfield in Prospect, July 2020

    [2] I have written about these problems in some detail in town and country planning, the journal of the Town and Country Planning Association

    [3] A very recent example is the failure to learn from the results of the pandemic trials run in 2018 which demonstrated the need for stockpiling personal protective equipment in huge volumes.

    [4] Paradoxically, the government has made a great show of `following the science` in its policy responses to the coronavirus pandemic. But it has not been transparent in explaining exactly how it has done so.

    [5] This does not imply that politicians must `obey` the word of the advisors. Advisors advise and politicians decide. This is not an attempt to create an `epistocracy` – that is, rule by the experts. In any case the `science` works by trial and error, not by ready-made solutions. Nor can experts be purely `objective`. But politicians must show how or why they have interpreted advice in the way that they have.

    [6] Make No Little Plans : UK 2070 Inquiry into Regional Inequalities – Towards a Framework for Action;  chaired by Lord Kerslake;  Feb 2020

    [7] For example, Birchfield and Crepaz (1998) : The Impact of Constitutional Structures on Income Inequality in Industrialised Democracies; European Journal of Political Research 34: 175-200; Carey and Hix ( 2009). The electoral Sweet Spot: Low -magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems; PSPE Working Paper 01-2009,. LSE London, UK; Lijphart, Arend (2012). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and performance in thirty six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale Press; Economist Intelligence Unit (2017): Democracy Index 2017.

    [8] Citizens` Juries already have a strong track record of performance, especially at the local level.

    [9] For example, over the last decade Ministers for Housing and Planning (and no doubt many other Departments) have on average lasted less than 12 months in office. Such appointments are arguably best understood as rewards or as stepping stones for members of the political family.

    Authors

    Trevor Cherrett

    Author

    Trevor Cherrett is a professional planner with over 40 years` experience in rural policy and implementation at strategic, local and community levels. His career spans work in local and central government, academia, and the independent sector in the UK and abroad. He is currently a member of the Town and Country Planning Association`s Policy Council and actively involved in national and local rural policy issues. Trevor is Chair of the Wiltshire Community Land Trust and a former Board Member of White Horse Housing. He is author of many articles and publications on rural housing, community development and planning.

     

  • Surveillance Capitalism – a waking nightmare

    In her new book Shoshona Zuboff defines surveillance capitalism as a ‘new economic order that claims human experience as free raw material for hidden commercial practices of extraction, prediction, and sales’.

    The Age of Surveillance Capitalism is a must-read for anyone interested in the roll that the giant internet companies play in our society – and surely that must mean all of us. It reveals much more than the slick advertising of ‘smart’ machines over ‘dumb’ humans and the way that these companies prey on our psychological vulnerabilities.

    This, according to Zuboff, is a ‘parasitic economic logic in which the production of goods and services is subordinated to a new global architecture of behaviour modification’. And she argues that it is as ‘significant threat to human nature in the twenty-first century as industrial capitalism was to the natural world’.

    Under this new economic hegemony instead of, as Marx put it, capital being the vampire that feeds on labour, surveillance capitalism ‘feeds on every aspect of every human’s experience’. It is no longer nature that is the raw material of capitalism – we humans are!

    It all began almost by mistake when Google realised that the ‘behavioural surplus’ that was clogging up its servers as ‘data exhaust’ could be bundled together to create powerful and accurate predictions of human behaviour. That in turn could be deployed to modify human behaviour. Google simply declared, without any apparent challenge, that it claimed ‘human experience as raw material free for the taking’ in what Zuboff describes as being ‘conquest by declaration’.

    The Age of Surveillance Capitalism also provides us with the philosophical underpinning of what Zuboff calls ‘instrumentarian power’. One of its high priests is Alex Pentland, the director of the Human Dynamics Lab at MIT’s Media Lab, whose ‘God’s eye view’ of animals is transposed to humans and declares that he doesn’t much like the ‘despotism of democracy’. Democracy, it turns out, is unwelcome friction in the otherwise smooth transition to perfect prediction of human behaviour through behavioural modification. In his thinking the sheer speed of the digital world outpaces the slow machinations of human deliberation and negotiation that characterises traditional politics. So, ‘computation replaces the political life of the community as the basis of governance’. And this process speeds up even more as the internet becomes decoupled from computers and smart ‘phones as it enters the real world with the Internet of Things.

    Zuboff wtites: “This shift from society to swarm and from individuals to organisms is the cornerstone upon which the structure of an instrumentarian society rests.”

    In his 2015 book Postcapitalism Paul Mason takes a rather more benign view of the internet because it allows the possibility of zero-priced goods in the webbed network as the spread of free information undermines the hierarchical interests of the corporations. He mentions in passing that part of the latter’s fightback is the ‘creation of monopolies on information’. According to Zuboff, however, this monopoly is the new capitalism. The question then arises as to how the creators of goods and services maintain their prices as ‘things’ become a part of the flow and the real value lies in the cheap information it contains.

    Well, it has been known for some time that there is no such thing as a free market, except in the sense that the corporations demand freedom from regulations and interference. The masters of advertising have always played on our human frailties and in particular over the last 30 years or so have been working to infantilise us by encouraging us to want some ‘thing’ NOW instead of waiting until we have enough money to pay for it and by urging us to ditch cash in favour of plastic because it’s easier to part with our money. Nevertheless, the Internet of Things does present new problems for the ‘makers’ and they are having to think of new ways of pricing through mechanisms like subscriptions, pay-per-use and value sharing. At the same time surveillance capitalism does appear to create a tectonic shift away from the ‘makers’ to the information gleaners and Marx’s old adage in the Communist Manifesto that ‘all that is solid melts into air’ springs to mind.

    In the meantime, Zuboff urges us to be the friction that Pentland so despises and she is as one with Mason as she attacks the inevitability that the tech giants exploit to make it seems as though there is no alternative. She writes: “Friction, courage, and bearings are the resources that claim the digital future as a human place, demand that digital capitalism operates as an inclusive force bound to the people it must serve, and defend the division of learning in society as a source of genuine democratic renewal.” Indeed, although in my darkest moments I wonder whether we have already become resigned to our fate through this sense of inevitability and helplessness, and that we will eventually collaborate in our own demise as Joseph K finally does in Kafka’s The Trial – heads bowed staring into the abyss of the black mirror that reflects our empty selves.

    Dickie Bellringer

     

  • Democracy Café

    Meeting held on 9 March 2019.

    The 19th monthly Democracy Café meeting was held at the Playhouse, with a big turnout of regulars and new (and younger) faces. The two topics voted for discussion were “Populism” and “Does the Home Secretary have the right to make someone stateless?”

    The definition of populism proved a difficult concept, but it was agreed that populists claimed to speak  for “the people” while usually being part of the political elite. They thrive on the “them” and ”us” idea,  and manipulate people’s legitimate grievances. A hot button issue will get support, but may not be the actual agenda of the manipulators. The distinction between “popular” and “populist” raised some issues, as populism need not have a particular ideology, or even wide support..

    It was agreed that for all the difficulty of definition “we know it when we see it.” It was still suggested that this lack of definition was a dangerous state of affairs, as so much is encompassed by the term, and are populists actually interested in the outcome of their movements? . The French gilets jaunes movement began with a particular issue, and developed into something much larger, with people all protesting about different things.

    So the general view of the meeting was to see populism as essentially negative, if not dangerous, especially as it thrives  where people have grievances and feel they can’t do anything about them.

    The second discussion, on statelessness turned more theoretical. There were two issues – 1)  What is the morality of making someone effectively a non-person?  And  2)  How can a country cease to be responsible for a citizen, but pass the responsibility on to another state?

    Clearly, if someone has dual nationality, one could be taken away without difficulty, but there was a feeling of pass the parcel about the government’s approach.

    The Home Secretary’s action would be legal for someone coming over here and committing a crime, and then being sent back, but not for someone born here.

    With the Shamima Begum case, the issue of the criminal’s remorse also arose. But the group questioned how we could expect people to equip themselves in such a situation, and felt it was hard to judge.

    Further discussion centred on one’s right to be a citizen (or subject in the UK’s case!) as part of general human rights.

    The usual thoughtful debate on weighty matters, then.  Our thanks to all who took part, and we look forward to the April meeting.