Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Blog

  • Democracy Café: May

    This meeting took place via Zoom the day after the results were known of the Hartlepool by-election and of some of the local election results as well. The Hartlepool election was a significant win for the Conservatives in what had been long regarded as a safe Labour seat. They won by a significant margin and with a big swing to the party. (We were reminded in the Sunday papers that the captain of HMS Amethyst in the ‘Yangtze Incident’ was the first to be MP when the constituency was formed).

    This prompted the winning topic of discussion: Why do people vote Tory? The government – and Boris Johnson personally – had for weeks been mired in a variety of sleaze allegations the most recent of which was the huge cost of redecorating the No 10 flat using money allegedly from a Conservative party donor. This had resulted in a number of enquiries being set up to establish the facts. Previously, there had been the Greensill lobbying saga involving the previous prime minister, David Cameron, and before that a series of allegations of contracts being given to friends, acquaintances or supporters of the party and its ministers, the so-called ‘chumocracy’. Despite this, and other shortcomings including one of the worst per capita Covid-19 death rates, the Conservatives romped home to a comfortable victory and made significant gains in the English local elections as well.

    One participant kicked off with a series of ideas about why this was the case. They thought:

    • politics was no longer about facts but a matter of style. There was a link to the game of ‘cavalier and roundheads‘
    • politics was more about show business and by inference, Boris Johnson was brilliant at this
    • there was a high degree of ignorance about how politics worked
    • the first past the post voting system made the system as a whole dysfunctional
    • politics was now the province of ‘mountebanks and snake oil salesmen‘

    To which someone added:

    • The election had to be seen in context, similar to war time, people opt for safety first. Later, it was suggested it was a kind of ‘Falkland’s moment’ not forgetting that until the time of that war, Mrs Thatcher was really struggling to make headway.
    • there was a high degree of pragmatism as the government had aimed to give them what they wanted eg the freeport with its promise of lots of jobs for the area. An interview in the town revealed that the vaccine success was a major factor (and could have mentioned that in a Brexit supporting town, the poor performance in the EU with their vaccination programme was also a factor).

    It was quickly pointed out that the Conservatives were not being that true to their core beliefs at present. They were a party of small government, low public spending, low regulation and the pre-eminence of the free market. The pandemic meant they were spending heavily, printing money and engaged in considerable government activity, the very opposite of the austerity years.

    It was also pointed out that voting Conservative was a ‘respectable’ thing to do. Some thought voting Conservative was risk averse and that once the pandemic had faded from view, the problems of Brexit will resurface. On the other hand, statements by various ministers that the sleaze stories had not made an impact (not ‘cut through’) with the public were described as shameful. Sleaze did not seem to matter because the public were not interested. Whatever happened to integrity?

    It was not long before Labour’s performance was brought up and Sir Keir Starmer was thought disappointing although it was pointed out he had been unable to campaign in person because of the pandemic. He is seen as dull. What Labour stood for was also very unclear.

    Back to Hartlepool and it was noted that the area had changed significantly over the years. It used to be a solid working class town whereas now it was trendy and gentrified with a social mix that had changed considerably. Had Labour recognised this change both here and elsewhere? The election had focused on the pandemic and Boris Johnson is seen as successful in having led a successful vaccination programme many believed. The easing of lockdown also brought a feelgood factor into play.

    The Conservatives will be emboldened by these election results. A worry was that a range of restrictive legislation will be quickly enacted. Restrictions on Judicial Review, the risk of being arrested and acquiring a criminal record for campaigning, and immunity for some wrongdoings by military personnel, together with harsher immigration and refugee regimes were all likely to proceed at pace. A voter ID system will further entrench their hold. It was pointed out that many of these policies are very popular among the public. Reductions in overseas aid for example received overwhelming support.

    Part of our discussion focused on the notion of a change from a ‘we society’ to a ‘me society’. People were less and less interested in collective solutions and more on what they could do for themselves. To an extent this struck at the heart of the Labour party project.

    Another factor was short-termism. Attention spans were short and by the time facts became known, we had all moved on. It makes changing policy week by week that much easier. Whatever happened to the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ for example which was a key policy less than a decade ago? An enquiry into what happened with Covid will not report until people have long forgotten what took place. An article by Vince Cable on this topic was recommended. It was a piece about short-termism and its relation to actions on climate change.

    Bearing in mind the strange times and the dominance of Covid and the vaccination programme, will a return to ‘normal’ politics see people changing their minds? Maybe, but it was noted that people are very slow to change their minds. Will concerns about Brexit begin to take over from the pandemic in a few months?

    I am not sure we ended up getting to the bottom of these events. The Conservatives have done well to sell themselves with snappy slogans such as ‘levelling up,’ ‘take back control’ and ‘Get Brexit done’ which have served them well. Thinking of a Labour or LibDem equivalent is hard. The successful vaccination programme and easing of lockdown has also served them well. Hartlepool was a keen Brexit town and Boris Johnson has delivered on that front. Labour’s choice of a pro-Remain candidate seemed ill-judged. But whether this will last is another matter. The Jersey fishing dispute – which happened a day or two before the election – is perhaps a taste of what is to come.

    A recommended website which was mentioned in discussions is: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ Another site with Covid facts is https://covidfaq.co

    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.

  • March Democracy Café

    The March 2021 Democracy Café kicked off with a discussion of ‘does the monarchy represent the best or worst of British values?’  This question came following the week in which Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were interviewed in California causing a huge furore and considerable debate in the UK.

    What are British values was the question immediately asked and someone googled the question with the answer that they were part of Home Office guidance for immigrants which explained they were about the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.

    Some believed that British values were somehow unique to us whereas it was the case that many countries have similar ideas.  There was also a hint of superiority with a belief that our Royal Family is the best.  Did in fact, the Royal Family represent nothing other than themselves?  It was clear following various scandals and the Princess Diana episode, that they felt vulnerable and had tried hard to rebrand themselves.  We saw more of the younger royals to try to enhance their appeal.  On the question of superiority, it was pointed out that the flip side were feelings of  inferiority or low self-esteem.

    A recent series of stories in the Guardian had revealed the extent to which the Queen and some other royals sought to protect their wealth and financial interests by vetting legislation before it got debated by MPs.  This was quite different from the formal royal assent.  This led to a discussion which suggested separating the Queen from the monarchy.  In reality, we knew next to nothing about what the Queen thought about anything as she was entirely discrete.  Prince Charles however was quite the opposite and the question was, how will the monarchy fare once he becomes king and (if) he continues to voice his opinions?

    Elizabeth the Last

    It was suggested that the continued presence of a monarchy reinforces our inferiority – ‘we know our place.’  It was the difference between being ‘citizens’ (which we are not) and ‘subjects’.  Those in the group who were republicans objected for example with the whole principle of someone inheriting a royal position.  A king or queen was not selected or voted into position, they became one by reason solely of birth.  We were reminded that several powers the prime minister has are royal powers devolved to him or her, patronage for example.  This was clearly undemocratic and should be ended most thought.

    If we did do away with the monarchy (pursuing the republican theme) what next?  Mention of a presidential system inevitably brought up the riposte ‘do you want Tony Blair as president?’ although today it might be ‘do you want Boris Johnson …?’   Once you have recovered from that chilling thought, the answer is ‘only if people voted him in’ and then he can be voted out in future, a pleasure we cannot look forward to with the Royal family.

    The point was made that the monarchy are effectively trapped.  We were reminded of this in the famous interview when Prince Harry was asked ‘were you silent or silenced?’

    There was discussion about the social contract between the government and the people.  We the people show you loyalty and you, the government, protect us.  This seems to have broken down in recent years with many people left poor, hungry or homeless with a government seemingly not to care.

    Sometime had passed in the discussion before someone mentioned the question of class and its link to the Royals, race and our system of government generally.  Class underpinned the whole system with links to privilege, entitlement and the unequal education system.  The nation was ‘paralysed’ it was claimed and there was an urgent need for reform.  The country had moved on from notions of duty to ones of service.  That tension arose during the interview when the Sussex’s noted that ‘service is universal’ following the Palace’s decision to remove them from carrying out royal duties.

    Post Lockdown

    The discussion moved on to considering life after lockdown and the idea of ‘resetting’ things.  ‘Normal isn’t working’ it was claimed and there was a definite need for change on several fronts.  We were quickly reminded however, of the events of 2008 and the hope that that would usher in profound change – in that case the banking system.  It didn’t happen (there were small changes but not systemic ones).  Nobody ‘took the rap’ for the financial failure. The government had a vested interest in not doing anything.

    The discussion divided into two camps: the pessimists and the optimists.  The pessimists felt that the government will not be held to account for its mismanagement of the Covid crisis, people will quickly forget, or want to forget.  The nation is paralysed and change is unlikely.  You’ve got the vaccine – move on.  There was also the tide of mis- and disinformation which we have discussed on several occasions in these meetings.  Underfunding of key services will continue they thought.  The recovery was likely to be K shaped, that is, the division between the wealthy ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ would widen further.

    The optimists felt differently.  They thought climate crisis will force its way up the agenda and change will have to come.  Joe Biden’s pumping of huge sums into the public arena was a positive sign.  People were desperate for change and that would influence the mood of the country.  The Black Lives Matter campaign and the emergence of protest this week about violence against women following the Sarah Everard murder, both in the home and in the street, were signs of public desire for this change.  Some felt optimistic about young people and how they were keen to see change.  We were reminded of the Gramsci quote: ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will’ which seemed to sum up the situation nicely.

    A new website called Tortoise Media run by Alastair Campbell was another reason to be positive they thought.  The big media corporations were being challenged: their lack of democratic oversight and unfettered power to publish disinformation was an increasing topic for debate.

    An excellent discussion which ended with the observation: ‘things never change – until they do.’

    Simon Jenkins suggests the Monarchy should be abolished.

    Books mentioned:

    • Out of the Ordinary, Mark Stears, 2021, Belknap Press
    • Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour, Kate Fox, 2004, Hodder and Stoughton
    • Caste, Isabel Wilkerson, 2020, Allen Lane

    Peter Curbishley

  • Chalk and Cheese, and Save our Salisbury

    February 2021

    In this month’s Democracy Café we debated the question of a land tax a proposal which has appeared from time to time – most recently in the 2019 Labour Party manifesto – but it never lives to see the light of day.  Part of our discussion was taken up with how the Normans established the pattern of ownership in England following the invasion.  Some families who own estates, can trace their lineage back to the Normans even today.

    I was reminded during the discussion of a book published in 1979 by J Martin Shaw (not the actor) entitled Rural Deprivation and Planning, who used to be the County Planning Officer for Norfolk (where coincidentally the actor comes from) who wrote a book about shire county councils and how they worked up until quite recently.  Unfortunately, I lent the book to someone and I cannot find it or its title on the internet.  He described how shire counties like Norfolk used to be run essentially by its landed interests.  For them, a rural county was an ideal form of life.  They had the time and money to be able to take part in local politics and from their ranks, many county and district councillors were elected.  Those who worked the land could not get, or afford, the time off and so the whole issue of rural poverty and disadvantage never got a hearing.

    Wiltshire was similar in many respects.  Wiltshire is unique in that it is the only county not to have a university except for tiny Rutland.  What is now the University of Bath was intended for Wiltshire.   Someone close to the negotiations at the time said the idea of a university was not universally welcomed by those in power in County Hall.  Likewise, the dire state of roads in the county was also as a result of the landowning interests not wanting or needing to improve communications.  They believed in small government, long before the phrase became popular, and county council meetings started at 2pm with the intention of ending by 3pm at the latest.  After a good lunch of course.  As the main aim was to do little and invest even less, this was not difficult.  A senior highways engineer told me they did not want improved communications or roads because it would encourage their workers to look elsewhere.  I have no way of knowing if this was true but it was said with feeling.

    I can see echoes of this thinking in the decisions of county hall even today.  A kind of remoteness and an approach based on ‘we know best’.  When a group of us met the leader of the County Council at the beginning of austerity, their easy acceptance – relish even – for cutting funds in the county was very evident.  There were words of regret but the readiness to cut funding was easy to see.  They talk ‘consultation’ but this is more ‘this is what we plan to do, do you like it?  No?  Tough, that’s what’s been decided.’  When the idea of citizens’ assemblies is put to them, the idea is politely received then during a public meeting in the Guildhall, it is nowhere to be seen.

    There is now a move to get more independents elected onto the City Council.  I suspect this is born of a frustration with continued mismanagement, not especially by the City Council itself, but by their paymasters in Trowbridge.  Will this succeed?  As a Scottish colleague of mine used to say ‘I ha’ ma’ douts.’  One problem is a collection of independents is not a party almost by definition.  Will they be able to collaborate sufficiently to counter the established parties?  Maybe, maybe not.

    Secondly, the City Council is a parish council.  This is really an absurd state of affairs.  I was never a fan of the district council but at least it was local.  A city whose administration is a parish council: bizarre.

    Chalk and Cheese?  This is probably a Wiltshire saying coming from when, in the immediate area of Salisbury, they could only rear sheep on the chalk.  West and north they could raise cattle and produce cheese.  Hence in Salisbury market there were two parts and the cheese was sold outside what is now HSBC bank.  It seems to be a metaphor for the state of affairs we have in the county today with decisions taken in the north of the county and often seem divorced and irrelevant to the south.

    Perhaps we need to think differently and divide Wiltshire into two counties: North Wiltshire and South Wiltshire?  North would continue to run from Trowbridge – after all they seem to have spent millions on the building there.  The south would need to be decided and not necessarily Salisbury.  Save our Salisbury could perhaps direct part of their efforts to this endeavour.  It is likely to reap better dividends and more locally based local government than we have now.

    It leaves the baleful influence of the landed interests still quietly evident.  They can continue, behind the scenes, to select their own.  The only way to counter this is to enliven local democracy.  More independents in a South Wiltshire County Council which has the powers of a county, could make a real difference.

    Peter Curbishley

    Updated 10 March

  • Democracy Café – February

    Two very interesting debates at this month’s Democracy Café meeting held via Zoom

    Two topics won through this month: one on privacy and the other on whether we should have a land tax.  At first sight unrelated but, read on …

    Privacy and the news this week of a legal victory by Megan Markle against the Mail on Sunday who had published letters she wrote to her father.  It raised the question of how much should be in the public domain for us all to see.  There was a lot of interest by the public of things to do with the Royals (as in the Royal family not the TV family of the same name!).  More openness in politics however is a feature of Open Democracy.

    There was general agreement that it depended on what the content was.  Letters between individuals should remain private but if the content was about matters of public concern, then there might be a case for publication. The fundamental distinction was between ‘in the public interest’ and ‘of interest to the public’.  It was noted that we have some of the most restrictive set of rules preventing publication in comparison to other democracies.  Things like Cabinet minutes were kept secret for 30 years when many of the participants would be dead and the matters discussed long since over with.  It was pointed out that SAGE minutes are now published without, it seems, the ceiling falling in.

    Would we risk being overloaded someone asked?  If all sorts of government papers were published, could we be drowned by it all?  Another point: would publication inhibit civil servants, experts and others giving frank advice to ministers?  The problem – which seems to be increasing – is that many decisions are being made behind closed doors without either the public or parliament knowing what is going on or being able to discuss them.  Was the Windrush decision for example ever discussed in Cabinet?  Who said what in the lead up to the Iraq war?  This increasing secrecy has almost certainly led to the rise of the ‘chumocracy’ with hundreds of millions of pounds in contracts being issued to friends, cronies and party supporters without proper oversight.  Good old fashioned corruption in other words.  The opposite of public interest is private interest it was noted.

    A fundamental assumption was that decisions were made competently after a careful assembly and consideration of the facts and opinions sought from  those who know.  The reality is that decision making is chaotic with the actual decisions made in private rooms and the Cabinet simply assembled to rubber stamp what has already been decided elsewhere.  Decisions were made on the basis of political expediency.  If there was more openness, the likelihood was that actual decisions would shift elsewhere.  A film of the G7 summit was mentioned, attended by President Trump, showing him casually deciding whether to pull out of NATO and subsequently pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

    The whole concept of privacy has been questioned recently in a book Life after Privacy.  We have been willing to give away our privacy for the benefits of shopping on line.  Sites like Amazon and Google collect huge quantities of data about us which we seem willing to give. Does it matter? 

    In the Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt discusses loneliness and distinguishes it from isolation.  We chose our privacy she claims. 

    The second half moved onto a discussion of land tax a topic we have discussed before.  The topic arose from a recently published book, The Book of Trespass by Nick Hayes.  There was firstly, an economic argument since a major slice of the price of a house is the land it sits on.  The supply of land and hence its price was a key factor in the economy.  Yet land itself is largely untaxed.  Thomas Picketty argues in his book Capital in the 21st Century, that there should be a shift away from taxing earnings to taxing wealth which was in many respects unproductive.  It would also enable the elimination of other taxes such as the community charge.  Developers for example, had collectively around 5 years supply of land with planning permission, and they were able to build as an when it was profitable for them, not when houses were needed.  Taxing the land would act as an incentive to build. 

    However, could such a tax act as a disincentive to develop?  It was indeed one of the problems of the Betterment Levy – one of the attempts to tax land and development – that landowners simply declined to sell and waited for the tax to be abandoned which ultimately it was.  This led onto the question of taxing land which was for the benefit of the community or was not earning income, for example, wildlife habitats.  This need not be a problem since there was already a system of grants to encourage this activity and such uses could be zero rated.  The tax could also be used to incentivise the use of land for solar energy or wind farms for example.  

    Letchworth Garden City was mentioned which is managed by the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation the income from which is invested in the community.  This could readily serve as a model elsewhere. 

    It was noted that all land is owned by the Crown which introduced the notion of stewardship.  The second point was that we have got used to the pattern of land ownership a system introduced by the Normans.  William the Conqueror simply handed out parcels of land to his barons and dispossessed the English.  This pattern of ‘land grabs’ has been the case through history and fuelled the Empire.  In this connection, the lack of footpaths in Ireland was noted and almost certainly this arose because the country was once part of the Empire and there would have been little interest in the needs of Irish peasants.   One participant found the signs put up by local landowners – saying PRIVATE, KEEP OUT – to be needlessly aggressive.  Should we rethink the whole basis of the ownership of land?  We have somehow accepted the current pattern established by the Normans and have never really challenged it.  

    How will it benefit society?  A difficult question but at least it will make things a little fairer with wealth paying its share.  Tax based on land would be very easy to collect since it cannot be concealed that easily (although perhaps it should be noted that what Britain’s largest landowner – the Duke of Buccleuch – owns is unknown even to some of his tenants.)  One of the most efficient taxes however is Stamp Duty: easy to collect and hard to avoid.  

    There was a brief discussion about criminal trespass which was an act introduced to protect ancient monuments.  This was about the time of the infamous ‘Beanfield Massacre‘ incident near Stonehenge in 1985.   

    Will it change?  The idea of a land tax was suggested in the Labour Party manifesto in 2019 and was successfully characterised as a garden tax by the Conservatives.  Politically, it seems a toxic idea that will need a lot of work to sell and to explain the benefits of to the voters.  Another point is it was revealed this week that the Queen sees all bills for vetting before they come to Parliament and has amended or squashed a number of them before they have seen the light of day.  A land tax will hit her estates and those of other royalty with higher taxes so such a proposal would find difficulty getting debated.  Then of course there is the House of Lords …  Hence we came full circle with privacy and secrecy linked to the taxing of land.

    An excellent debate and our next is in March.

    ***

    Unconnected with the discussion it was noted that there is an attempt to recruit more independents onto the council in the forthcoming elections.  How Salisbury is managed (or is it mismanaged?) politically has been the subject of several of our debates in the Café over the years and if there were more independents on the council perhaps this would help.   

    Peter Curbishley

     

  • Lib Dem organised meeting

    If you attended the meeting yesterday evening (27 Jan) with 30 others organised by the Lib Dems, you may have seen reference to the SDA. The speaker spoke of citizens’ assemblies mentioning the Northern Ireland example in particular.

    We are keen to support this idea so anybody keen to support it is welcome to keep in touch. We want to establish the principle in Wiltshire. The meeting expressed considerable dissatisfaction with politics both local and national and the speaker, Dr Ian Kearns was encouraging us to get active. He mentioned the Frome Flat Pack project which has been written up here.

    A report by Dr Kearns can be read by following this link.