Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Blog

  • Democracy Café: January

    January 2024

    It was probably not surprising that the Post Office scandal should be one of the chosen topics for our first café of 2024. After two decades, the persecution of nearly a thousand subpostmasters (male and female) burst into public consciences with the transmission of an ITV drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office. Despite extensive coverage, someone noted, in Private Eye, Computer Weekly, the BBC on the radio and on Panorama, and the Guardian, the scandal had failed to excite public interest to any degree and certainly not in parliament. 

    The government has suddenly woken up following the outrage highlighted in the ITV drama and was proposing a law to offer mass invalidation of the sub postmasters’ convictions. This will be debated in parliament next week (w/c 15th). The question posed therefore was what are the implications of the government’s proposals to carry this out? Would it set a precedent which might have unfortunate consequences for our constitution? This had generated a lot of concern for example from Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general. 

    One comment was this was an example of ‘heart over head’ and perhaps it would be better to let things quieten down before pushing through legislation which could have momentous effects. To counter this it was noted that the people affected had already waited two decades for justice during which a number have died without having been exonerated and four had taken their own lives. 

    The basic question was ‘what instrument do you use to put things right?’ People were convicted on bad evidence. A problem is that there were some who had defrauded the Post Office who would also be exonerated. It was suggested that the bills of attainder – not used since 1820 – might be a mechanism however, this was used to dispossess (attaint) people of their rights and property not to put it right. 

    The important role of whistle-blowers was introduced. Such people received little support and took enormous risks by revealing corporate wrong-doing. There were several comments which noted the failure of some many elements of the state apparatus to deal with matters of this sort. The judiciary had failed, partly because the corporations could fund an army of high powered lawyers whereas the defendants were individuals with few if any resources, but secondly for allowing the Post Office to sue on the basis of a loss of money but offer no evidence of actual theft. It was simply a system which was hideously unfair and unbalanced. 

    But to the main point of the debate: the dangers of parliament overturning the judicial process. It was noted that we have a dual system and a separation of powers which has been supremely important in protecting our liberties. The example was quoted of Boris Johnson and his attempt to prorogue parliament which was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. More recently, the government had produced a bill to say that human rights in Rwanda were satisfactory and it was a safe country when the Supreme Court had decided that there was significant evidence it was not. Both were examples where the government had acted in defiance of the law and reason. Passing a new law – however well intentioned – risked giving powers to the legislator we may come to regret. 

    Anger was expressed at the ‘system’ as a whole i.e. the entire paraphernalia of governance. Parliament, government, MPs (with a few honourable exceptions), much of the media, the courts and the legal process, all had played a part allowing the scandal to proceed. Putting things right was being done at a snails pace. Someone described the judicial element as ‘rotten’.  Nobody has apologised and nobody has – so far at least – been held to account. It was noted that legal aid has all but disappeared leaving the ‘wronged individual’ powerless against corporations and other well resourced organisations able to swamp courts with batteries of lawyers. 

    Better scrutiny was needed it was suggested and taking the prosecution rights away from the Post Office needed to happen. Independent investigation was sometimes needed. However, this would require the CPS to be better resourced since it would, like the legal system as a whole, be unable to handle the increased case load. Indeed, if the subpostmasters were to continue using the legal route, the under resourcing would result in yet more years of delay. The contrast with aircraft safety was noted. Pilots have long had the ability to report problems (like near misses) anonymously thus avoiding career risks. Also, major accidents are thoroughly investigated independently. 

    Needless to say the Horizon system was mentioned and the fact that Fujitsu has failed to account for itself. This led to a discussion of large IT systems and their part in this scandal. Large IT projects were inherently flawed it was suggested. Specifications were constantly changed. And we have AI to look forward to …

    As to causes, the bonus system for directors and others at the Post Office was a factor. Basically a reluctance to admit problems – especially systemic ones – which might be costly and hit profits and hence bonuses. Also a belief in the infallibility of IT systems. The contrast between commercial and government IT systems was noted. The former were more incremental: they were introduced and subsequently modified in line with consumer involvement and interaction. Government IT projects tended to be huge and introduced in a ‘big bang’ which meant problems and glitches were present from the start. 

    Did we come to a conclusion on the main question? Truthfully, no. The subpostmasters had suffered a serious misjustice and people wanted it to be put right – and quickly before yet more of them die. But allowing the government to side-step the judicial process was a worry. There was an overriding feeling that so many parties to this scandal had been found wanting and had failed lamentably, that to give them yet more powers was a cause for concern. 

    The second half was around the topic of arms sales and why do we continue to sell arms to a variety of countries? [the implication being they were dubious countries]. 

    The introducer of the question noted the sales of arms to Ukraine, and Israel (a large number of other countries could be named) and that these sales seemed to be an accepted fact and no one seems to question it. One person said they were conflicted: although they were against many aspects of arms sales, supplying Ukraine which was under attack seemed different from supplying Israel and their bombing in Gaza. It was noted that an Israeli arms company, Elbit Systems, has a number of plants in the UK, one in Bristol and another in Portsmouth.

    It was pointed out that countries have a need to defend themselves and thus a need to develop arms and armed forces to use them. The issue was about selling them. Campaign Against the Arms Trade*, CAAT has long campaigned on this issue. It was pointed out that the government does have controls on what arms are sold to what states in a system of licensing and end user certificates. However, in recent years, more weapons are being sold under ‘open licenses’ where these controls do not exist. 

    The contrast with Northern Ireland was noted and the prolonged period of violence during the Troubles. Despite bombing attacks in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, the conflict was eventually resolved, not by bombing the Republic, but by negotiation and dialogue leading to the Good Friday agreement. 

    Psychological factors are frequently ignored. For example, the feelings in Russia which has endured a series of invasions from the West over the centuries of its history, about the expansion of NATO up to its borders. This was part of the motivation for the invasion of Ukraine. 

    The paradox of the world’s biggest sellers of arms were also the members of the UN Security Council was pointed out. So while they were debating issues of ceasefire in Gaza in the UN, they were busy supplying weapons to the world. On the topic of weapons, the question of small arms was sometimes overlooked. It was these weapons which caused so much misery in the world especially to women and children who were almost always the biggest sufferers in these conflicts. The problem here though was that control of these sales was almost impossible since there were many producers of Kalashnikovs around the world. So although we might wish to clamp down on UK sellers and brokers, they can be sourced easily from other countries. If we don’t sell them, someone else will. 

    It was pointed out on the other hand that arms sales were part of wider government policy issues and British interests for example oil and arms supplies to the Saudi government. Supplying weapons to the Saudis was it was argued, in our interests. It was noted that arms sales came with conditions. 

    It was perhaps unsurprising that Israel emerged in this context with the war in Gaza in full spate. It was noted that after bombing a refugee camp, it was claimed that the ‘wrong weapons’ had been used. [We did not discuss this but there are a number of articles available on line concerning the use of what are termed ‘dumb weapons’ i.e. unguided munitions which are less precise than the guided ones. It is these which have caused so much collateral damage]. It was also claimed that Israel was using weapons from US stores in the country. 

    How significant were arms sales to our economy in any event? [Comparable figures are quite hard to obtain and what are or are not arms sales is ambiguous. One estimate is £86bn making the UK the second biggest supplier of arms in the world and the GDP (2022) was £2.27tn. So sales are just under 3.8% of the economy. It is claimed that there are 135,000 people employed]. It was suggested that if we ceased to sell arms to the world it would not be of great consequence to our economy.  

    There was discussion about whether international development was a better use of our resources. This was reduced from 0.7% of the economy to 0.5% around 2 years ago. This was part of a wider discussion about removing the anger and helping countries to improve their water supplies for example. It was noted that many countries did not sell arms. 

    The issue of morality was introduced which the subtext to the topic being discussed and that there were people trying to develop a better world. Arguably, we did not discuss this adequately – perhaps a topic for the future. 

    A surprising comment was the fact that Costa Rica has no military force. It is one of only 21 states in the world not to have one.

    Finally, we could not have a democracy café without mention of the media and it was commented that we have need of more neutral reporting. Two sources were mentioned: Bylines and Declassified. 

    Peter Curbishley

    *Disclosure: the writer is a member

    Books mentioned:

    The Blunders of our Governments, Anthony King and Ivor Crewe, 2013, Oneworld. A large section is devoted to IT failures and one of the points made is the irrelevance of parliament in the process. Decisions were made by ministers and civil servants and parliament told later or not at all, p361f

    [Not mentioned but relevant] The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, 2011, Andrew Feinstein, Hamish Hamilton.

  • Democracy Café

    January 2024

    TODAY

    The first Democracy Café takes place today, Saturday 13th January starting at 10:00 upstairs in Salisbury Library as usual. All welcome and you can get a feel of the sorts of things we discuss by looking at reports of previous meetings on this site. The year, an election year, has got off to a tumultuous start with the Post Office scandal filling the airwaves as we speak. So plenty to discuss! See you there.

    PC

  • ‘How Westminster Works … and Why it Doesn’t

    A book on our political system by Ian Dunt

    January 2024

    Many of our Democracy Café debates concern parliament, Westminster and the political process generally with frequently a lament about why it’s so bad. We are now in election year and for the next n months, we are going to have speculation upon speculation about when it will be, and once the date is announced, we will have months spent on debating the various party’s promises and their manifestos. And promises there will be aplenty. How party A will fix the NHS and reduce waiting lists, how party B will solve the immigration and small boats crisis and party C will improve the nation’s productivity and get Britain growing again. The airwaves and our screens will be filled with endless interviews and silly stunts as politicians hug small children or are seen in various uniforms for a photo shoot before departing smartish. Oh and I nearly forgot, all of them will be reducing taxes.

    Read Ian Dunt’s book* and you will realise how pointless it all is. How oceans of time is wasted on all this election rubbish when the reality is that the political system is in a mess – arguably a terminal mess – and there is precious little any politician can do to fix it. Indeed, as our economy has deteriorated, the opportunity to fix it has narrowed considerably.  

    In his book, Dunt takes us remorselessly through our political system bit by depressing bit to show that almost none of it works or is capable of doing what is needed. The book starts with the disaster of the probation service and the ‘reforms’ carried out by Chris Grayling. He rushed into a privatisation without a trial to see if it could work. He ignored advice. He realised that the public would be worried that serious offenders were to be handled by the private sector so he divided the service into two parts – public and private. The public part became overloaded and the private part lost money.  It turned into a complete and expensive disaster and had to be undone. He should have been thrown out by his local electorate for his massive and unnecessary failure. But he was in a safe seat so first past the post saved him. 

    It starts with the selection of MPs. As Rory Stewart noted in his book, this is not done on the basis of management skill or experience, leadership ability or policy experience but rather on how a collection of local, and mostly elderly, party people think you’ll fit in, how likeable you are and your knowledge of the constituency. Having succeeded at that and arriving in parliament, you discover that you are almost a nonentity as an ordinary MP. Treated shoddily by the whips who even dictate what you’re maiden speech will be. As Isabel Hardman writes in her book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians, life as an MP can be lonely and stressful being either ignored or bullied. Away from home during the week and once back in their constituency, they have constituency business to attend to. For many, the only option is to be slavishly loyal, don’t ask awkward questions and hope to get on the ministerial gravy train. Much of the constituency business is nothing to do with the MP anyway and should be dealt with by a local councillor but they cannot refuse for fear of a backlash. 

    One of the surprises of the book is the House of Lords which he praises. Yes indeed, who would credit it. But he points out that the Lords has many highly experienced people able to inform policy making and legislation. Dunt points out that much legislation is shoved through parliament and MPs whipped to vote for it mostly without having read or understood what they’ve been told to do. The party system is not nearly as prevalent and there are many cross bench lords. It is the competence and expertise of the Lords which frequently proves crucial in ensuring legislation is capable of doing what a minister wants it to do. 

    He looks at the press which fails to deal with matters in depth and ministers who often have too cosy a relationship with people like the Murdochs and Paul Dacre. For example, Thatcher and Blair who even went half way round the world to fawn on Rupert Murdoch. The Leveson enquiry revealed how Murdoch came and went to No10 at will entering by the back door. 

    The Civil Service which has lost its way and has far too few people with statistical, organisational or project management experience. The churn of staff means the constant loss of experience as people are moved every two years or so. The churn of ministers is also criticised often moved after a year or two when it takes at least 18 months to get to grips with a ministry. The Treasury is vastly overrated and its pathological aversion to long-term investment a major cause of our problems. 

    So when we listen to one or other politician making claims about what they are going to do if they form a government, just remember that they will be attempting to run a machine that is a long way from being ‘well oiled’ and which has a high degree of dysfunctionality. That is quite apart from the parlous state of the economy and a decade of underinvestment in our social fabric. 

    Ah you might say, ‘Mrs Thatcher changed things’ and so she did. Remember though that the economy was in a vastly different place to where it is now. She was able to deliver some shocks to the economy and it did recover. An incoming government will not have that degree of leeway now. 

    The message of the book is that we have to undertake wholesale change to include how MPs are chosen and what their true role should be; reforming the civil service and the spad system which has grown up in the last few years; MPs to be properly resourced; changing the killing work schedule of ministers with their red boxes they have to plough through; curbing the Treasury’s powers and ending the silly budget process. 

    If I have a criticism of the book it is its relentless negativity. Despite the criticisms, there are the occasional MPs who achieve things and campaign successfully for a piece of legislation. Good laws do get onto the statute book, anti-slavery legislation for example. Although the civil service is very generalist, it does take someone who is non technical to ask the ‘idiot question’ sometimes to challenge the orthodoxy. Although the Treasury does have a lot to answer for it does challenge ministers who think the answer to all problems is to throw money at it. 

    It is nevertheless a good, if depressing read and a useful backdrop for the months of nonsense we will be subject to in this election year.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2023

  • ‘Politics on the edge’

    A memoir of Rory Stewart’s time as an MP and minister

    December 2023

    Politics on the Edge: a memoir from within* is the title of a book by Rory Stewart who was an MP and a minister during the time of David Cameron and Theresa May’s premierships. He stood against Boris Johnson in the leadership election and left politics soon after. 

    It is a well written book and unlike many political memoirs which can descend into self-justification, it is an honest view of the political system, parliament and life as a minister. He does not shy away from his own failings and it is sufficiently revealing to make you realise he was at times a trifle naïve in his views and ways of doing things. He does describe however, a system of government which has many grievous failings and which fundamentally is incapable of providing the leadership which we desperately need as a nation. 

    Early on in the book he describes the process of becoming an MP which can involve years of applying for seats, sitting on local councils or just being a member of the party doing ordinary stuff like delivering leaflets door to door. You have to be liked by the local selection committee which essentially means agreeing with their points of view. There is little interest he writes in whether the candidate has ability in formulating policy, management skills or understanding great issues of state, more how he or she seems to fit in with the local party and understanding the needs of the – mostly elderly – members of the local party. It is a matter we have discussed in our Democracy Cafés, since a local MP once elected, can find themselves as a minister, or even secretary of state, of some department or other yet be possessed of next to no relevant experience of being in charge of a large organisation. Not only that, but they are unlikely to have any relevant knowledge of the department itself and further, may only be there for a year or at most two after which they are either sacked or moved on somewhere else. Since many MPs now go from University to a think tank or into the party apparatus and never doing a ‘real’ job, it is unsurprising that chronic failure is the norm and the only wonder is that it isn’t worse than it is.

    Life as a minister is if anything worse. The civil service would like a minister just to be the spokesman for the department and to speak in parliament when necessary. With echoes of Yes Minister, there is considerable resistance to a minister who want to make changes to the established policies. The chapters on his time as ‘prisons minister’ are particularly enlightening not to say shocking. The system is in crisis. An ever mounting prison population, cells built in Victorian times for one man, now with two, rampant infestation and diminished staff numbers after the Cameron/Osborne cuts means it is a system which is brutalising its inhabitants and failing to rehabilitate those leaving at the end of their sentences. His attempts to effect change are largely unsuccessful.

    On the subject of prisons he discusses the problems of a minister trying to change how something is done. The civil service doctrine is that ministers are about policy formation and getting funds from the Treasury: they should not concern themselves about delivery i.e. the how. But in many areas of our political life the how is the crucial issue. Whether you are talking about schools, health, transport or indeed the prison estate, how policy is actually carried out is extremely important. Having a wonderful set of policies and a chunk of Treasury cash is useless if the system is inefficient, morale is low, or management weak or almost non-existent. The system is almost designed to prevent a minister altering it. 

    Another topic we have frequently discussed is the role of the media. Attempts to get their interest in serious topics and to discuss change are usually frustrated by a focus on trivia, personalities and catchy headlines. He often refers sneeringly I feel to the Guardian which does cover items in depth from time to time, but as a Conservative I suspect he is swept up with criticisms of the party as a whole. He has little time for the Telegraph either referring to one debate where the journalist chose to talk about what people were wearing. 

    His challenge for the leadership essentially as a ‘stop Boris’ candidate is interesting on many levels. It does reveal his naivety as I say, thinking that people would be interested in policy and how things could be changed. He did not seem to understand that the hundred thousand or so Home Counties members who were doing the choosing are not interested in prison reform for example many believing they are holiday camps already. Neither were they interested in the effects of Brexit, only wanting it to be ‘done’ safe in the belief that trade deals with the rest of the world would follow easily.  We discovered this week that there is no chance of a trade deal with the USA [and it is interesting that the papers who sold people this lie made little or no mention of this serious failure which will have damaging effects on our economy]. 

    Johnson with his collection of misleading statements, false promises and downright lies was popular and won the vote easily. We now know the consequences. He and the other candidates, all promised lower taxes, a perennial favourite ploy of politicians. It seems to be the ultimate fantasy and in the various programmes during the leadership race, it was a favourite question of the TV hosts ‘are you going to put up taxes?’ To answer ‘yes’ was an immediate death sentence for a candidate: indeed there would be little point in standing in the first place. The combination of the fantasy belief of being better off with lower taxes egged on by the print media and infantile TV hosts means any kind of serious discussion of this topic is out of bounds. To debate how much tax and who should pay what is never discussed. The billions that disappear to tax havens is also a no-go topic. Since this is at least £30bn a year and probably double that since HMRC has given up on a number of scams, it is a major issue that never sees the light of day. It could possibly be that the people at the top of our media empires have curious tax arrangements themselves and don’t want that particular light to be switched on. So much easier to pillory a benefit scrounger who could never afford to mount a libel action. 

    There seems to be a disconnect between the services we are getting – or not getting like almost a complete absence now of NHS dentists – and low taxes seems to be beyond the understanding of many. The unsafe schools with Raac concrete roofs will not now be repaired until after the election sometime in 2026. Could this be a cynical ploy to land the Labour government (one assumes) with a multi-billion bill while going into the election with the promise of tax cuts? Surely not. 

    As the sleeve note says ‘Stewart learned first-hand how profoundly hollow and inadequate our democracy and government had become. Cronyism, ignorance and sheer incompetence ran rampant.’ 

    It is a book worth reading along with others on our political system today. Both illuminating and depressing the worry is that there seems no sign of a movement for change. At the next election we will have the same dysfunctional set of wannabe MPs, telling us what they are going to do but without raising any taxes to do it (correction: the non-dom tax proposal by Labour which will raise next to nothing). Our local MPs will be re-elected with few problems. The broken system will trundle on as it is today with a different set of characters at the wheel, except locally.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Jonathan Cape 2023

  • Democracy Café

    December meeting debated two topics of current interest

    December 2023

    Two topics won through at this meeting: one about how we might fortify the United Nations and the second what are we to do with migrants? Both are in the news at present. The UN has featured in the Gaza situation and the issue of migrants is front and centre with the news concerning the boat crossings and Rwanda.

    Viewing the current state of the world with the terrible events in Gaza following the attack by Hamas on 7 October, the war in Ukraine and other wars taking place in sub Sahara for example, it was natural to ask whatever happened to the post-war hope of a United Nations able to ‘police’ the world?

    The problem it was pointed out, was that the victors of WWII were not keen on providing the necessary powers to the UN for it to carry out a major peace-keeping role. It was clear the major powers were reluctant to give up their power to allow the UN to step in. In particular, the US was a dominant force and many countries were perhaps unduly deferent to it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example, agreed in 1948, was notable for the reluctance of France and the UK in particular to agree to its universality due to their terrible activities and violations in their colonies, Kenya for the UK and Algeria (France).

    The veto of the principal powers: UK, US, China, France and the then USSR, was discussed. They were able to use this veto to maintain their power and initially at least, prevent countries from joining the UN.

    The discussion moved on to look at reform including issues around the veto. Was it right for this small group of countries – who held their position due to their victory in WWII – should keep this power? How could the UN be reformed? There is a process of reform which takes place and the institution has changed considerably over the years [although most of the sites do not appear to refer to the question of reforming the veto powers]. It seems to illustrate the principle that those with power are nearly always reluctant to give it up. It was suggested that reform should come from outside since the organisation was a ‘closed’ system. It was also noted that the world’s biggest arms sellers were the 5 permanent members. So while they were meeting to discuss how to achieve peace and resolve conflicts, they were busy selling arms to the warring parties.

    Should all countries have the same weight? At present it was one vote per country and the inference in the question was the bigger the country, the more votes they should have. However, it was suggested that the smaller less powerful countries should perhaps have more than one vote to ‘even things up’. The problems of voting power and it consequences were provided by the COP system where any one participant could frustrate the will of the majority leading to feeble results and inaction on the climate.

    The focus on the Security Council and the antics of some countries there, drew attention away from the many positive things the several UN agencies have achieved around the world. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has many disease reduction or eradication achievements to its name e.g. TB; yaws, malaria and smallpox. Also on the positive side, it was noted that the Secretary General, António Guterres, has come out of the Middle East conflict well.

    A more fundamental question was posed: what would the world look like if we didn’t have a United Nations? Would it be a Hobbesian world (nasty, brutish and short)? To an extent the question was left hanging but it did focus our minds briefly on the many benefits of the organisation as against the all too visible failings. If we were to start again, would the idea of assembling 190 or so nation states be thought a good idea today? Will the UN ever be in a position to curb the power of a Putin or the Iranian mullahs someone asked?

    We moved on to discuss the issue of power and whether we should have ‘a people’s UN’ to give voice to those who have been overlooked – the aborigines in Australia were mentioned. Should we adopt a citizen’s jury approach where the views of a wide range of people could be taken account of?

    Does the UN Association still exist it was asked? It does.

    The second half debate was on the tricky subject of migrants, a topic of considerable salience currently with the debate over deportations to Rwanda in full flood at present. Next week is the vote to try and set aside some parts of the Human Rights Act to enable them to take place following the Supreme Court’s decision a few weeks ago.

    It would be fair to say the proposer was not an enthusiast for allowing migrants to stay here, claiming that they pose a security risk and are from alien cultures.

    The first speaker said they completely disagreed. Immigrants add considerably to our society and to the cultural mix. They played an essential part in our economy and filled many vacancies for jobs British people seemed unwilling to do. It was pointed out that without them, parts of our economy would grind to a halt: hospitals would would be forced to offer maternity and A&E; many food products would disappear off the shelves and the London transport system would not be able to function. It was also pointed out that our birth rate was dropping and we needed an influx of young people to do the jobs we wanted doing. Immigration was needed to keep the economy dynamic.

    Many people coming here to claim asylum were escaping from terrible regimes. The government’s plan was to deny the right to seek asylum to anyone arriving here illegally – essentially by boat. It was noted however that there were no boat crossings prior to 2016. They started because all legitimate routes had been closed down meaning that immigrants were forced onto the boats as the only way left. An enormous amount of attention was paid to this issue but much less on the tens of thousands awaiting decisions from the Home Office.

    It was noted that the problem was much worse for other countries which had huge immigrant populations for example Turkey and Jordan.

    We quickly got onto why has this become such a political issue consuming huge amounts of political time and the cause of two recent ministerial resignations. One factor was the foreign own media which presented a regular series of negative stories about immigrants accusing them of a range of antisocial activities. It has to said though that they are supplying a market. On that subject was this week’s edition of Question Time on the BBC. It was in front of a strongly Conservative audience being hosted in Petersfield in Hampshire. The Conservative MP did not get a totally sympathetic audience and there were cheers for comments of a sympathetic nature as far as immigrants were concerned. ‘Very heartening’ someone said.

    It was suggested that immigration was a ‘political lens’ for looking at various problems. There has been significant political failure by politicians failing to look at root causes not just with immigration but climate change as well. In the context of Rwanda, the government has created its own problems.

    The way government treats refugees is very instructive – Tony Benn

    A startling comment was made about Rwanda namely it was a contract of exchange. It has been claimed that for each refugee we send to Rwanda, one will come back on a one-for-one basis. [I have looked into this startling claim and it has been scrutinised by Full Fact. It is not totally true. A ‘portion’ of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees may be sent here but the number is not known. A statement given to parliament said ‘it would be a small number’. Small is relative of course but it is surprising in all the fire and fury of discussions about this topic that this aspect of the deal has not been discussed more.]

    The sheer cost of the Rwanda deal was commented on at an estimated £169,000 per person. Millions have so far been spent with more to come (or is it go?) without a single refugee having gone.

    Then there was the cost of housing migrants here while their cases were reviewed. It was claimed that the government was using hotels in marginal seats for political purposes. According to the Daily Mail, the government is stopping using hotels in ‘battleground’ constituencies (in Mail speak).

    It has been suggested that the Bibby Stockholm be moved from Portland and moored in the Thames opposite the House of Commons for the accommodation of MPs thus saving £4m in second home claims.

    Other points included asking how do we encourage a better debate on this subject and get away from what we see in the media today? It was suggested that sorting the problems in the host countries was much the best way to stop the numbers leaving. It was also noted – in the context of medical staff working in the NHS – that we were ‘stealing’ these people from their home countries thus denuding their health services of valuable skills.

    Danny Kruger, the MP for Devizes, was mentioned in critical terms particularly his comments on migrants and refugees.

    We were left with the intriguing question, if we get a new government, will they reverse some of these decisions?

    We wish all our readers a Happy Christmas and we look forward to seeing you at our next meeting on 14 January 2024.

    Peter Curbishley

    Ken Loach’s film The Old Oak was recommended.

  • Last meeting

    The last meeting of the Café was held this Saturday, 9th December in Salisbury Library. If you haven’t been before – and we do seem to get one or two new members to each meeting – the idea is that we ask people to suggest a topic of a broadly political or philosophical nature upon which we vote and the winning suggestion is debated. Typically we debate two topics in a meeting. You can read the reviews of previous meetings elsewhere on this site to give you an idea.

    A report will appear shortly.

    PC

  • November 2023 Democracy Café

    There was a good turnout at Salisbury Library for the November 2023 Democracy Café. The two-minute silence to mark Armistice Day was preceded by a discussion based on the question:

    Do we have the right to protest?

    The first comment was that technically we do not have the right to protest. We have the right to assemble and to express ourselves, two rights which are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, which, according to Liberty, gives us the right to protest.

    Discussion ensued on what is meant by protest? It was suggested that it takes the form of fairly passive forms of action, such as writing letters to the local newspaper or to our MP and more active forms, such as attacking infrastructure. These more disruptive forms of protest are more contentious and it was mentioned that there is a danger that the use of such tactics can turn the narrative away from the issues that are being protested towards the tactics themselves. This could be counter productive for the protestors, especially as the media can play a major role in influencing the narrative as has been seen with Just Stop Oil. The purpose of protest, it was suggested, is to cut through but there is a danger that in doing so the message is lost, which is why Extinction Rebellion have moved away from illegal methods of protest. The counter argument proposed was that illegal protests have in the past influenced important legislative changes. Two examples given were illegal actions taken by the suffragettes and the gay rights movement.

    The discussion turned to the importance of the right to protest in a democracy. It was suggested that it is just as important in a healthy democracy to defend the right of those supporting right wing causes, such as the EDL, to protest as it is to defend those supporting causes which we might be more supportive of.

    There was some dismay about the lack of impact of protests in effecting policy change and reference was made to the march of one million people to protest against the invasion of Iraq in London in February 2003. This protest march was one of 800 held in cities around the world and was recorded in the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the biggest ever held. It did not immediately impact the main protagonist’s approach. However, it was suggested that it influenced government’s future approaches to similar situations as it demonstrated that mass support for invasions could not be taken for granted. Similarly, protests about gay rights took many years to bear fruit in terms of influencing public opinion and eventually law making.

    After the break another topical issue was discussed in answering the question:

    Does a country have the right to do anything in the name of its’ own defence?

    It was pointed out that in the UK before we had a Ministry of Defence we had a Ministry of War, which is perhaps a more honest reflection of the role of the ministry.

    There was some discussion about what is meant by “defence”. One suggestion was that defence is a more passive act whereas offence is more active. Then, it was suggested that attack can be seen as the best form of defence and a military response to a credible threat can be a defence. It was pointed out that if such an attack is over aggressive it can lead to further enmity and spark further conflict in the future. Several references were made to the current conflict in Israel/Palestine in this respect. 

    If a military response as a form of defence is pursued then what are the boundaries within which combatants should engage? The just war theory is a tradition of military ethics, part of which concerns the moral conduct of participants within war. This suggests that there are two main principles which are proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality regards how much force is necessary and morally appropriate to the ends being sought and the injustice suffered. The principle of discrimination determines who are the legitimate targets in a war, and specifically makes a separation between combatants, who it is permissible to kill, and non-combatants, who it is not. Failure to follow these rules can result in the loss of legitimacy for the war.  

    Discussion turned to the framework of international law which limits the actions of a nation state when engaged in its’ own defence. It was suggested that in the absence of an international body capable of enforcing the framework, it was not an effective limit. It was pointed out that the United Nations has been unable to act to prosecute those accused of crimes against humanity in nations such as Syria. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that the state of nature is the “war of every man against every man,” in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. Hence, he argued, in his book the Leviathan, the need for a governing body which would achieve peace through a social contract. Is the UN capable of playing that role, or is it too weak?

    The discussion moved on to consider whether war was always wrong with the view expressed that war can be useful in leading to the resolution of conflict between states, as with the second world war and the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. It was suggested that the current and ongoing conflict in the Middle East may have been avoided if the war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine in the 1940s had been allowed to play itself out. Some questioned the premise that war can be an effective way of resolving disputes.

    Two good discussions which were highly appropriate for Armistice Day.

    Mark Potts

  • Last meeting

    November 2023

    The November meeting of the Democracy Café was this morning, Saturday 11th as usual in the Library. Two lively discussions and we were pleased to welcome some returning friends and one new member. A write up will appear shortly.

    PC

  • The nature of our democracy

    The revelations emerging from the Covid enquiry pose deep questions about how we are governed.

    November 2023

    Many of our debates at the Democracy Café discussions have focused in one way or another, on democracy and how it might work better. We have debated the first past the post system, proportional representation and whether we need a constitution. Locally, we have discussed Citizens’ Juries and we have tried our best to interest the local powers that be in using this technique to achieve a better standard of decision making.

    However, we are currently witnessing the Covid inquiry take place and although it is a long way from completion and we are unlikely to see the final report before 2026, the early evidence has been profoundly disquieting. The foul and abusive language used in communications, the lack of any kind of planning before – or it seems during – the pandemic, the disorganisation, the shameful misogyny, and a prime minister who was frequently absent, disengaged, or flipflopped all over the place when he was there. The unelected Carrie Johnson appeared to be a key influence. A picture in sum – and added to each day – of confusion and chaos at the heart of government. It seems almost no one behaved in a competent fashion or looked anywhere near being on top of their briefs. And all through lockdown, they were busy partying and consuming large quantities of alcohol, ignoring all the rules they themselves had introduced.

    Many of the key players however – MPs and ministers – were voted for by millions. Boris Johnson is still admired by many and despite his pitiful performance as prime minister and who should by rights quietly disappear into the country, is instead raking in vast sums from a column in the Daily Mail, is about to go on GB News with another vast fee, and is earning huge fees on the speaker circuit.

    There seems to be a gigantic gap between what people believe they are voting for and the reality of how these people behave in government. It has to be asked though, do people care? Clearly, the Daily Mail and GB News think not. The role of the public school types seems to be very evident. As Simon Kuper describes in his book Chums, the pathway of people from public school (and mainly Eton), via Oxford and thence parliament and the Cabinet, the Civil Service or a spad, means a set of narrowly educated and privileged people, with no real world experience or relevant skills is put in charge of our government. It is no wonder things are as bad as they are. Their degrees in Classics, English or PPE leaves them hopelessly at sea when faced with the shear complexity of government.

    This poses a key question. Would a different system of voting or setting up a constitution make any difference? I suggest not. Ordinary people would still be voting for a dysfunctional collection of fuckwits (to use Dominic Cummings’ choice phrase) to represent them. There would be some shuffling around but the same sort of people would be put before us. As Rory Stewart describes it in his recently published book Politics on the Edge, talking with other candidates selected to stand as potential MPs: “No one felt that the party valued them for their personality, their intelligence, or their experience. Nor for their ability to make a speech, to analyse policy or the lead a country. Instead, they were prized for or their ability to protect leaflets from the rain, enter a locked apartment block using a caretakers code, partner with eighty-year-old male members and understand their need for lavatory breaks and protect their fingertips from the sprung letter box and the teeth of a silent dog” (p36). This was not unique to Stewart or just his party.

    As we have said before, an MP is selected by a local committee of party people (except the LibDems) on the basis of whether they like him or her and do they agree with their views. They then, if elected and if they display sufficient loyalty, start to climb the ladder of patronage possibly becoming a minister of something they know nothing at all about before being moved again in a year or two to another ministry about which they also know nothing.

    The system works – or should work – on the basis of competence, integrity and honesty none of which is evident at present. Covid is a lot like the decision to invade Iraq where it was obvious none of these factors was to the fore. As we look in dismay at the roll call of the second rate sat mumbling before Hugo Keith, the Covid inquiry’s barrister, often unable to recall key events, or confessing to having deleted key messages, we have to wonder how on earth we have a system of government so inadequate to the task. It is in fact quite scary.

    Nothing less than radical change will be needed. Not just the system of government but a rethink about where ministers come from, how they are selected, trained and acquire the necessary experience to run our affairs. Can we really not do better than Nadine Dorries, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg or Gavin Williamson? Should we not have some other route to enable someone with true ability to become a minister? What we are witnessing with the Covid Inquiry should be a wake-up call to how we are governed.

    Peter Curbishley

    [These views are his own and not necessarily those of other members of SDA]

  • Democracy Café

    Report of the Democracy Café which took place on October 14th, 2023

    It was good to welcome several old friends back to the café and a new member as well. The meeting took place exactly a week after the incursion into Israel by Hamas terrorists with a huge death toll among Israelis civilians. Israel retaliated by bombing Gaza and troops are massing on the northern border ahead of an expected invasion. The use of the word ‘terrorist’ in the above sentence is itself a matter of dispute.

    The first topic we chose was: to what extent are our opinions about the conflict influenced by the media reporting of it? Everything we know about the recent actions is as a result of what we have seen on TV, read in the papers or seen on social media of one kind or another. The point was made that everything we see and hear is affected by the media which was often afflicted by mis- or disinformation. The main TV stations (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are governed by impartiality rules and make great efforts to reflect all sides of a conflict. It has to be noted that not everyone was impressed by this and were not convinced that there was adequate balance in the reporting. Social media on the other hand was not subject to the same rules and were often the source of various conspiracy theories or disinformation. Some thought the coverage by al Jazeera was superior. There was a problem with paywalls: to read what different papers said meant paying to see the content which made commercial sense but did cut people off from accessing a more diverse range of views.

    The BBC in particular had come in for criticism by some politicians (Grant Shapps MP was mentioned) and by GB News for declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe Hamas people who invaded Israel. Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation in the UK and the BBC has used the word particularly in reported speech. In similar fashion, the lack of condemnation was also mentioned as a criticism. The BBC say the word ‘terrorist’ is loaded and they are reluctant to use it. The point was made that people in Gaza might say that the bombing of their communities is an act of terror (because they have been terrorised). I think the point made by several is that the word is highly charged and it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line.

    The BBC was defended by some however and they said that great efforts have been made to be fair in a volatile and fast changing situation. Someone pointed to the interview by Clive Myrie of a Hamas spokesman they thought was was good.

    Several spoke of the history of the conflict going back to the League of Nations and the mandate given to the British to keep the peace in Palestine after the Great War and the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. One speaker had been there in the Army during this latter period so it was interesting to hear of his first hand experience of these historical events. It was suggested that the animosity between Arabs and Jews was centuries old, others pointed out that during the time of the Islamic conquest, Christians, Jews and others continued with their lives as long as they paid their taxes. There were no pogroms. On the other hand it was suggested that the Jews were treated badly in Yemen. One thing was clear however and that was the Palestinians had received a ‘rotten deal’ as they put it following the events of ’48, what they refer to as the naqba (disaster). It was the rapid increase in the number of Jewish settlers after the war which added to the problems.

    Some media commentators had compared Hamas to ISIS and although there were some similarities, they were not motivated by the same things. It was suggested that some think tanks were a better source of information and Chatham House was mentioned.

    It was accepted that there was a lot of history but the fact remains the modern day situation in Gaza was a pressing issue for the two million or so living there. It had been pointed out earlier that Evan Davies on the PM programme on Radio 4 was reluctant to accept the phrase ‘open prison’ to describe conditions there. It was not to excuse their terrible actions but what are they to do? The world had a responsibility to ensure it did not go on and on. It was shocking that in the 21st century, we are witnessing these terrible events.

    There was general agreement that the uncritical and unbalanced support by the US, UK and French governments was to be deplored and offering to provide military support particularly so.

    It was a good debate particularly so in view of the emotive nature of what has taken place in the past week. It was clear that people recognised the historical factors which led to the current conflict. It is probably fair to say that some thought there was bias in the reporting while others thought that the mainstream media had sought, as best they could, to be balanced.

    The second topic was a complete contrast and was a discussion based on what single thing would you change in respect of our government? The proposer noted the preponderance of public school boys (mostly) in our government and civil service. Although only 7% went to these schools, they occupied by some estimates, 40% of key government positions. Eton school had a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons. Another issue was the high level of investments such people had. What was lacking among them was much in the way of ‘ordinary’ experience whether of employment or life in general. Not allowing the product of private schools into government was not agreed as this would disenfranchise large numbers of people. However banning the paying for education was proposed as happens in several other countries.

    The role of the City of London was mentioned along with the need to bring it fully into the United Kingdom.

    House of Lords came in for some predictable criticism. While the need for a second chamber was recognised, the presence of hereditary peers and the huge numbers of peers was criticised. A better method was proposed involving selecting people based on a representational basis. We might have noted the manner of their appointment and ‘cash for honours’ is often highly questionable. The word ‘bloated’ was used to describe the second chamber.

    The issue of how MPs are selected was brought up. A small panel of local party members choose the candidate sometimes from an approved short-list provided by central office. These people, if elected and if their party formed the government, might find themselves a minister of some kind having never managed or run anything before. Was it any wonder we had government mismanagement on a vast scale? Added to which was the rapid turnover of ministers some of whom only lasted a year or so in post. This brought up the question how did you find ‘decent’ MPs (meaning capable and with appropriate experience) in the first place and more women? It was pointed out that the LibDems did not select their candidates this way and held public meetings to do so.

    It was also pointed out that once a MP became a minister it seemed to reduce his or her ability to act as a representative which is why they were elected in the first place. Writing to the Salisbury MP for example would often elicit the response that as he was a minister he was not at liberty to intervene (in another department). It was a kind of circular nonsense: you elect someone to represent the constituency but they become a minister and thus stop being able to.

    Strong views were expressed about MPs having second jobs: representing their constituents which is what they were elected and paid to do and that should be a full-time occupation, not spending time on a second job.

    There was discussion about the actual shape of the Commons with two sides facing each other rather than a semi-circular arrangement seen in many other chambers around the world – Scotland and Wales for example. It invited exchanges which were little more than shouting matches which put off many people. Someone said they could not bear to watch prime minister’s questions for this reason.

    The voting system itself came in for criticism. A constituency like Salisbury for example is never likely to be other than Conservative despite the presence of many who were not Conservative supporters: they were effectively and permanently disenfranchised. This was an issue supported by Make Votes Matter in Salisbury.

    Other points included do we need a written constitution?

    We did not come to a ‘single thing’ as the question asked perhaps representing the fact that the system was so broken at so many points that no single thing would be enough to fix it.

    The next meeting is on Saturday 11th November, starting at 10.00 in the Library.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Information Anxiety, (1989), Richard Saul Wurman

    Chums: How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK (2023), Simon Kuper

    Why we Get the Wrong Politicians (2019), Isabel Hardman

    Not mentioned but relevant: The Palestine-Israel Conflict (2015), Dan Cohen-Sherbok & Dawoud el-Alami. The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and Resistance in Palestine (2018), Bernard Regan.