Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Brexit

  • Democracy Café, April

    April 2023

    Despite it being Easter weekend, we had a good attendance at this meeting in the Library and we were pleased to welcome two new participants. We had two interesting debates and we could well have gone beyond our allotted time.

    The first was Is representative government truly democratic? We started with the famous President Lincoln quote of 1863 after the battle of Gettysburg: ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth’. The problem is the combination of representation and democracy, two concepts which do not necessarily fit together. Apparently, it was Robespierre, who met an untimely end, who combined these two ideas. We were also reminded that Plato’s idea of representation was to limit it to those who were capable of reason.

    Brexit was an example of representative democracy it was pointed out and the result was it did tie the hands of the government to this decision (for good or ill). This immediately brought up the point that in our electoral system: MPs are representatives of their constituencies, not delegates. But who, it was asked, is being represented? The assumption that it was the ordinary elector is unrealistic. It was the wealthy and corporate interests who really held sway [the debate took place in the week when a Conservative MP was caught in a sting by Times’ reporters offering to sell his services to a fictitious gambling company for a fee of £10,000. This came a fortnight after two ex-ministers were caught in a similar sting].

    It was further suggested that the premise was wrong: MPs are selected not elected. The ‘elective dictatorship’ of Lord Hailsham was mentioned. Some have been groomed for some years for senior positions in their parties. This linked to the comment that historically, MPs were older whereas nowadays they had little of no real work experience outside the political milieu. They left university and spent their years in the Westminster environment before becoming an MP.

    The general tone of the discussion was a sense of dissatisfaction with our politicians but it was pointed out that a lot of good work was done in parliament – evident if you read Hansard – but this was almost never reported. We only read of the conflicts and scandals.

    We moved on to voting and the Australian rule that everyone had to vote. The counter view was that if people don’t want to vote why should they be forced? It was a dilemma. Belgium was mentioned in connection with MPs becoming part of the executive so who then do they represent, their constituents or the government? In that country, if the equivalent of an MP becomes a minister, they resign their seat and and there is a by-election. If they are sacked one assumes they leave the government altogether … [now there’s an idea]. Later, the question of voter apathy was mentioned.

    Do people vote for the individual or their policies? Some said the former; some the latter. It was suggested that parliament is a reflection of our views, the collective zeitgeist so to speak. We had a diversion into what Andrew Bridgen MP said in parliament and this link gives the background to that. It concerned claims – since retracted – about the risks and effectiveness of Covid vaccines. The attempt to introduce equal pay for women by Barbara Castle was mentioned where attempts to introduce it were frustrated by what was thought to be the will of the (male?) public. It was suggested that women do now have equal pay. Legislation introduced by Theresa May requiring companies with over 200 employees shows however, that women definitely do not receive equal pay for equal work.

    What we know is mediated by the media – a familiar point in these meetings. The necessity for good information was stressed and the need to hold the media to account: the issue of social media was mentioned which is largely unregulated. Inevitably, all information was filtered and imperfect it was noted. Information was about power and the process of infantilization, i.e. keeping us (the public) away from the real decisions by deflecting us towards things that don’t matter was suggested. Different countries had differing approaches and the current unrest in France demonstrated that country’s approach to political change which was often violent. The ‘British don’t go on marches, instead we go on shuffles’.

    At several times there was the suggestion that decisions should be made at the lowest level in the political process and in that connection, Flatpack Democracy in Frome was mentioned. A post from 2017 reports on the talk given to the Compass group gives more details.

    But back to the question and that the melding of democracy and representation was imperfect and sometimes muddled. It was sort of assumed that they were much the same and as we have debated, who represents us, how they are selected (or elected) and who they actually represent is by no means clear and whether it gives us ‘democracy’ is perhaps to be doubted. The need for a constitution was suggested but this point was not developed.

    The fact that Switzerland holds regular referenda was mentioned.

    Finally, a Channel 4 programme about a hotel in a village being occupied by asylum seekers was mentioned as a kind of example which reflected some of the points we discussed. A hotel had been block-booked by the Home Office to house a significant number of refugees and asylum seekers. There had been no prior consultation. The village was split: some were hostile some were sympathetic. It shows the problem of democracy in that how do you represent such profoundly different views? Whether it’s representation, a referendum or any other form, there are those who are fierce in their antipathy and those who are not. It wasn’t about what system therefore, it was about people and their attitudes.

    Which segues nicely into our second debate which was What are the benefits of Brexit? Well, it has to be said that there were few put forward. The news this week was of long queues at Dover because, it was thought, to be the result of the need to stamp all passports now we have left the EU although this was denied by the government.

    One argument was the failure of some banks in Europe in particular Credit Suisse although it was pointed out that Switzerland was not in the EU and some American banks had failed as well. The Swiss bank failed because of mismanagement and it had little to do with the EU. The nonsense of Greece being treated the same fiscally as Germany was mentioned which led to a crisis in that country.

    “Now we left the EU we can no longer go on blaming them for everything, now it’s us”.

    One profound point was made and that was we can no longer blame the EU for our troubles. We had got into the habit of blaming the EU so now we have left, that excuse is no longer available. Perhaps it was an opportunity for the country to grow up. Governments have always tried to deflect bad news elsewhere to detract from their own failings.

    A big benefit for Brexit was said to be sovereignty and the slogan ‘take back control’ was a key rallying cry during the run up to the Referendum. The argument was that we were in hock to ‘unelected European judges’ rather ignoring the fact that European judges are elected and UK ones aren’t. It was quickly pointed out that our decision to leave demonstrated we did have sovereignty. The judicial system is not part of the EU.

    Walter Lipman’s quote about the bewildered herd was mentioned again – see the January Café. In that connection the speaker went on to refer to the purchase by JP Morgan of 25 of the most influential newspapers in the US in 1917 in order to influence the decision to get the country to enter the European war then raging. The point being how the media, or more particularly the owners of media, can influence debate, attitudes and decisions in a country.

    A lot of subsequent comments focused on the benefits of EU membership and the EU generally. For example, Europe has been riven by wars, certainly since the fifteenth century, including two major world wars and one lasting for almost a hundred years. Yet since the last war, Europe has seen the longest period of peace in a millennia. [Ukraine was not mentioned but that is not a war between two or more European states].

    Historically, France had a system of internal tariffs introduced by the ‘July Monarchy’ in 1830 as people moved from region to region. When these were abolished, everyone prospered. Several noted the ability to move around the continent once free movement was introduced (back to the queues at Dover). Free movement and free trade benefited the ordinary people it was suggested.

    It seems that some people are beginning to change their minds. The government (even if they wanted to) would find changing theirs extremely difficult. Will we ever be able to have an honest discussion someone asked and perhaps be able to admit we were wrong?

    A possible benefit, following the shortages of salads imported from Europe, was an increased interest in self-sufficiency.

    And whatever happened to the £350m that we will save by no longer being members of the EU? This had to remain an open question.

    There was a brief discussion about the role of the City of London.

    Two interesting debates and actually linked in many ways. The need for informed decisions was crucial for good government. When a poorly informed populace elected MPs, some of whom had been selected for them, a media which was partisan, an unregulated social media and a government which was heavily influenced by commercial and corporate interests, it was perhaps a wonder we weren’t in a bigger pickle than we are.

    Peter Curbishley

    An interesting take on democracy and the Brexit debate is Peter Geoghan’s book Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics, 2020, Head of Zeus Ltd , which is well worth reading.

  • Democracy Café – September

    We held a Democracy Café via Zoom on Saturday 12 September 2020 which was quite well attended. The topic which won the vote was, unsurprisingly, the decision by the government to table an Internal Market Bill 2019 – 2021 to enable the government to override the withdrawal bill agreed with the EU under the Northern Ireland Protocol. This had caused a major outcry across party lines as it would mean the government would be able to breach an international treaty. This all took place in the week previous to the meeting.

    Members were united in feeling helpless in the face of this action. We wondered in fact, if it was put to some kind of vote, whether it would get much support in the nation as a whole. We discussed whether it was in fact a ‘wheeze’ to force the EU onto the backfoot. By doing this, it might force the EU to stop negotiations and hence enable the government to blame them for being intransigent. Evidence of this can be seen in papers like the Telegraph which was blaming the EU for the problems, not the UK government for introducing the bill.

    Could it be part of a plan to destabilise all our institutions? One by one, organisations and individuals are blamed, sacked or side-lined. Senior civil servants, ministers who did not support the prime minister, judges and the BBC have come in for attack and threats.

    The idea of seeing the government as facilitators rather than actual government was a way of looking at this. Perhaps we might debate this idea in the future more.

    Corruption

    Still on this topic, the debate moved onto the ‘revolving door’ the process by which ministers, military leaders and senior civil servants, leave government in their hundreds to go and work for various companies that lobby them or receive funding from the government. It is supposed to be controlled but effectively isn’t. This clearly leaves the door open for influence peddling on a massive scale. The full extent of this was set out in a Transparency International report in 2011* and has featured in several Private Eye articles and a full length feature.

    Another factor has been a steady trail of contracts placed without notice or tender with firms and organisations which were either incompetent or inept (track and trace) and many of which were friends, relatives or cronies of members of the government. It seems as though all rules of good governance have been jettisoned.

    There seemed no way to control this. Power lay with the executive and there was no way to scrutinise them. The only way it seemed was to take to the streets. Even here, the government has introduced restrictions and fines of £10,000 to try and stop these, purportedly as part of Covid-19 restrictions. This prompted the question, was the government using the pandemic to try and stifle protest?

    Do people care in fact? Since the majority of our media was owned by individuals who have access to some extremely creative accountancy to enable them (perfectly legally) to avoid paying tax, it was not in their interest to promote stories of corruption since the light might shine on them. Hence there was little disquiet among the public at large. Another factor was the role of social media which served to distract from the real problem. It was ‘encouraging wilful ignorance’ someone said.

    This led to a discussion about 2008 and the fact that none of the bankers involved had been called to account for their part in the crash. The Coalition government of Cameron and Osborne had been able successfully to blame the Labour government for the crisis and to introduce austerity. The rest is, as they say, history.

    City of London

    We discussed the role of the City of London and its part in siphoning huge sums of money off to various tax havens. George Monbiot had written an article about it in this week’s Guardian. It was noted that the City is not fully part of the United Kingdom and protects its independence jealously. They employ a man called the Remembrancer who is the only unelected person in the House of Commons part of whose job is to frustrate any moves to inhibit the power of the City. Attempts to remove him have always been unsuccessful.

    It was suggested that one of the reasons for Brexit was the fear the City had that the EU was seeking to contain their power and were considering the introduction of legislation. In the end, money was more powerful than democracy it was said. When John Glen MP was appointed Minister for the City about 2 years ago, it was suggested to him in a letter to the Salisbury Journal that he would do his constituents and the country an enormous service if he got rid of this anomalous post. He did not reply. The post is still there. The City is still at the centre of an enormous web of corruption.

    Philanthropy

    We discussed philanthropy briefly following a ‘long read‘ in the Guardian recently. This was linked to the topic because some firms had made vast fortunes and sought to whitewash their reputations by giving money to certain causes. Some felt that they had made the money so should be free to spend it how they wish. Much wealth was inherited however but even if a fortune was made, it relied upon employees, social support, education and society generally to achieve. No man was an island.

    Conclusion

    There was a feeling of helplessness at the activities of the government who seemed beyond control. What can one do? However, one member said s/he had written to John Glen several times and received the normal party line responses but that s/he had written about the Cummings scandal and his response was not party line. We agreed to write to him to ensure that he was aware that there are people who think the proposed legislation is outrageous.

    We will – as the Salisbury Democracy Alliance – campaign in next year’s local elections, not for election, but to promote the idea of citizen’s juries.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Treasure Islands, Tax havens and the men who stole the world, Nicholas Shaxson, 2011, Bodley Head

    Money Land, Why thieves and crooks now rule the world and how to take it back, Oliver Bullough, 2018, Profile Books

    *no longer available on line

  • Will our politics change?

    A debate is starting about whether there will be a change in the way politics is done in Britain as a result of the Covid-19 crisis. Will it be a ‘never again’ moment and force some fundamental improvements? I don’t think it will and in this blog I will argue why change will not happen except at the margin.

    It is true that major events such as war or a outbreak of a serious disease does bring about change. I am writing this in English not in some form of French. That change came about because of plague which killed off a lot of the French speaking people at the top of our society and allowed in rough English speaking yocals into positions of power. The war brought about a significant improvement in housing provision.

    The drivers of change

    For change to happen, there has to be a groundswell of opinion – however ill-formed – for things to be done differently in future. People have to feel angry, affronted, or resentful at a political process and its leaders which contributed to the crisis. They argue vehemently for change. They may riot or march or do something physical to express their anger. There has to be anger in the air.

    Another thing which might contribute to this anger is a flow of information which explains what has gone wrong. There also have to be polemics which set out how change for the better can take place. There is little sign of this happening either.

    Ultimately, this anger has to find a voice. Almost certainly via a political party: someone has to set our a vision for a better world and a better run world. A world in which there is more equality of opportunity and where the benefits of our prosperity are spread more evenly. This has to be articulated into cogent arguments, and then simple phrases produced which encapsulate these ideas into ‘soundbites’.

    Will it happen?

    I don’t think this will happen for several reasons. Firstly, the nature and control of our media. That our print media is largely right wing and owned by foreign based oligarchs is well known. They are in a position to control the narrative and stifle unwelcome challenges to their hegemony. Readers of these titles will, for example, be largely unaware of the Paradise Papers and other major stories about the scale of tax avoidance carried out by the elite in our society. By contrast, they can run endless stories about scroungers and benefit cheats – who do exist of course – but are tiny in scale by comparison with the billions funnelled out of the country by the top 1%.

    The broadcast media have been little better. The nightly No 10 press conference is a case in point. Various journalists are given the opportunity to question the minister and the advisers. It is of course difficult to do this properly across a video link. But their questions are over-long and, instead of asking one insightful question, they ask two and sometimes three. The minister artfully – and I suspect they are trained to do this – repeats the question at length, says how important it is, waffles around it and fails to answer the point. The journalist is then invited to respond and bafflingly, then proceeds to ask another, different, question which is also unanswered. The result is that egregious failures of policy and delays in responses to the crisis largely go unchallenged.

    Such investigations which do take place – such as the BBC’s Panorama for example – have minimal viewing figures and are quickly slapped down by ministerial threats and newspaper allegations of bias.

    Another crucial point is that this argument has largely been about facts, numbers and statistics. But none of the journalists or any of the ministers have science or mathematical backgrounds. It is like watching two people who cannot even open the bonnet of a car, arguing about how they might change a clutch. As soon as a statistic becomes uncomfortable, it disappears. So the death toll in comparison with other countries is no longer presented for example.

    Finally, because of the pandemic, parliament is not properly sitting. In one sense that seems to be working for Keir Starmer who is operating in simulacrum of a court room, which suits his background. Early exchanges has enabled him to expose the emptiness of the prime minister. But the theatre has gone which means the exchanges are rather dull and forensic. Consequently, they do not get much airtime. The media wants conflict, anger, shouting and general excitement, not reasoned rational debate.

    Why have we come to this?

    The fundamental issues which have led us to our lack of preparedness and made us the worst in Europe are the neoliberal policies which have informed our politics for a generation. These are a set of beliefs which have dictated policy across a range of areas. Simply put, these are a belief in small government; that low taxes are best to enable people to spend their money how they wish; low regulation because this stifles innovation; that the private sector is superior to the public because they are inherently more efficient, and the best way to allocate resources is through competition. These are deep rooted and show little sign of disappearing.

    Recent events have forced the conservatives to do the opposite. Government is bigger and more intrusive, regulations have increased, money has poured into the private sector to find a cure, competition has fallen away in favour of ministerial patronage and taxes will inevitably have to rise. There are reported to be great tensions in the party as a consequence of this. The right wing, free market and Brexit wing are quiet at present because during a national emergency people ‘rally to the flag’. This will end soon but importantly, it will be an internal conservative party argument which will not affect the state of our politics nationally.

    These neoliberal beliefs have led to increased privatisation being introduced into the health service and the market led ideas introduced by Ken Clarke when he was health minister. Austerity was the cover which enabled Osborne to reduce funding for the service and the Lansley reforms also did more damage (what philosophy was behind those is a mystery, perhaps even to Lansley himself).

    All told, the public sector, including local authorities, were seen as inefficient, cumbersome and of little value. They could be cut with impunity because nobody cared. They were helped by near silence from them as well. How often, even today, when the issue of what LAs are doing and the role they play in tackling the pandemic, do you see a local authority person interviewed? Rarely. They almost never appear on programmes like Question Time. Despite their size and significance, they can be cut, lampooned and denigrated to politicians’ heart content.

    There is no groundswell of anger of people looking for fundamental change. Such anger as there is is about whether people can go out or not or how many people they can meet. The Labour party has to tread carefully because if they criticise the government too hard, they will be called disloyal. So far, there has been no sign of arguments about fundamental change from their people.

    This is why I suggest there will be no fundamental changes. Sure the medics will get a pay rise – even the current crop of boneheads would risk denying them that. But inequality will continue to get worse. The super rich will continue to avoid their taxes. The six or seven posh schools will continue to provide a disproportionate supply of politicians, journalists, media folk, judges et al. Privatisation of the NHS and other areas of public life will continue however corrupt or incompetent the suppliers are. Power will still reside in Westminster and any kind of regionalisation will not happen.

    Covid-19 will not change the fundamental flaws in our society.

    Peter Curbishley

  • August meeting

    Over 20 people attended a lively discussion at the August 2019 meeting of the Democracy Café in the Playhouse. Many familiar faces and some welcome new ones. We are delighted to see new people coming to these cafés which keeps us from becoming stale.

    The topic chosen by vote for discussion was ‘has the Right commandeered the language of Brexit? How can we reframe the debate? This topic was put forward by someone who is reading George Lakeoff’s book one of which is ‘Don’t think of an elephant! know your values and frame the debate.’ Chelsea Green Publishing. Framing is crucial since it is difficult to change the course of any discussion if the agenda has been framed in a certain way. See a blog post from the Salisbury Compass site.

    Recent examples were given. One was the notion that low taxes make us better off. A second is that when we leave the EU we shall be ‘free’. The right in our society have, it was claimed, commandered social media and have successfully promoted a number of soundbites. Some of the language is quite subtle, for example the change from ‘social security’ to ‘welfare’. The former was based on the notion that we all pay into a system which is there for us in time of need, whereas the second implies simple payouts. This language change was crucial in the post 2018 crash austerity period when there was a concerted attempt to cut ‘welfare’ and to (successfully) demonise those in receipt of payments as ‘scroungers and skivers’

    In this context, it was noted that the £850bn (not £500bn as was said) bailout to the banks was not called ‘welfare’. It was given the name ‘quantitative easing’.

    The importance of education and understanding what we read in the press was important. A book on how to read a newspaper is RW Jepson’s Clear Thinking: An Elementary Course of Preparation for Citizenship 1936. [1948 version]

    As well as language – as in words – was the fact of presentation and how the politician puts it across. The example of Blair with his easy charm and broad smile was widely believed. Similarly with Boris Johnson with his blond hair and optimistic statements. These attributes were as important as the words used.

    On the media, the fact that substantial parts are foreign owned is a factor it was claimed. The Daily Mail; Daily Telegraph; The Times and the Sun are among those papers owned overseas.

    A big part of the debate was the fact that the Right seemed to be most successful in their use of the soundbite. They were able to encapsulate their ideas into short phrases which resonated with people. In the Brexit debate for example ‘freedom to make our own laws,’ ‘taking back control’ and ‘not being ruled by unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ are all examples of pithy and highly effective soundbites. Similar soundbites were mentioned during the post Reagan/Thatcher era in politics to sell the idea of free markets and small government. The question was raised: why has the Left failed to come up with its own short statements of what it stood for? ‘For the many, not the few’ was the only one anyone could think of. The tendency for longwinded explanations and factual rebuttals do not work. Back to Lakeoff and his argument that facts do not persuade, going for emotional appeal does. Which raised the question, how do you counter lies without lying yourself? People promoting Brexit had been much more successful in pressing emotional triggers, immigration for example.

    This led to a discussion on the need for a debate which focused on nurture rather than competition.

    Walter Lippmann’s ‘bewildered herd’ or ‘bewildered masses’ was mentioned and did rather sum up our debate quite well:

    Bewildered herd is the masses that are tamed through propaganda and mass media in order that the machinery of democracy is kept properly oiled.

    The bewildered masses must be subdued, tamed and injected with the popular opinion of the upper class of politicians, leaders of corporations and others belonging to the elite class of intellectuals and wealthy in order to govern a nation and circumvent any defect in democracy.

    The single function of the bewildered masses is to be spectators, not participants, in the democratic nation.

    Urban Dictionary

    Finally, the Full Facts website was mentioned and asked for it to be linked to this discussion.

    Part two was a discussion around ‘is liberalism dead?’ The debate started with someone who had heard a radio programme in which it was revealed that among the 18 – 34 age group, 20% would not vote. However, this did imply that 80% would which is higher than the current level of voter participation in most elections. Perhaps too many choices was a problem it was suggested. Climate change had generated considerable interest and activity among the younger generation and Extinction Rebellion was mentioned.

    Was activism stronger in the ’60s say? It certainly seemed to be a time of protest and there was arguably a sense of utopianism. The NUS was strong. Now this seemed to be gone, perhaps a victim of the Brexit saga and people feeling drained. It was also noted that life was easier for young people then with no student fees to pay.

    It was noted that social liberalism was quite strong, the acceptance of seat belts and crash helmets wa instanced so maybe there was a need for a more nuanced approach.

    There did seem to be a desire for strong leaders to solve their problems. So it was not a question of being anti-liberalism, more a case of looking for competent leadership. The idea a ‘nuture’ surfaced again rather than looking always for a dominant figure. Dictators start with benign intentions but always end up by being totalitarian. Some said we should worry about any dictator claiming ‘I will save the world.’

    The idea was put forward of ‘freedom under licence’ ie within the law. But this raised the question of which freedoms and who decides? It also gives the impression of freedoms being granted by the powerful rather than being more fundamental. It is surprising that no one mentioned the UN Declaration or the Human Rights Act in this connection.

    The debate got onto the political system and capture by the corporate elites. Millions spent on lobbying and the revolving door corruption was mentioned.

    Two interesting debates without any clear conclusions but a lot of useful points made.

    Peter Curbishley