Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Blog

  • September Democracy Café

    Smaller group than usual but two fascinating topics

    At the end of this post you will be invited to think about the future development of the Café

    September 2025

    The Café took place a day or so after the murder of Charlie Kirk in Utah, USA. This has produced a huge degree of anger in that country and cries of vengeance. An element of this is the role of Christian Nationalism and this led to our first debate: Christian Nationalism, is it a threat to democracy? These ideas and beliefs seem to permeate many levels of American society and are influential certainly with young people. It combined God with government and together were a powerful force. It was disturbing they were able to persuade so many people.

    It was important to remember on the other hand that Christian values – whether you were a follower of the religion or not – had brought a lot to our world. Whether the sort of evangelism so common in the US could come to the UK was questionable. However, it was pointed out that one of the local MPs, Danny Kruger, had received substantial funding from Christian evangelicals which he failed to declare in time. [Kruger defected to the Reform party a few days after the Café took place]. An issue however was the selective interpretation of Bible teachings.

    People were looking for certainty someone suggested and the Evangelicals relied on Hebrew texts not the Gospel. Christian nationalism goes back a long way in the States it was noted despite the Constitution saying that Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion (First Amendment). The connection between church and state is a feature of the UK however and Tony Blair was mentioned briefly although he was famous for saying ‘we don’t do God’. Governments often talks positively about religion when it suits them, but then criticises them as being ‘political’ if they say something they don’t like. A separation of church and state was unlikely to happen in the UK it was thought.

    The Alpha Course was mentioned. This is an American evangelical course which is now established in the UK. There are some criticisms of its approach. It was claimed that the course misunderstands what aspects of Christianity is about [and several references on the internet seem to bear that out].

    There was then a bold statement that religion was ‘a form of manipulation of the masses’. There was considerable hypocrisy and my post [Facebook] about the enormous wealth of the Cathedral was noted and its failure to share that wealth locally. There was a fear of living a life which was bleak and pointless. This led to a discussion about whether abortion – and the various religious approaches to this difficult subject – was ‘political’ or not. All these subjects were political it was argued and there was tendency for all religions (Christianity and Islam were both instanced) to use texts for their own purposes: an echo of the comment above and Hebrew texts. Someone said that religion was about ‘we know the answer – it’s in the Bible’. That is, giving specific answers to a range of moral issues.

    This was developed by the suggestion that religion was transactional. For example, people feared death and it gave them the promise of immortality. It was suggested that religion was based on ‘getting something back’ (I assume for believers) if you follow their precepts.

    Someone spoke of their brother who had been an alcoholic but stopped and subsequently became a fundamentalist. Addiction seemed to be the point being made here. The Ten Commandments were mentioned at this point but then the fact that the Church ‘got rid of’ women [from the priesthood]. Were not some of the Apostles women? There was an anti-woman movement in the US. The late and hugely influential Charlie Kirk was quoted who said ‘black women don’t have brain power’, ‘Democrat women want to die alone without children’ and the much quoted remark that ‘Taylor Swift should submit to her husband’.

    The role of fundamentalist Christians funding settlements (mostly illegal) in Israel was mentioned. ‘It’s in the Bible’ they claim and if you attempt to argue with this you are deemed ‘anti-Semitic’ or just plain evil. Their fundamentalism meant there was no way to argue with them,.

    ‘Jesus gives my life a point’ and also meaning and a purpose someone said. She suggested that they should not leave their minds at the door to the church. She mentioned a service where people were free to say what they thought about Palestine Action. It was suggested that people should have a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other.

    ‘In the beginning was the word’ – was it? it was asked. The ‘creation myth’ is still believed it was noted [and still taught in some schools]. There was disagreement about the constancy of religious belief. Some argued that beliefs went back thousands of years, others argued that it was constantly evolving. Another issue was the meaning of words which have changed enormously over the ages. Translation was an issue as well and we were reminded of the bitter arguments surrounding the translation of the Bible into English.

    So did we answer the question put? Probably not although we did on the whole conclude that extreme positions on religion were unwelcome. Some fundamentalist positions meant argument was impossible: they had the truth. This was clearly the opposite to a democratic approach.

    The second half we switched to discussing the question With otherwise brilliant people, should we accept their warts [and all]? This was a reference to Peter Mandelson who had been sacked the previous day as Ambassador to the US following further revelations in the Sun concerning his relations with the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein. We seemed to be obsessed with undermining our leaders the presenter suggested. Mandelson was praised by many for doing his job well but clearly his relations with Epstein were more intense than apparently the prime minister was aware of at the time of his appointment.

    One aspect was that it was not a level playing field it was suggested. All week, the Guardian has been writing about the scandalous activities of Boris Johnson who used his position to secure millions yet this has not been mentioned on the BBC, Channel 4 or the Daily Telegraph. There seemed to be two standards where someone like Angela Rayner was intensely scrutinised whereas people like Boris Johnson seemed not to be despite the huge sums involved. We have a broadly right wing press keen to hound anyone it was said.

    Could there not be a system of apologies where people’s past indiscretions could be accounted for? The central question was ‘does this make you incompetent anyway?’ It was a problem for women especially. Men can have multiple affairs but for a woman, there was still a degree of shame attached to any activity of this kind. Will people stand for office or to become an MP etc if their past lives are crawled over? A female minister for X had a child out of wedlock – and? But for the tabloids it was fodder for a takedown and acres of prurient comment.

    At what point however can you wipe the slate clean and move on? A difficult question. Some may remember the Profumo scandal (seems tame by today’s standards) and the eponymous minister resigned and spent his remaining years working for a charity in the East End of London. There were personality types who don’t ever see they’ve done anything wrong – perhaps Johnson was an example of this. Apologies and clean slates were irrelevant in these cases as they will always carry on in the same shameless way. Unfortunately someone noted, they are attracted to power.

    Mandelson had been ‘unbelievably crass’ however. This was his third comeback and he did seem to be drawn moth like, to the rich and famous. Clearly, his charm had taken him far. Had in fact has he done anything wrong? Surely, it was suggested, he had stayed loyal to a friend. That is regarded by many as a positive quality. The question however centred around the gravity of Epstein’s offences it was argued. It was about powerful men abusing their positions and about child abuse.

    Mandelson was a protégé of Morgan McSweeney it was claimed schooled in the ideology of ‘the ends justify the means’. It was pointed out though that the Labour party did have an ethics adviser which the Conservatives did not for some while. The Nolan Principles were mentioned number 1 of which is ‘selflessness’ and No. 2 ‘integrity’. Hard to square with some recent behaviours.

    Back to the question and Fred Goodwin was mentioned as someone good at his job who had to step down after the near collapse of RBS. This was not really a relevant example because the rise and fall of Goodwin concerned his management and reckless expansion which led to disaster. He was not brought down by some kind of personal scandal. He was ultimately found not to be good at his job. [Famously, Goodwin hated mess, so filing cabinets had to have sloping tops to stop staff putting stuff on them].

    Richard Wagner was mentioned as a noted anti-Semite but is regarded as a major composer and still performed around the world. Picasso and his treatment of women was also instanced. However, they were not politicians so did not have direct effects on our lives.

    We ended by the observation that we needed a spectrum of people to run our affairs and we do not elect saints. As if to link with the first debate someone observed ‘let him without sin throw the first stone’ [John 8:7].

    Our thanks again to the Library for allowing us to use their space

    Peter Curbishley

    Future of Democracy Café

    We have been running the cafes for some time now and early in 2026 we will have our hundredth session. They are well attended and we regularly see over 20 come each month. We have had a very wide range of topics to debate and ideas for new ones never seem to be lacking.

    Following this success, the committee is wondering if we can extend the idea in any way? We do not want to change the DC itself under the principle of ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ but whether some similar idea could not be tried. There seems to be a thirst for political debate and it is very evident from our sessions that people are unhappy with the local political process, the local media landscape and the media generally, and are worried about democracy itself.

    Do you have any ideas? Please use the comments section or on Facebook where this post will be linked or contact us individually – whichever suits.

    Meanwhile, have you thought of joining us. We have a small committee and additional members would be welcome. Are you a subscriber?

  • August Democracy Café

    The Café tackled two contentious topics

    A colleague came into my office years ago and after a long discussion about a project not going well said “we must grab the nettle by the horns”. Well the first nettle we grasped at this Café was the vexed one of terrorism and we debated the question ‘Is terrorism ever justified?’ With the war in Gaza still raging and Hamas (a proscribed terrorist organisation) still in existence, if weakened, it is clearly a debate of some moment. What is a terrorist? The Oxford dictionary says: ‘a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods for coercing a government or community.’ There is nothing benign in this definition and the idea that it can be used as a means of persuasion was clearly not in the mind of the lexicographer.

    It was suggested the word emerged during the Iraq war (which is not in fact the case – it seems to date to the French Revolution and the period called ‘The Terror’). The distinction between violence against individuals in contrast to violence against a state was one of the first points made. It was important to distinguish between them it was said.

    The word is more nuanced it was noted. Echoing the last point, there was a distinction between violence against property and and violence against people. This is a matter of some significance concerning the banning of Palestine Action following its latest action of spraying paint over RAF aircraft at Brize Norton. (This very weekend, over 500 were arrested for allegedly supporting PA at a rally in London). It was interesting that Just Stop Oil were heavily policed but never proscribed despite similar tactics used by PA. The contrast with the farmers was noted who blocked many streets in and around London as part of their protests. There is no record of a single farmer being arrested.

    The suffragettes were mentioned who used violent and aggressive means to force the government to accept female enfranchisement. It followed many decades of peaceful protests by the suffragists which were largely unsuccessful. The word suffragette was coined by the Daily Mail as a term of disparagement. Misogyny has a long history in that paper clearly.

    Historically, the words ‘Freedom Fighter’ was often used for such activities but in recent times, terrorist seems to have taken over.

    The frightening effect of protests by supporters of Palestine on Jewish communities was claimed.

    The lack of democratic credentials was pointed out. It is perhaps difficult to see how a democratic process could be organised to support a terrorist organisation however. Neither the UVF or the IRA had any kind of formal democratic process in their formation. Later in the discussion it was said that terrorism exists when/where democracy has failed. This observation cropped up several times.

    The debate shifted a gear by asking can a state be a terrorist organisation with its own activities against its own citizens? Russia was mentioned. President Bush called a range of states an ‘Axis of Evil’ (Iraq, Iran and North Korea) for supporting terrorist activity beyond its boundaries. Governments can introduce laws which aren’t democratic. A state can demonise a cause they don’t like by calling it ‘terrorist’ a technique now widely applied around the world. In any event, who gets to decide on these definitions?

    We were reminded of the activities of the US in South America where nation after nation was threatened and its leaders murdered or overthrown if there was any sign of them becoming socialist or communist. In Chile, the murder of president Allende and his replacement by General Pinochet was given as an example of the role of the CIA.

    Do our definitions change if there is a war? During the Second World War, the French mounted a ‘resistance’ against the Germans. Would we call their activities terrorism? We didn’t because we approved of their resistance and the SOE supported them with their activities. Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the then Soviet Union, the US supported the mujahidin. Subsequently, with the occupation by the US they were fighting the same people whom they had armed and trained. Who or what is a terrorist seems to shift according to whether we approve of them or not.

    It was suggested that any country which has a secret service is by definition a terrorist state. An interesting proposition. Perhaps a country which invades another can similarly be described. This led to a discussion of ‘justified’ and how that could be defined and also ‘proportionality’. This latter being discussed in relation to Israel’s actions in Gaza. A key issue someone thought was when violence was used against civilians, the problem of Russian’s bombing Ukraine an example. Nelson Mandela was mentioned who was involved in the bombing of unmanned government buildings and was declared a ‘terrorist’ by President Reagan. One man’s terrorist …

    We were reminded that the UN allows the use of force against an invading nation.

    The discussion moved on to whether we should negotiate with terrorists. Northern Ireland was mentioned and the covert negotiations with the IRA. An interesting point was made: if there was some ‘right’ in the terrorist’s position then perhaps negotiations might be justifiable. There was an obvious danger of course, namely if anyone with a cause imagines that violence is a passport for negotiations then the results can only be imagined. Was there some kind of ‘sliding scale’ of justification for political violence? it was asked. At this point the book How to Blow up a Pipeline was mentioned which argued for aggressive approaches to climate change. Hamas was mentioned and it was claimed that they seek the extinction of Israel and are called terrorists. Israel seeks the destruction of Hamas and Palestine but are not called terrorists. [The BBC says Hamas is opposed to the existence of Israel which may or may not mean the same thing].

    We struggled with the word ‘justified’. Can the killing of civilians ever be justified? In Gaza it is the disproportionate nature and scale of the IDF attacks which many are concerned about.

    Definition came up several times. When a group is defined as a ‘terrorist’ organisation then governments stop negotiating with them. Understanding the underlying causes also disappears from view.

    Finally, this week was the 80th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Was that an act of terror by one nation on another? We did not explore that unfortunately …

    A difficult topic suffused as it is with meanings, politics and perspectives but an interesting discussion nevertheless and one worth exploring.

    The next topic was almost as controversial as the first namely, should the City Hall invite Katie Hopkins (pictured) to a gig at the hall? It appeared that some in the audience had not heard of her which is a kind of comment in itself. She came to fame on the BBC’s Apprentice programme and has since carved out a career for herself as a media person with a range of outspoken views. She deplores fat people and seems to have particular animus for women who stay at home after having a baby (having looked up a range of her quotes I discovered). The argument was essentially about the cancel culture which has gripped the universities. Some of her gigs have been cancelled it was claimed largely on public order grounds apparently.

    Did the booking and the purchase of tickets mean her views were endorsed by the hall and the

    audience? Some of the arguments hinged on KH being classed as right wing. It was a pity that more did not know of her comments because although they are, some might argue objectionable, few seem to be particularly right wing. The view that she was led to a question about whether a left wing comedian (Stewart Lee was mentioned) should be cancelled?

    It was argued that the City Hall was simply doing it for commercial reasons. One article was mentioned which caused much anger and many complaints was in the Sun where she referred to migrants as cockroaches. Objecting to her presence could be argued on acceptability grounds. It was divisive and these comments go against the values of our society. It was strongly felt by some that the City Hall should not be making money by inviting people whose act was built on causing offence.

    The counter argument was should we be concerned at offending people. Shami Chakrabarti has claimed that in the interests of free speech, we do not have a right not to be offended. Stand-up is sometimes outrageous, so where do you draw the line? The popular and award winning series on the BBC The Hour has been pulled and back issues are no longer available. It appears because it had low ratings rather than for any political or acceptability reasons (why back issues are not available is a puzzle though).

    In connection with a Tommy Robinson video, said to be professional, persuasive and manipulative, it was suggested that the educational system needs to catch up. There was a need for critical awareness to be introduced into Civics classes to help students grasp meanings and impacts. The Super Searchers Programme has been launched to enhance information literacy. However, it is run by Google – draw your own conclusions. An article in this month’s Byline Times discussed the topic of information with the familiar misinformation and disinformation, which we have discussed in several cafés, but added a third, malinformation which is using correct information for malign purposes.

    A point was made concerning humour and its use to mask prejudice. An article by George Monbiot in he Guardian discussed this aspect of humour by individuals like Rod Liddle who has a column in the Spectator. The article suggests that humour can be used as a form of ‘plausible deniability’ and as a cover for outrageous views such as getting rid of disabled people by starving them to death. Rod Liddle suggested bombing Glastonbury for some reason. Monbiot makes the point about Right v. Left: if a humourist suggested bombing the Conservative party conference there would be outrage. Suggestions of bombing Glasto are, well, humour. Can’t you take a joke?

    It was noted however that Bernard Manning made a career out of being outrageous and was hugely popular.

    An interesting idea was put forward about comedy: it is acceptable punching upwards at the powerful, less so punching ‘down’ to the powerless. Where that puts Bernard Manning’s many jokes about mother-in-laws is for you to decide.

    This was an example where debate could not settle a basic difference of view. For those who dislike unpleasant or divisive views being aired – whether or not wrapped up in humour – the likes of Katie Hopkins should not be promoted certainly not for profit. For others, however unpleasant, such people should be heard because the risk to free speech is a higher cause and one where we just have to put up with unpleasantness in its cause.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next meeting is on Saturday 13th September starting at 10:00 for 2 hours. We are grateful for the Library allowing us to use their space.

  • Progress with People’s Assemblies

    First to say, there is progress. Enthusiasm doesn’t always turn into action and although there is a long way to go, things are moving. Readers will recall we gave a presentation to Councillors at an Area Board on 3 July which was for the most part, favourably received. A change in the political composition of the council has helped and is more receptive to the idea of listening to people’s concerns and ideas. There was a feeling previously of ‘you voted us in, now go away.’

    If you are new to this site, we held three assemblies over the spring and summer at which over 100 people attended giving up 2 hours of their time to discussing what they felt was important to the future of Salisbury. They voted for 5 ideas which we presented at the Area Board. A team of 3 went up to the national event called the House of the People to present the results with around 100 others. There is an excellent review in the Byline Times which gives a flavour of the event. Parenthetically, I can recommend this publication which comes out once a month and gives an interesting take on current political issues. It can be deeply critical of some of the media coverage we are served up. They have been extremely critical of the BBC’s coverage of the Gaza war for example.

    People’s Charter created

    The Charter has set out the following five things:

    • Tax wealth by: removing tax loopholes and closing tax havens; ending pension tax subsidies for high-earners; charging the equivalent of National Insurance on investment as income over £5,000 a year; and applying VAT to banking services.
    • Strengthen and enforce anti-corruption laws; prohibit lobbying, gifting and second jobs in politics.
    • A Future Generation Act – Implement a first principle act that ensures all government policy prioritises well-being, sustainability, and nature over GDP for all current and future generations.
    • Immediate total embargo on arms, trade and support for all countries that are in violation of international law, with immediate priority to be given to Israel.
    • Long term decommodification of housing, ensuring renters rights; councils repurchasing disused housing/empty homes/holiday homes to repurpose and build green council housing; enshrining structural laws without loopholes; and implementing rent increase caps.

    Housing was one of the issues which the Salisbury discussions focused on with matters such as planning and affordable homes. Developers fulfilling their planning obligations was discussed (where developers promise x numbers of affordable homes then discover when they get on site that it cannot be afforded because of unforeseen difficulties).

    Local meeting

    Committee members and others met last evening to review progress with those who we hope will lead on some of the projects. To remind you these were:

    1. Housing and issues around quality and affordability
    2. Traffic and transport
    3. A Community Hub
    4. An Environment Centre
    5. A college for the performing arts

    We discussed the performing arts suggestion and one idea proposed was a ‘City of Story Telling’. This would build on the Stage 65 idea and hopefully create a centre of excellence for story telling with an emphasis on encouraging young people. It could tie in with Salisbury’s Cultural Strategy. It did seem to be promising and could link to the Cathedral whose theme next year is ‘Joyful Noise’. It did sound promising but it did not fully address the idea of a college for the performing arts though that might follow in future years. It will take a lot of organisation, a need for fund raising and some good marketing. The government is keen on the notion of oracy at present so the idea should be propitious.

    We then moved on to discuss transport and this is a tangled web if ever there was one. If the road to hell is paved with Wiltshire Council transport reports and plans then there can only be a few yards left before meeting Beelzebub himself. The discussion focused around the idea of 15 minute communities. There is the Wiltshire Council LTP4 plans which, if you have mastered War and Peace, you may be equipped to tackle being 310 pages of plans, 604 pages of assessments and a 15 page plan. The problem it was said was that there was little sign of action. This may change with the new LibDem administration. It was noted that there is £6m of unspent s106 monies which could provide funding for any workable ideas.

    There was discussion of People Friendly Streets which seems to be relevant. It was noted that the issue of transport and related matters was an ideal one for a Citizen’s Assembly or similar exercise. Another matter was Park and Ride which is operating sub-optimally.

    We briefly discussed the Community Hub ideas but the person concerned was not able to make the meeting. It was noted that a hub existed in the central car park in Warminster. We got on to talk about 3G pitches which are lacking in Salisbury. There are prospects however and at least 2 possible locations. The new owner of the football club may be a key influence.

    We finished by briefly discussing citizenship and government plans to reduce the voting age to 16. There will be a need and an opportunity for more schools work to interest pupils in the political process.

    So that’s where we are at present. We did also briefly touch on making SDA a bit more ‘formal’. We are currently an ‘unincorporated association’ by default. We could change to become a Community Interest Company but there are few advantages. It would be advisable to agree a set of rules and procedures and these will be discussed over the coming months.

    Finally, finally – have you thought of joining us? We can do with all the support we can muster especially now things are beginning to happen.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next Democracy Café is on Saturday 9th August at 10:00 in the Library.

  • Democracy Café

    Two debates on Palestine Action and climate change

    We were pleased to welcome Phil from Southampton back to the Café who helped set up a café in Southampton but which sadly, did not survive the Covid hiatus.

    Once again, we offer thanks to the Library for allowing us to meet there.

    Nine topics were suggested but winning through for the first half was Should Palestine Action be a proscribed organisation? By way of background, the organisation had mounted a number of protests and the last one was to get into RAF Brize Norton and spray aircraft with red paint. This had prompted the organisation to be proscribed.

    It was immediately claimed that their action at the RAF base did not seem to cross the threshold of the Terrorism Act, 2000. [This said in the interpretation section ‘terrorism’ means, inter alia, intimidation of the public, involves serious violence against the person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life …]. None of these seems applicable – who was terrorised at Brize Norton?

    It was also quickly questioned why other legislation could not have been used, criminal damage for example? Although this might have failed as it was noted the paint did not seriously damage the planes.

    The Home secretary had achieved the ban by linking the Commons motion in with two other decidedly violent organisations leaving MPs limited options to object. The others were Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. This move was described as ‘deeply cynical’. The speed with which the government moved was also noted and the methods used to tarnish the reputation of Palestine Action. This had to be seen alongside the government’s refusal to sanction Israeli politicians.

    Perhaps the reasons behind the speedy action was firstly, the ease with which the protestors had accessed the base and secondly, it highlighted the role of the RAF in the Gaza conflict. They had undertaken around 600 flights ostensibly to help with the location of the hostages – which seemed to have been a spectacular waste of money – but it was suggested to give information to the IDF which they used to identify alleged Hamas terrorists. Clearly the government did not want this to become well known.

    The conversation moved on to protests generally and it was noted this was the latest in a long line of legislation making protest harder and harder. Politicians keen to support the idea of protests as long as they are not effective. It seems sometimes that only direct action has any chance of success. There was a call for people to come together to try and counter some of the mis-information. Suella Braverman’s aim to get minor acts treated as severe has been overruled by the High Court it was noted.

    Protests were a means to gain the attention of the public it was suggested and labelling such groups as ‘terrorists’ was just a convenient label. Was it to do with content someone asked? If it had been to do with Ukraine would the home secretary taken the same action?

    The latest plan by the Israeli government to create a ‘Humanitarian City‘ on the ruins of Rafah was mentioned. This would be to confine Palestinians to an even smaller area than now. It was an attempt at ethnic cleansing. It was noted that the IDF was not happy with the proposal as it was not part of their war plans.

    Was the influence of the US to be detected in the government’s actions? The unquestioning support of Israel was perhaps evidence of that. Was there a fear of offending Donald Trump? The role of money and business also playing a part.

    The singer Bob Vylan and his set at Glastonbury made a brief appearance. Singing ‘death, death to the IDF’ caused a huge storm and a major reaction against the BBC for not pulling the performance. It was noted that young people supported the singer. The ‘Brandenburg test’ was mentioned which said speech which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action‘. This was a case in Ohio. Whether Bob Vylan met this test remains to be seen.

    We were reminded of the Greenham Common protests (and two of those present took part!) where the perimeter fence had been penetrated. CND were effective in raising consciences about nuclear weapons but were never proscribed. Clearly things had changed. Was it the effects of 9/11 someone wondered?

    An interesting debate and it is probably true to say that few if any agreed with decision to proscribe Palestine Action. The lumping them in with two other organisations was seen as deeply cynical.

    The second topic – or should I say a combination of three topics – concerned the climate. Appropriately so as we were basking in a heat wave, the second of the year. The three were have climate protests been subdued? what individual actions can be taken? and is climate change caused by us?

    It was noted that climate protests have dwindled, possibly linked to the previous topic. Government actions were at a lower level it was claimed. Was climate change a result of human action anyway? We have had periods of extreme weather in the past, could this just be another phase? There had after all been an ide age not many centuries ago.

    Climate protests have been effective it was argued. There is a much greater awareness of climate issues today. There are more and more electric vehicles on the road and people undertook much more recycling now. Salisbury Transition City was mentioned. There were concerns that things were not happening quickly enough though. 78% in Salisbury were said to be concerned about climate change.

    It was argued that the weight of evidence and a preponderance of scientists were agreed that human activity has had an effect. There was a lot of research to back this up. There was a worry about ‘greenwashing’ where companies try and persuade the public they are doing more than they really are. Oil companies were also funding institutions which made denialist claims.

    It was pointed out that many years ago, parts of N Africa and the Middle East were once forested long before industrialisation took place. What mattered was heat and a factor today is the enormous amount of heat we produce from running computer systems and the like. Bitcoin consumed electricity equivalent to Argentina to run its calculations. It was suggested that a MIT study showed we should now be entering a period of cooling [I was not able to locate this on MIT’s site]. The biggest contributors to climate problems were agriculture and industry.

    A worry was that climate science was increasingly being ‘weaponised’. Papers were being used to refute basic facts. The US was defunding institutions which were working on climate science. Climate justice and social justice were two equivalent issues and the public were increasingly being moving towards the latter. Issues like cost of living were now top of the agenda.

    The majority wanted climate action it was suggested. We were warned against ‘binary thinking’ and it was a pity this idea wasn’t developed more in the context of the discussion. Basically, things are seldom straightforwardly right or wrong but usually more complex or nuanced.

    Why weren’t we doing more it was asked? Several answers: it wasn’t cheap. Insulation and making homes climate proof would cost billions. It wasn’t popular and by contrst, the popularity of politicians calling for an end to net zero was clear. Perhaps the most significant point was the policy of growth which the government was concentrating on. If the focus was on growth then climate mitigation issues were likely to take a back seat. The issue of climate change and growth was noted. Since agriculture was a major factor in global warming – the methane ’emissions’ from cattle in particular – a meat tax was a desirable objective but was a vote loser someone noted. Another point in the same vein was consumerism which directly linked to climate pressures.

    Maybe a driving force in the future is insurance. Insurance companies were less and less likely to offer cover to properties likely to be affected by flooding for example. Insurance costs could exceed the costs of not doing something

    We were reminded towards the end of Doughnut economics which is about how humanity conducts its affairs in the light of the planet’s finite resources. There was a suggestion that we should be supporting the global south to develop their economies sustainably not follow in the path the West has done.

    Finally, this picture was displayed during our debate. It was submitted as part of the current exhibition but could not be shown because of its political nature. It is by RM Wilde CBE.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on August 9th.

  • Area Board meeting: the follow up

    Group met after the Area Board to discuss future actions

    Last week, we presented the results of the three People’s Assemblies we held over the summer and the response was on the whole, positive. We seem to have the prospect of actual progress now and the group met to discuss next steps.

    The results from our Assemblies will be part of the national response which will be taking place on 20 – 22 of this month in London. Three people will be present from Salisbury.

    We discussed what to do next and the major exercise is the support we can offer to the ‘champions’ whom we hope will lead on the five top wishes coming out of the Assemblies. One idea was to try and ‘match’ a councillor to a champion to try and make sure the ideas don’t get forgotten or sidelined.

    One of the first things we will be doing is organising a meeting of all the champions to plan the next stages and to discuss what offers of help and support they might need. It was emphasised in the meeting that ours is a supporting role but maybe also guiding in some cases.

    We also discussed our own future and the need to consider a more formal structure for SDA: at present we have none. We may opt for a Company Limited by Guarantee or a Community Interest Company and this will be looked into. It will help with the ‘credibility’ issue. We need to be clear about our objectives.

    We looked in general terms about trying to involve others including going into schools if at all possible.

    The idea of a fresh assembly was discussed and it was decided to leave it until the Spring largely because of the amount of time and effort needed to make them a success. One suggestion was for a junior assembly – we’ll see.

    Next meeting is on 15th July at the Ox Row Inn starting at 6:15.

    If you are not a member or supporter of SDA, have you thought of joining us? Best thing is to make yourself know at the Democracy Café the next one this is this Saturday 12th in the Library starting at 10:00. Or put a message below. You’d be welcome.

  • Democracy Café

    The next Café is this Saturday, 12 July starting at 10:00 in the Library as usual and finishing at noon.

  • SDA comes of age

    SDA makes successful presentation to Area Board

    The Alliance was able to report to the Salisbury Area Board on 3 July following the three successful People’s Assemblies we ran in the City. The response was on the whole positive and we did feel that we have made some progress in our quest to improve the manner in which decisions are made in the local political sphere.  We are grateful to Karen Linaker for her help in arranging for our presentation.

    Mark Potts presented the results of the three assemblies noting that around a 100 people attended at least one of the meetings and some all three.  It demonstrated a keen interest by people who were concerned and interested in the future of the City and wanted to be involved in what happened.

    There were two main types of consultation: DAD and EDD he said.  They stood for Decide – Announce – Defend and, Engage – Deliberate – Decide.  Unfortunately, there had been a tendency towards the former where people felt proposals had all been decided and their involvement was just a formality. The Alliance was naturally enough, keener on the second approach.

    The top five

    After the three meetings the top five issues emerged.  They were:

    1. Housing and issues around quality and affordability
    2. Traffic and transport
    3. A Community Hub
    4. An Environment Centre
    5. A college for the performing arts

    A full description of these and a brief report of the final assembly, can be found on this link.

    Mark said that present in the room, were the five ‘champions’ for each of these ideas and he suggested the next step is some kind of engagement with councillors and others. He mentioned the idea of citizen’s juries, another idea being promoted by SDA, which has been successfully used to tackle more complex problems.  It was true they cost money but the cost of getting these things wrong needs also to be considered.  They have the advantage of engaging experts into the debate and engaging a cross section of citizens in the process.

    Responses

    In response to Mark’s presentation, councillors had some questions and comments.

    Cllr Sven Hocking asked how will those who took part in this event or SDA help councillors find the budget.  Mark replied that it was not the role of SDA to try and manage the council’s budget.  We were only seeking to submit ideas.

    Cllr Ricky Rogers said on the housing issue, it was government who decide.  Developers were in a strong position he said.  This was a matter which came up in our debates and is a fair point. 

    Cllr Ed Rimmer was more sceptical.  He thought it better for people to engage in the existing system.  He questioned whether the [five priorities] reflected the wishes of the wider community. Is there not a risk that what is proposed subverts the [electoral] system we have?  After all, the councillors here have been voted in to represent people. How can SDA demonstrate political balance?

    In replying Mark said we were not suggesting our method was better. He stressed people had given up their time.  The point was our method was deliberative.

    Cllr John Wells said he had attended one of the sessions. He suggested some of the ideas should be built into the things they are engaged in already.

    There followed a general debate in which it was stressed that the process was about helping the councillors do their job.  It was agreed that better engagement was wanted and was a good idea.

    Cllr Paul Sample (Chair) said the work was opportune.  There was a review of the Area Boards underway and he welcomed the ideas and energy put in.  “Keep doing what you’re doing – it’s not wasted!” 

    Comment

    After the work put into organising and running the three assemblies, we were encouraged with the overall response we received. There does seem to be a change of attitude among the majority of councillors that admits they do need input from organised events of this kind.

    It is true that councillors (and members of parliament) are voted in to run things but the question is how many of the public would have read their manifestos before doing so?  How do you accommodate changing circumstances?  Are people only to have a say every 4 or five years?  As new problems or opportunities arise is it not best to tap into any local expertise?

    The three sessions demonstrated the degree of enthusiasm and commitment local people had. The point surely was to bottle some of this enthusiasm and use it to change or improve things. Trust in politics is at a very low ebb. People feel ignored and left out. This kind of deliberative approach would surely put a small dent in that thinking.

    The future

    We shall be meeting soon to consider next steps and there will be a post here so subscribe if you want to remain in touch. Why not join us? We need more people who want to play a role in local affairs. As we have debated in several of our Democracy Café meetings (next one on Saturday July 12th, 10:00 in the Library finishing at noon), the role of parties in the local political scene is doubted by many and is seen as an irrelevance. We are not a political party and our aim is to improve how things are run.

    Peter Curbishley

  • What is politics?

    A silly question but with a serious answer

    What is politics? A silly question, maybe, but a comment from Chris Dillow’s blog this week chimed with what I have been thinking of late: “Politicians make mistakes. This is inevitable because society is complex and knowledge is limited. But there are different types of error. Being bad at your job is one type, but another is simply not understanding what your job actually is. By some definitions of political activity, leading politicians have for some time been guilty of the latter.”

    Dillow picks up on issues such as transgender toilets and banning controversial bands as being not politicians’ business, and I think there are more areas where they have turned issues that are not in themselves political, into matters of partisan posing. It is at least arguable that politicians take on areas outside their remit as a form of displacement activity, as dealing with big issues is hard.

    There are many cases where legislation has been introduced to regulate activity unnecessarily (think of all the laws banning protesting activity), which could be better dealt with by following existing law rather than creating new ones. The argument about the small boats could have become much more helpful if politicians had agreed to act jointly instead of holding a bidding war as to who is the toughest. Reform is only the worst offender at inventing an issue and then demanding it be addressed. I am not suggesting that all political issues should be turned into a lovefest, but the present confrontational approach is at least timewasting.

    Political debate should be about principle and policy, how we might order and protect society and improve people’s wellbeing. Anything else is noise. Obviously, whether or not politicians are debating the issues, the issues still exist, but the British are very bad at taking responsibility, so politicians fill the gap (a gap frequently created by the media). Anyone is free to have an opinion, but decision-taking seems now to have been taken out of the hands of the relevant bodies and claimed by others (witness the number of U-turns of late). This is how we end up with a politics of impunity – it’s someone else’s fault, but I’ll apologise anyway, as long as you know it wasn’t my area of responsibility.

    If we could remove some conflicts from the parliamentary field, there would be more time to debate the direction the country could or should be taking. Ethical questions should be eschewed as far as possible unless actual legislation is required (the debate on assisted dying was much praised for its respectfulness and lack of partisanship. This would, I think, be the exception). Abortion, for example, is not a political matter; it is a health matter. “Wokeness” is not a political matter; it is a set of opinions. Anti-Semitism isn’t a political matter; it is bad manners.

    What would be left to the politicos? Economic policy (there is a clear left/right policy differentiation), foreign policy, resource allocation, climate change, food policy, governance – there’s lot to get on with. I would exclude immigration (largely a managerial issue), growth (a misguided aim) and most of welfare (should be dealt with at an appropriate [i.e. lower] level). But you can choose what you think should be the business of legislators; the point is to concentrate their minds on the important things and not to interfere with things which are the task of lawyers, the police or the Health Service.

    As a side issue, this would, in my view, help engage the public better. They would be clearer about who was responsible for stuff, they would recognize political posturing more easily and they would get a better sense of the differences between parties. I’m not asking for a return to ideological warfare, but rather that parties were forced to express their vision, or at least to acquire one. Better that than interminable arguments about BBC presenters.

    Andrew Hemming

  • Democracy Café: June

    June 2025

    A smaller group than usual assembled at the Library for this month’s Café, but the discussion was still diverse and considered. The first topic chosen was “What are the costs and benefits of AI?”

    One member noted that he had written an article back in 2016 on the subject and, rereading it, had found it surprisingly relevant. A review of the piece had some good recommendations.  Most members were of the view that AI had great benefits in terms of saving time on processing but were concerned about regulation.  A dissenting member observed that it was too late for such concerns, as AI had developed way beyond the ability of humans to control it – into the level of “general intelligence”.

    Apocalyptic visions aside, the debate was generally about the possible effects of using the power of AI to increase productivity but remove jobs.  Some found ChatGPT useful, particularly for scientific research; but mistakes can occur, and there were concerns about whether AI could overcome this.

    At a more philosophical level, it was felt that AI would remove free will, or at least lead a trend away from individualism.  The implications for art were considered.

    On regulation, it was questioned whether AI could regulate itself; the more advanced view was that AI would be concerned with its own survival and would evade regulatory interference.  This led on to a discussion of machine consciousness and thus human consciousness and how far we understand either.   Complex questions, but a stimulating debate.

    The second topic for discussion was “Should we increase defence spending to 3% of the total?”

    The consensus was that more spending on weaponry was pointless but the defence of the realm was still important.  The reason for the proposed increase was questioned, particularly the demand from the US that Europe as a whole should take on more of the burden.  Some agreed that we have had defence on the cheap.  There was also some debate about the UK’s role, bearing in mind that we have not always been able to demonstrate that we are a major power nor have much influence in the major conflicts. Our role as a seller of arms was also questioned.  It was generally felt that the Strategic Defence Review was not a useful contribution to the debate.

    Andrew Hemming

    NEWS

    For those of you who came to one or more of the People’s Assemblies, we are pleased to report that we will be able to present the results at a meeting of an Area Board early in July. This could be a big step forward for the SDA.

    Have you thought about joining us? We are working to bring a better way of doing politics in the area and we need supporters. It is free.

  • Democracy Café

    June 2025

    Don’t forget it’s the Café this Saturday 14th June starting at 10:00 in the Library as usual and finishing at noon. Lot’s of possible topics to discuss including the U-turn on heating allowances, Trump’s various antics, the rise and rise of Reform and much more. Or something else entirely. That’s the beauty of the café, if you have a topic, bring it along and see if it gets voted in. It does help to have 50 words or so to introduce the topic if it’s voted for. Some get a bit taken aback to find their topic is the most popular and struggle for words a bit!

    If you’re new here, just scroll through this site to see write-ups of previous ones to give you an idea.

    PC