Yes, this is the first Democracy Café of the New Year, today, Saturday, 11th January at 10:00 in the Library. With Donald Trump about to become President again in a short while, and with Elon Musk as his assistant, we’re in for a bumpy ride. Talking of Musk—who seems to fill the news these days—his announcement about the leader of Reform was a great surprise: we all thought he was set to donate a vast sum to the party (which it isn’t technically). One minute they’re all posing for a photo, next he wants Farage out.
At home, things seem to be going spiffingly well for the Labour Party with approval ratings for Sir Keir dropping like a stone. The not quite poor enough elderly have lost their heating allowance and the farmers are still angry. The economy is flatlining. Business confidence at a low ebb it was reported this morning. So lots to discuss: or something quite different (and less gloomy?).
The Café is part of the SalisburyDemocracy Alliance and we are still keen on having a Citizens’ Assembly sometime. Would an Assembly have suggested the £3.2m Fisherton Street works as a way to improve the economy and amenity of the City for example? So far we have received little more than polite interest from the powers that be.
Would you be interested in joining us in this endeavour? Our next meeting is at the Boston Tea Party on 28th at 2pm. Or have a word at the Café.
Look forward to seeing you TODAY and a Happy New Year to you all!
Interesting article on the subject of democracy and citizen’s assemblies in today’s Guardian
June 2024
We are in the middle of an election campaign although residents of Salisbury reading this week’s Salisbury Journal may be forgiven for thinking ‘election, what election?’ At least John Glen’s weekly puff piece has disappeared.
So far campaigning has focused on trivia. The big issues of the state of the economy, the dangerously high level of our debt, our weakened defences, poor productivity, the ever widening level of inequality, and weak investment are not mentioned nor likely to be. Waiting times and the NHS are being discussed but not in a particularly edifying way and of course, the national obsession with not paying more tax is front and centre stage with the £2,000 extra tax row filling the airways.
All told, a campaign which so far, avoids the big issues and where disinformation and trivia are what minds seem to be focused on. By contrst, an interesting article on democracy which discusses sortition and citizen’s assemblies by George Monbiot, is to be found in today’s Guardian and is a worthwhile read.
This morning Saturday, May 11th, at 10am join us for the May 2024 Democracy Café at Salisbury Library. Come along with your own suggested topic for discussion if you wish or just come along to join in the discussion.
A summary of previous discussions can be found on our website:
On Saturday 18th May we will be taking part in the People in the Park event in Elizabeth Gardens. Come along to visit the SDA stand and have a chat. More information about the event can be found here:
Members of the committee met on 30 January to review progress and discuss future plans. These are notes (not minutes) of that meeting for general interest.
We reviewed the Democracy Café which has been running successfully now for several years and is now in its new home in the Library. Attendance is a regular 20 or so with the occasional new member. We were pleased with the venue and how it was going and one decision was to nominate the facilitator ahead of the meeting itself.
There was a report from a democracy group in Stroud (Glocs) who are investigating a permanent Citizens’ Jury system along side the council. They are trying to develop a ‘low cost’ solution and one idea is to do the sortition element themselves: this is the process of selecting a representative selection of people for the jury. We discussed this and there are problems in ensuring it is not self-selecting. There are also problems with data protection. Further investigation is to take place and we may consider observing their next meeting.
We briefly discussed Citizens UK and we will investigate further and in particular about training courses.
Citizens’ Juries was then discussed with particular reference to SCC and WC. We need a topic to focus on and one problem is that so many projects are decided elsewhere with little local involvement. For example the Fisherton Street works – where we await the benefits to be revealed – are a government funded scheme. We still have to convince councillors and others of their merit. Too many of them seem to see them as a threat it was noted. WC has a citizen’s panel for the climate but how that worked and the degree of genuine influence was not known.
We went on to discuss the idea of citizen’s involvement in the planning process and this followed correspondence with the director of planning at County Hall following an article on the subject in the Planner, the journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute. The response had not been entirely negative but the process was too far advanced for immediate involvement they noted. After our meeting, we made fresh contact and the following response was received by return:
The timetable we have relates to our existing (emerging) Local Plan. We expect this Plan to be adopted in 2025. The next round of plan-making will be likely to begin a year or two later as we are required to update the Plan every five years. The timetable (Local Development Scheme) for the next plan is likely to be updated shortly after we have adopted the emerging Local Plan. That will be the right stage to consider different ways of engaging with local communities to inform the new Plan.
This looks to be some way off i.e. sometime in 2026 or ’27.
We are due to have a presence in the People in the Park event on 18 May. We needed to agree a theme and the materials we need etc and a meeting will be convened to discuss this.
We had a brief report on web statistics. The number of visits to the site are steadily improving: 3,115 (2021); 2,715 (2022) and 3,628 (2023). The number of visitors has also improved: from 1,061 (2021) to 1,795 last year (2023). Note we are on Facebook.
We are always looking for new members who are interested in trying to improve the workings of our democracy and achieve better governance. If you think you might be interested get in touch. One way would be to come to a Democracy Café the next one of which is on Saturday 10 February starting at 10:00 upstairs in the Library. Or come to the People in the Park event on 18 May in Elizabeth Gardens. Or drop a line here.
Another letter in the Salisbury Journal this week (July 6) arguing that CAs are ‘an investment’
Following on from previous week’s letters to the Journal, this week saw a letter from Mike Hodgson arguing that it was wrong to see Citizens’ Assemblies as a cost.
“I agree with Dickie Bellringer and his assessment of the benefits of Citizens’ Assemblies. He says that councillors and the political parties see CAs as a cost. I see them as an investment, ensuring good planning results in the effective implementation of schemes; not just assessing them in terms of cost, but also in terms of them being fit for purpose and achieving the desired objectives.
“With £18k spent on a CA the People Friendly Streets scheme may not have happened as it did, thereby saving considerably more than the £18k [which would have been] spent. CAs are an investment. An investment in doing the job right in the first place and as such, save money not waste it.
“Councillors seem to assume CA overrides their democratically elected decision-making powers, rendering them redundant. It does not. While councillors fulfil and important elected role safeguarding the people and the people’s purse strings, a CA is an information gathering tool and exercise in understanding the issue in question, the pros and cons,the problems and opportunities.
“As such it is a democratic adjunct to quality decision-making providing high quality information from informed citizens. The final decision will always reside with the council and the councillors, because they are the elected decision makers and are democratically in control of the budget.
“However, as Sir Winston Churchill once said, having good quality information is critical to making good decisions”.
A second letter on Citizens’ Assemblies is published in the Salisbury Journal. We also write to the Area Board on this topic
June 2023
A second letter is published in today’s Salisbury Journal arguing for a CA to be held to consider the future of the City Hall (29 June 2023). There is also a letter arguing for greater involvement by local people and not for consultations to take place when in fact, decisions have already taken place.
The first letter from Mark Potts:
“Dickie Bellringer is right to suggest that the Salisbury City Council (SCC) administration should consider pushing Citizens’ Assemblies back up the agenda [in his letter to the Journal on] 22 June.
“With the future of the City Hall to be decided, SCC needs to be putting pressure on Wiltshire Council (WC) to involve the people of Salisbury in determining its future through a Citizens’ Assembly.
“Regarding the City Hall, Ian Blair-Pilling says that WC is focused on bring a long-term solution to Salisbury. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are fully involved in deciding the future of the City Hall and this is best done through a CA.
“Too often decisions like this that impact on Salisbury have been taken without sufficient involvement of Salisbury citizens. Fully involved does not mean a consultation exercise whereby we are asked what we think about a decision once it has been made. It means something like a Citizens’ Assembly where a randomly selected representative group of Salisbury citizens hear the evidence and make informed recommendations based on the evidence.
“Wiltshire Council can then say that they have truly listened to the people of Salisbury and made a decision based on their recommendations. This is what many other councils around the country have done on similar issues.
“At a fraction of the cost of a parish poll, Citizens’ Assemblies give those who are not usually heard a chance to fully engage with the arguments and influence the future of our city.”
Sentiments expressed in the above comments are repeated in a letter from Anne Trevett. Some extracts of which are:
“The situation around [the] City Hall is complex and the current proposal by Wiltshire Council to develop a splendid new library and cultural centre is not without merit. It could be transformative for Salisbury as it has in places like Chester. But it is also high risk.
[…] “But there is a very real problem around the decision making process and its transparency. The present decision to explore a new building option has been taken by WC’s cabinet and if the discussion in the Salisbury Area Boards is any indication, does not have the full support of local councillors or the community.
[…] “Meantime, discussion of an alternative solution harnessing community energies in a way that has been shown to be hugely successful by numerous voluntary group in our City, from the Trussell Trust and Alabaré to more recently St John’s Place, are dismissed out of hand. Yet these organisation are Salisbury’s glory – example of social enterprise that have been seen as national exemplars of how to get things done.
“Of course, the Council’s own solution will be to put up for “consultation” but only after months and years and massive expenditure on the plans. Not for the first time, I and many others are asking for our views to be considered in the drawing up of plans, not at the very end, at the point when decisions are already taken.”
Both these letters express the concern about the manner of decision making.
Mark Potts has also written to the Area Board in the following terms:
“I am writing to you as Chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) to make the case for a Citizens’ Assembly/Jury (CA/J) as part of the process to determine the future of the City Hall in Salisbury. If you look at social media and read the local newspaper you will know that there is a perception amongst many people in Salisbury that decisions about our city are made by Wiltshire representatives living some distance away from us.
“Whether this is a justified perception or not, it is prevalent and needs to be addressed. There is a perception that Wiltshire Council (WC) adopts a DAD approach to decision making for Salisbury. DAD stands for Decide, Announce, Defend. In essence, WC decides what it wants to do, announces it and invites responses. Then it seeks to defend its position if there are counter views. The problem is that people do not feel that they were involved in the decision making process and it leaves people thinking that the consultation process is little more than a sham. EDD by contrast, stands for Engage, Deliberate and Decide. Engagement has the advantage of involving people in the decision making process from the start giving people an opportunity to contribute ideas with some chance that they will be incorporated, or at least considered. This is precisely what a CA/J enables to happen.
“Many people in Salisbury reference the People Friendly Streets scheme as a recent example of the failed DAD approach. Whilst the rationale behind it had many merits, the lack of involvement of Salisbury citizens in its’ implementation meant that it was doomed to failure. Lessons need to be learned from that.
“From previous conversations with councillors, I am aware that there are concerns about the cost of running a CA/J. We at SDA have explored the costs and we are confident that a CA/J could be run at a cost to the Council of around £20k. I can provide more details on this should it be required. When we consider that the recent parish poll cost double that amount, this does not seem a large amount of money to restore some faith in the democratic nature of decision making.
“I am sure you realise that the City Hall is a building which is much treasured by the people of Salisbury. Its future use is a topic that is being hotly debated. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are given the opportunity to engage with the evidence, deliberate on it and contribute ideas to determine what happens to the Hall going forward. Of course, the final decision rightly rests with the elected representatives, but I hope that you recognise that engaging citizens in the process through a CA/J will further legitimise the decisions that are made“.
Exchange of correspondence on the issue, and cost, of Citizens’s Juries
If there is one thing that is guaranteed to get people agitated is the issue of tax and its related topic, community charge. A key promise by politicians of all shapes and sizes – almost always broken – is that they will keep such taxes low or at least not raise them. They also promise to do this and that policy to improve our lives which usually requires, in some form, er … tax. We will tackle waiting lists (but not raise your taxes), we will sort out the pot holes (but not raise your community charge), we will improve … well you get the idea (but not …).
I claim no scientific basis for the following but it seems to me that people respond to this issue in one of three broad ways. Firstly, there are those that say ‘they don’t mind paying more tax as long as it’s spent on X’ where X is something they favour e.g. the health service. This is the hypothecation view and it has many problems one of which is different people favour different things they want taxes to be spent on. How do you decide?
The second group is ‘I wouldn’t mind paying more tax but they only waste it’. ‘Waste’ here can mean many things but it often means, on enquiry, money spent on things they don’t approve of: in the current climate that will be hotel accommodation for the boat people.
Finally, there are those that believe that lower tax means everyone is better off. It overlooks the simple fact that yes, you can buy some new clothes or go out for a meal or two with the money saved but you can’t buy yourself better roads, a health service, defence and all the other things that make life bearable. Some things just have to be done collectively or they won’t get done at all. Tax is our contribution to a good society.
So this is part of the backdrop to an exchange of letters in the Salisbury Journal. The Parish Poll conducted by Salisbury City Council recently has produced a huge amount of correspondence and in turn led Cllr Charles McGrath (Con) to write on 27 April, complaining about the conduct of the poll which voted for a cap of 5% on the precept. He then says “This is the administration that pledged to make ‘Your voice Heard’ in their Strategic Plan for Salisbury City Council, and once supported the concept of of self-selecting Citizens’ Juries which have cost some councils £40k – over twice the amount of a parish poll” (our italics).
This week (4 May) Dickie Bellringer, a member of SDA, replied […] “I would like to correct a piece of misinformation disseminated by Cllr Charles McGrath in last week’s postbag the citizens’ juries are self-selecting. This is untrue. Citizens’ Juries are examples of deliberative democracy for which residents are selected randomly in order to deliberate on important local issues.
“They can draw on, and interrogate expert witnesses who will provide information.
“[…] Cllr McGrath writes that Citizens’ Juries have cost some councils £40,000 but Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for Citizens’ Juries for many years and, by working with local partners, should be able to produce a Citizens’ Jury for less than £18,000”.
The idea of letting people’s voices to be heard is a familiar one but few are in possession of the time or expertise to make significant contributions. There is a need for advice, and time for people to digest and understand the complex issues around a local economy. The Strategic plan – referred to by Cllr McGrath – is my view flawed in many respects. See the link above. I wonder how many will have read all the reports and supporting material? Whether it’s £18,000 or Cllr McGrath’s exaggerated £40,000, isn’t it better to find a way to sound and achievable solutions than following the path of a somewhat flawed plan?
But the backdrop is always the issue of tax and how much we should pay. Politicians are never able to say that lower taxes do not automatically make you better off. The years following austerity has seen spend on a wide range of public services and local authorities decline precipitately with the results we are now witnessing.
Notes of a committee meeting to discuss progress with our various plans
March 2023
Eight of us met this week to discuss progress and make plans for forthcoming event. This is to keep the wider membership in the picture and is not meant to be an authoritative minute of the meeting. Also present were three members of RSA.
Talkshop
The main topic of conversation was around the next Talkshop event and we spent some time reviewing 60 cards with suggestions and possible projects. Some were of limited relevance to Salisbury but we still managed to identify two dozen possibles from the full list. After lengthy discussion we boiled it down to 4 possible topics:
Trying to include the voices and views of the ‘unheard’. These are people who are marginalised, who do not feel politics is for them, that their views are unwanted or who simply cannot engage because they cannot get out in the evening for example.
Involvement in the budgeting process. This might be ambitious since local government financing is highly technical and heavily constrained by Treasury rules. It was once said that only four people in the country understood local government finances and one of those was dead. It is worth serious consideration however as what is in the budget determines what does and doesn’t get done. And why shouldn’t citizens be involved?
Citizens’ juries and the need for: hardly any need to expand on this as it is our raison d’être.
Involving young people. It will be the young who inherit what we do now and their world is quite different from the generations which went before. Yet they are seldom seen when decisions are taken.
We then spent some time discussing invitees which will include local politicians, Area Board people, Chambers, TUs. We discussed publicity and it will include posters in schools, the WCA newsletter, Transition City and no doubt others will be added at the planning stage. It will be a ticketed event.
The objective was agreed: ‘to develop a set of policy objectives or projects involving local people and which could be implemented by Salisbury City Council and if necessary, Wiltshire Council’.
It will run in Brown Street on May 27th from 10:00 ’till noon prompt.
Planning
It was brought to the group’s attention that in the last edition of The Planner, the journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, there was a leading article on the subject of community involvement and citizen’s assemblies. It is likely that officers in WC planning dept. will have seen the article and it was agreed we would write to the head of planning suggesting a meeting to discuss. Update: letter sent 18th March copy below.
Local Plan
Consultation on the local plan was well underway and it was queried whether we should make some kind of response. The plan was well advance it was noted and it was suggested there were a number of shortcomings which will make its implementation problematic. See an earlier post and see also a response to our letter lamenting the lack of a citizens’ assembly during the preparation phase.
Eco Hub stall
We shared a stall in February in the Market Place and the results were a little disappointing. For next time the lessons learned were: sharing a stall does not work; there were too few flyers and we need something similar to the Brexitometer run by Salisbury for Europe that is, a board with options or questions to engage passers by.
People in the Park
Whether we should have a stall at this event again was discussed but the cost of insurance – which exhibitors have to pay themselves this year, means it is no longer viable.
Democracy Café
The last café was run the previous Saturday in the new venue in the Library. This had been a success although if numbers grew too large it might be a problem. The next meeting is on 8 April. A report of the last meeting can be read here.
Generally we felt it had been a worthwhile meeting and plans for the second Talkshop look exciting. The next planning meeting is on 18 April at 14:00 probably in Brown Street (to be confirmed).
We receive a response to our comments about the City Plan
In our previous post, we referred to a letter we had written to the Salisbury Journal lamenting that the preparations for the proposed City Plan had not used a citizens’ assembly. We went on to discuss what we felt to be some of the significant shortcomings in the documents made available. We also wrote to some of the councillors in the same vein as the letter in the Journal and one councillor has replied in the following terms:
“I understand that you and your colleagues are disappointed, but this is not the beginning of the Neighbourhood Plan process, when an approach such as you suggest might perhaps have been more appropriate.
Work on the Plan began under the previous administration of this council in 2018 with a well-publicised call for help from volunteer community members. I can see that at that point, a Citizens’ Jury might well have been helpful in setting objectives and priorities. I wasn’t a councillor at that point and I don’t know whether it was suggested.
But I do know that over the last three or four years those volunteers, along with some councillors, have put in literally hundreds of hours of work, including holding several public consultations on specific elements of the Plan’s proposals, and by the time I took on the chairmanship almost a year ago it would not have been feasible or desirable to start unpicking what had already been achieved.
The aim of this latest consultation is to attract responses from as many individuals and interest groups as possible at this stage of this process, known as Regulation 14. We are required to do this as a steering group, and we will have to satisfy an inspector that we have done so.
Further stages of consultation will follow, as required by law, after the draft Plan is refined as a result of this exercise, and we will continue to be guided by the advice of our professional neighbourhood planning consultant on how best to proceed with this.
I know you will not be happy with this answer but we are where we are“.
We are grateful to the Councillor in taking the trouble to reply. It leaves open several of the points we raised. The idea of a citizens’ assembly was suggested at the beginning of this process. If ‘literally hundreds of hours of work’ by volunteers and councillors have been spent on this, why have some of the glaring omissions we pointed out not been spotted? Why are the alarming predictions of an ageing population – and the deleterious effects that will have on the city’s economy – not been highlighted? It really does look as though the process is charging off in the wrong direction and is gaining a momentum all of itself. The final stages will almost certainly focus on procedural points not on the substance.
It looks as though the process is too far advanced for a change of direction so truly ‘we are where we are’.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 