Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Blog

  • SDA news

    The organising committee of SDA met this afternoon (1 February 2023) to review progress and to look at future activities. The democracy cafés continue, now in our new home in the Progress Café in Endless Street*. It is good to see new members joining us as well as the regular stalwarts. You can read a note of our debates elsewhere on this site of course. It is free to come (although we do ask for a small contribution if you can) and they start at 10:00, finish at noon, on the second Saturday of every month, the next one being on 11 February.

    This is a brief note of our meeting today:

    – We shall be sharing a stall in the Market Square on Saturday 25th February and we should be there from around 9 am or soon after. It would be a good opportunity to drop by and chat if you want to know more about us. We are sharing with Make Votes Matter.

    – We had a long discussion about possible Talkshop events. The first one was very successful and played a key role is getting the EcoHub project launched. Various possible topics were discussed and New Local Politics looked an attractive option. You can read more about this innovative idea by following this link. This is still in the very early stages of planning so details are not available as yet. If you are interested, keep an eye on this site as planning progresses. It will probably be run in June.

    If you would like to join us either at a Democracy Café, or at the stall, you would be most welcome and if you would like to be more active and contribute to planning events, that would also be welcomed.

    Peter Curbishley

    *for those of you not from Salisbury, Endless Street is off the eastern end of the Market Square and the café is a few yards up on the right.

  • 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

  • December Cafe

    We regret to announce that the December Cafe, due to be held this Saturday 10th, has had to be cancelled. This mostly due to various members of the team being away or otherwise indisposed.

    We hope to be back 14th January 2023 and we look forward to seeing you then. In recent meetings we have seen a return to the sort of numbers we normally had pre-Lockdown which is encouraging. Note we are exploring a different venue and when and if that is agreed, we will let you know. It will be more central.

    Seasons greetings to you all.

  • Citizen Assemblies

    We attach a link to an email from the Sortition Foundation which provides a list of the many examples of citizens’ assemblies around the world.

    http://www.sortitionfoundation.org/?e=c338496109f46bb9940162ed8d660933&utm_source=sortitionfoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nov_2022_news&n=2

  • Democracy Cafe: November

    November 2022

    We had two lively discussions at our meeting on 12 November 2022 and it was good to see a higher level of participants again following the dip in numbers after Lockdown. The first topic was around the Stop Oil protests who had caused disruption to the M25 recently. The question was around protest and breaking the law. The proposer of the question said there were two main responses: those who were sympathetic or empathetic to the cause (and one assumes the protest) contrasted with those who didn’t who thought they were pathetic people and ‘snowflakes’.

    The discussion started off with a debate about climate change itself and the statement that ‘feelings are not facts’. Gas was essential, it was claimed, for the production of fertilizer, the lack of which would result in the deaths of millions for want of food.

    We returned to the issue at hand and the fact that if we feel those in power are not listening then we are entitled to take action. However, it was argued, we have to accept the penalty for any civil disobedience involved. In response to the charge about ‘feelings not being facts’, we operate on an emotional level as well as factual and that this was a legitimate part of our response.

    Civil disobedience was the cornerstone of our democracy. The series of bills the government was currently pushing through parliament for example the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill, represented it was claimed an attempt by government to curtail such protest. The act when it becomes law will mean lawyers and teachers for example, taking part in demonstrations, risked losing their jobs should they be arrested. One person thought that we were slowly moving towards a totalitarian state especially when the new Justice and Courts act has made challenging government decisions a lot more difficult. There were many restrictions in place around Westminster which further prevented the show of dissent.

    The point was made that the media are particularly bad at reporting peaceful protests. It was also pointed out that whereas there was considerable coverage of the highly visible M25 protests, the daily ‘under the radar’ lobbying by corporations which takes place in parliament – but which was extremely effective in securing for them advantageous treatment of one kind or another – was seldom reported. Another example of peaceful protest was a visit to the local MP by a group of local Amnesty members to raise concerns about the collection of bills which will have the effect of curtailing or inhibiting protests. It was doubtful if this had much of an effect. The role of the media was stressed because only if they were concerned did the public become aware of the problem.

    It was noted that the suffragists formed in the 1866 with the specific aim of campaigning for votes for women peacefully or ‘respectfully’ as they expressed it. Their campaigns yielded nothing and in 1903, the suffragettes were formed who campaigned, sometimes violently, to get them and this was agreed in 1928.

    Back to global warming and it was claimed that people concerned about this were not able to come up with the relevant facts. To claim that ‘scientists say’ was not convincing since many of them depended on commercial funding of one kind or another which called into question their impartiality. It was also pointed out that it will be the poorest in the world who will pay the price not the affluent West. Claims of climate disaster of one kind or another have been made for many years it was said but they seldom happened. An example was that Manhattan would be under water by the year 2000.

    The role of economic ideology was suggested as a reason for a reluctance to act on things like climate reforms. The prevailing ideology was neoliberal, and protests were seen as a cost to doing business and thus damaged the economy. It was claimed that our local MP, Mr John Glen, as a treasury minister, was dictated to by commercial interests. It was pointed out however that he was the MP for all his constituents.

    Finally, the ‘straw man’ argument was noted namely, M25 protests preventing ambulances getting through. This was often claimed but protesters specifically allowed emergency vehicles to pass.

    These highly visible protests raise great passions and many are angry at the disruption caused to daily life. People wanted protests to be other than disruptive. The problem was that they then became invisible and the media would take no notice. Since government was in hoc to business and commercial interests and lobbyists, was this the only way to make the voice of protest heard? Demonstrations were not welcome by the current government hence the slew of legislation designed to outlaw any form of protest seen as a nuisance or an inconvenience.

    Our second topic was whether the idealism of post war in connection with the NHS and education been overtaken by capitalist thinking? Education for many decades after the war was free but in recent years it has been replaced by fees certainly at the university level. Free education for adults has gone. Chunks of the NHS are being privatised. It was claimed that these services were being ‘contaminated’ by the profit motive.

    Why do we have education (for the masses) at all it was asked? The answer, it was claimed, was because the industrial and commercial world needed people for its workforce. This was part of the answer it was true although the push for better education came sometime after the height of the industrial revolution. Increased concerns about superior education – particularly technical – in Germany and USA was also of concern to governments of the day. Another factor was the after-effects of the Great War and the depression. There was a wave of social welfare reforms after WWII with the creation of the health service following the Beveridge Report and the 1944 Butler Act (Education). While it was true there was a fear of civil disturbance by government, there was a number of research and other reports published concerned with how people could lead better lives and fulfil their potential. It did seem that there was a degree of idealism in those post war years.

    The debate moved on following a challenge that the premise of the question implied that capitalism was a bad word. The problem was not that capitalism was bad per se but that it was focused on the profit motive. Money dictates what happens someone said. The problems arose if profit became the sole driving force. There was the neoliberalism belief that the private sector was superior to the public and this has led, in education, to the academy movement. It was the profit motive which made them superior it was claimed. The proposition was difficult to test however since few statistics or analyses were available. Academies did not have to follow the national curriculum so comparison was difficult. Nor did academies have to employ qualified teachers.

    Britain’s education system was once admired around the world which was not the case today. Finland was mentioned as having an excellent and much-admired system. There were no private schools there and all teachers were highly qualified.

    The problems of capitalism was highlighted by the privatisation of the water companies. Little investment had taken place and instead high dividends had been paid out. Rivers had become polluted by sewage discharges and vast quantities were poured into the sea. But, many of those self-same dividends went to pension funds etc so we all profited to an extent. Unfortunately, the activities of a few rogue enterprises tainted the whole sector – not all firms behaved like the water companies. There was a spectrum of companies from the ‘toxic’ to the ordinary firms.

    It did seem to be agreed that something had been lost. The idealism of the post war years has been replaced by a focus on private firms and commercial interests whose pursuit of profit was not always for the benefit of the citizen. There was, in a sense, a link to the first debate and the influence corporations have in the parliamentary process. Private firms had been able to influence policy across a range of areas. People were becoming more and more concerned at the lack of progress on climate change and there was also considerable disquiet at the state the NHS was now in. Was the introduction of laws to inhibit and criminalise protest because government was beginning to realise that corporate led policies were no longer working nor popular? A debate for another time perhaps.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books of interest relevant to the discussion:

    Taking Rights Seriously, Ronald Dworkin, 1997, Bloomsbury

    23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang, 2011, Penguin

    NOTE 1. One of the proposed questions we did not debate was the claim that Pfizer did not test its Covid vaccine before release. This was apparently based on a European Commission hearing on 11 October involving the firm. The claim is misleading it appears and readers may like to read this report by Full Fact which explains the context.

    NOTE 2. We may be changing venue in the future but our next meeting on 10 December will be in Brown Street at 10:00 as usual. Details in due course.

  • 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?

  • EcoHub project

    Progress with the EcoHub project and news of a gig in Brown Street

    Since Salisbury Democracy Alliance and RSA Fellows co-hosted the meeting in May which was the origin of the Salisbury EcoHub project, we are circulatting the newsletter (below) and notification of our benefit gig at Brown Street on Oct 22nd with the legendary campaigning band Seize the Day (attached).

    The EcoHub project is approaching a key phase in its development, whether to incorporate ourselves as a charity (an Incorporated Charitable Organisation or ICO) or in some other form, which will then enable us to start the search for suitable premises in which to realise our aim of setting up an environment centre in Salisbury. This will provide a place where the people of Salisbury can go for information on climate change and the other threats to our ecological survival, and on practical questions such as “how can I reduce energy bills, or put solar panels on my roof, or where can I go to recycle X or Y?”. Crucially, it will also provide a hub and shared facility linking together the many voluntary groups in Salisbury (including SDA) who are each active in their own various ways in confronting the crises which confront us in the present climate and ecological emergencies.

    We would greatly welcome both SDA itself and as many of its members as possible signing up as potential members of Salisbury EcoHub Alliance as it moves towards becoming an incorporated body to fulfil our aims.

    Salisbury EcoHub Alliance – Newsletter #1

    How was the EcoHub born?

    The population of Salisbury and its surrounding area includes a large number of people who are concerned about climate change and other environmental issues. Many are active in one or more voluntary groups or organisations addressing these matters.

    In May 2022 an open meeting was held under the auspices of Salisbury Democracy Alliance and Salisbury RSA Fellows Network to explore ways forward in collectively tackling these issues in general and the current climate emergency in particular.

    By far the most popular proposal arising from that meeting was to set up a shared premises in Salisbury where members and supporters of these various groups could meet and interact with each other and the general public. Thus the Salisbury EcoHub project was born. This first meeting set up a volunteer working group to produce a Mission Statement for the project, which was finalised at a meeting the following month.

    The project received backing from Salisbury City Council in the form of an offer of a free stall pitch in Salisbury Market to promote the EcoHub and this was incorporated in the Mission Statement, which is attached.

    What have we achieved so far?

    Since these initial meetings, a core group has continued to meet on a weekly basis and to correspond by email. Our first market stall took place on 3rd September and stalls are continuing on a weekly basis, between 9-12 every Saturday (but not tomorrow!). Please visit the stall, or volunteer to help out if you can.

    A general leaflet was produced for use on the stall, and an initial internet presence set up under the wing of the Salisbury Transition City website.

    A benefit gig featuring the legendary campaigning band Seize the Day will take place on Saturday 22nd October at 29 Brown Street: tickets can be booked online here. The flyer is attached – we hope you will publicise it on social media to help make the gig a great success. Printed copies of the flyer can also be picked up from our market stall.

    What are the next steps?

    We have been actively researching suitable formal organisational structures, including that of an Incorporated Charitable Organisation (ICO) using a Charities Commission model constitution. We have set up consultative meetings with established Environment Centres:

    Sarah Mai from Shrewsbury Environment Centre joined our weekly meeting at The Pheasant, Salt Lane

    Swansea Environment Centre organisers joined us by Zoom on Thursday 6 October at 6pm link here

    You are welcome to attend these meetings: please email us on salisburyecohub@gmail.com if you need further details.

    Following this consultation, we expect to reach a conclusion on the best structure to adopt, and to hold a formal general meeting to adopt a constitution and appoint officers (trustees or directors).

    As we become a more formal organisation we will need to develop a membership base. If you would like to become a member, either as an individual or on behalf of your organisation or business, please fill in the form below. This will enable you to vote at formal meetings and help ensure that our organisation is run on an open and democratic basis and can grow into a legal entity that can apply for grants and rent or lease premises. You can find further information on our website at www.transitionsalisbury.org/ecohub, and we will keep you in touch with our progress by email.

    No cost, no obligation. As we are still an embryonic organisation, there is at present no membership fee, and all are welcome to participate. However, we do welcome small voluntary donations to help cover ongoing expenses, and any pledges of additional financial support once the project progresses further. You may withdraw from membership at any time if you choose to do so.


    Membership form

    (Please return this form by copying and pasting it into an email to salisburyecohub@gmail.com)


    I wish to become a member of the Salisbury EcoHub Alliance when it adopts a formal structure, and to be consulted in that process. Please keep me informed of progress

    I hereby give permission for Salisbury EcoHub Alliance to hold my personal data for that purpose.
    Note: whatever formal structure is adopted will be such as protects members (whether individuals or group representatives) from personal liability.

    Name (individual) ………………………………………………

    email …………………………………………………

    Members may join as an individual or as a representative of a group or organisation. If joining on behalf of an organisation, please also complete the following questions.

    Name of group or organisation ……………………………………………………………………………….

    If joining on behalf of a group or organisation, has it formally authorised this? Yes/No
    Is your group happy to be listed as a member of Salisbury EcoHub Alliance? Yes / No
    Can we include a link to your group’s website on the EcoHub website? Yes /No

    Group website link …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..


    Might your group be interested in showcasing itself on our market stall?     Yes/No/ Perhaps

    Seizetheday print (1)Download

  • 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.