Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Climate

  • Dissatisfaction with our politicians expressed at latest Democracy Café

    That and tax were the two topics discussed

    A recurring subject of our Cafés is the dissatisfaction both with our MPs and the political process generally. This is clearly becoming a matter of national concern with low voter turnout at elections, falling membership for the main parties and a rise of what were once called ‘fringe’ parties.

    The escape of various prisoners that week from Wandsworth Gaol was the focus of our first topic: not the escapes themselves but the unedifying debate which took place in parliament particularly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Two prisoners, Brahim Kaddour-Cherif and William Smith were released mistakenly and there ensued a major political row with the Conservatives blaming Labour and Labour blaming the Conservatives.

    The question which won the vote was How can we encourage more cooperative working [between the parties] in Parliament? The proposer was motivated to pose the question by the debates about relatively petty issues and insufficiently on the big ones. The slanging match which took place between the parties overlooked the years of underfunding of prisons which had taken place under both parties. Prisons were unpleasant places said someone who visits one regularly and they too little time was spent on things like behavioural change. No party was willing to tackle the system or the huge investment the estate needed.

    A lot of theatrics we saw was around PMQ and this often got televised. Many politicians were playing to the popular press. Would it not be an idea to stop televising parliament it was suggested? We did not pursue that thought and it would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Another thought was Eton. The school has a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons and boys practice the skills (if skills they be) of debating. Since Eton has provided a preponderance of ex-pupils to become MPs and ministers including many prime ministers, could this be a contributory factor to the public school raucous style of debating?

    The need for a constitution was suggested. However, the US has a constitution and it hasn’t ruled out bad politics. Could not the Speaker control things better?

    It was noted however that the Select Committee system works well where party members do work together on them. This system has been a success especially after control of the selection of members was wrested from the whips. But how often do people follow select committee debates? People watch the spectacle of PMQs are less inclined to follow the dry stuff of a select committee even though it was often more consequential. As we have noted in these debates before, do we not get the politics we deserve?

    Back to PMQs. Was it not absurd that the prime minister was summoned each week to answer what can be trivial or detailed questions? The session was dominated by point-scoring and appealing to the gallery not discussing matters of strategic importance. Imagine for example if the boss of M&S was asked each week why one of their stores was out of a particular size of trousers say. Would you run a major corporation that way? Probably not.

    One of the shifts which has taken place in recent times is the way all parties now have focus groups and fashion their policies around what these and other sources of public opinion thinking. They were no longer leading but following. But what many are crying out for is leadership. The election this week of the charismatic Mayor of New York was mentioned. What we seem to be getting is followership.

    The quality of our MPs was mentioned. Do we need to know more about candidates? Should there not be some kind of minimum standard? What that would be and how it would be enforced was not discussed.

    An interesting point was that we elect our MPs but have no say over who gets into the Cabinet or goes onto the government payroll. Since it is the latter individuals who exercise the power it does seem anomalous that we spend all the time selecting someone to represent the constituency who then may well go onto become a minister of some kind. Rory Stewart discusses this in his book Politics on the Edge (Jonathan Cape, 2023) where no interest is taken by selection committees in someone’s policy making experience or management skills in the selection process. It suggests large numbers of people being elected with no regard at all for the skills they’ll need to run the country. And we wonder why we’re in a mess.

    Back to the public school system and whereas it was true that such schools provided a disproportionate number of MPs and hence ministers in the past, a Sutton Trust study in 2024 shows that just one member of the current cabinet had a private education. This contrasts with the last Conservative government where just 19% of ministers did not have a private education.

    Another feature of Stewart’s book was the practice of ignoring expert advice. There was a suggestion that there should be more in the way of expert input into decision making. One said their experience of meeting civil servants to convey expertise or knowledge was met by the response ‘this is what the minister wants’ with little or no interest in whether it was practical or workable. Another said there was no shortage of reports, McPherson and Louise Casey into the Met for example. Most ended up ignored. The problem was a ‘we know best’ attitude not a lack of informed input.

    Was our government a product of the class system? Perhaps we should debate this as a topic all of itself in the future. As noted, the role of public schools has lessened in recent years.

    We digressed somewhat to talk about the removal of power and money from local authorities.

    As a kind of summing up it was thought that manifestos should be more visionary and not the product of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The lack of interest in the political process was also noted and we will not get improvement or change unless the public presses for it.

    On to our second topic which was Should the wealthy pay more tax? It is only about 2 weeks until the Budget around which there is already considerable debate. The Chancellor gave a speech a week or so ago which was widely seen as a hint that there will be an increase in income tax. The immediate answer the proposer noted was to say ‘yes’ but in fact the system already enabled sufficient tax to be collected the problem was all the loopholes. [Official statistics show it stands at 5.3% of theoretical liabilities i.e. £46.8bn (2023- 24 tax year). Experts say this figure is an order of magnitude too low].

    The major problem with the system was it was concentrated on earnings not on wealth. Considerable wealth was in the possession of those who paid little in the way of tax on that wealth. Land for example was not taxed (but rents would be). However, it was noted those who owned property did pay tax on any rents. Major estates could gain exemption from Inheritance tax by opening their homes to the public once a year or more. It was stated that art did not attract tax [This is incorrect. Works of art are subject to capital gains tax when sold subject to current rules and exemptions. So if you are thinking of selling your Rembrandt, be careful].

    One of the things not mentioned in the debate about tax is the moral question. It is frequently said that the rich would leave if taxes were too high. Taxes paid for the things we need in our society. It was pointed out (from the perspective of a wealthy person) that they might say they do not need many of the services. They pay for their own medical treatment, they educated their children privately, they live in gated communities and do not need police protection and rarely use roads on the way to the airport to board a private jet or helicopter. Why should they pay tax certainly a higher rate? Why should they pay yet more to keep individuals who were too lazy to work? They might even use the word ‘feckless’.

    However, they lived in a society which is getting ever more unequal. Placing the burden of higher taxes on the poorest in society risks bringing the whole system down. A recent BBC programme on inheritance had noted that inequality was embedded in the system. As some people got wealthier, they were able to pass on this wealth and its attendant advantages to their children thus further increasing inequality. Home ownership for many was but a dream but those who had access to the ‘bank of mum and dad’ ‘could achieve this. We should think more about what to do with our wealth it was suggested.

    There was some discussion on loopholes which is where we came in. The role of the so-called ‘treasure islands’ as discussed in Nicholas Shaxson’s book Treasure Islands: Tax havens and the Men Who Stole the World (Bodley Head, 2011) is key to the system of avoidance. He estimated around £12 trillion was stored in them (2011 figures). These havens were a relic of Empire.

    Part of the discussion about tax was based on the notion we were better off with lower taxes which is why politicians constantly promised that they, and their party, were dedicated to lowering them. Would any politician who said we needed to pay more tax if we want the services we expect ever get elected. Almost certainly not. As we have noted before, lower taxes will enable you to buy some more consumer goods or services but it will not buy you a road system, a health service, schools, defence and so on: all the things which gives us our society.

    Which led to the notion that we should be proud of paying tax and such individuals should be admired. Paying tax should be seen as a duty.

    It was noted that wealth also gave power. So we would not see changes in the tax havens for example because many of those who use them possess the power to stop change. On the subject of loopholes, Eton cropped up again and that it, along with other public schools, did not pay VAT or business rates until this year. They were regarded as charities going back to their foundations but were far from charities today.

    I suppose there is a theme linking both debates and that is our role as citizens. It is surely up to us to demand better service from our leaders, to take a closer look at those standing for election and to enquire about their ability to lead, manage or develop workable policies, to take a closer look at those policies and promises made and to be realistic about things like tax. We cannot have something for nothing. The focus should be on making sure that the tax system works as it should but how many people know of the tax gap or how much it is? Two interesting debates which raised several interesting questions.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on December 13th

    Thought of becoming a subscriber?

  • Democracy Café

    Two debates on Palestine Action and climate change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on August 9th.

  • Democracy Café, May

    May 2024

    Members of SDA will be at the People in the Park Event in Elizabeth Gardens on Saturday 18th and if you are curious about our activities, about citizens’ juries or about Democracy Café, drop by and have a chat

    A good if unexpected turnout to this café such that we had to scrabble around for seats. The refugee ‘crisis’ and the numbers arriving at our shores in boats, continues to feature in the tabloid media certainly so it was perhaps no surprise that the first question was How would we deal with the refugee crisis? Bibi Stockholm; registration system broken down; wars and people seeking a better life: there seemed no end to the problem of people wishing to come to the UK by any means.

    Which raised the question of safe and legal routes. How does a refugee make it here or get an assessment? The existing routes were closed off leaving getting on a boat more or less the only method. Which gave rise to the first suggestion of an assessment centre in France and those who qualified to be given a warrant to enter the UK.

    The first substantive contribution came via Shami Chakrabarti who said in an interview that the current conventions were no longer suited to the present day. Climate did not feature at the time of their creation [she might have mentioned globalisation similarly]. Also, there was no recognition that we were keen to spread our culture during the growth of conquest and Empire but express surprise when they turn up on our doorstep.

    A point quickly made by several about what a waste it all was: not only the cost of the current system with thousands held in hotels and other locations sometimes for years, but also the waste of talent and skills. Many were qualified and keen to work. We had shortages in many sectors of the economy and instead we continued to see it as a ‘crisis’ rather than an opportunity.

    The question of how many were deported was raised and a figure of 22,000 was quoted but is not mentioned in the media. However, large numbers were Albanians some of whom had been trafficked so that did not represent the problem as a whole. The global nature of the problem was put forward which pointed to a solution to be worked on at the UN. It was not clear many thought this a promising solution.

    Gangs were mentioned and a key target of political ire. Yet recent programmes and interviews have shown how they are highly sophisticated and multi-layered organisations which ultimately relied on the banking system to move the cash around. Yet tackling the banks is never part of government plans it seems. The role of HSBC in moving billions of dollars of drug monies was given as an instance.

    Several mentioned the possibility that this was a deliberate posture by politicians keen to create a ‘them and us’ culture. Seeking to blame outsiders (in this case the gangs and those on the boats) in an effort to take away the responsibility for their own failures. Blaming outsiders or starting wars with them was a familiar political stunt. It was about ‘framing’ the debate one said.

    The hypocrisy was mentioned and as we have discussed in previous debates, people are usually proud of family members who go to a foreign country to work or study, but those coming here for the same reason are treated with scorn and seen as a problem. Could it be linked to our island mentality someone wondered? Another thought that media representation of immigrants as being poorly educated and desperate people (with the implication they should be kept out) whereas many were not.

    An irony was that an analysis by the OBR of the Chancellor’s last budget showed that the forecast growth would come from immigrant contributions both from their output but also their spending.

    It was pointed out there was some confusion around the words ‘refugee’ ‘asylum seeker’ ‘immigrant’ ‘illegal immigrant’ and so on. Perhaps one solution was to produce a leaflet to explain what the various terms meant. We were reminded of debates on this topic at the beginning of the last century and Churchill voted against restrictions at that time. It shows that the question of immigration and movement of people has been with us for a long time.

    Someone thought that Brexit did not help as it changed attitudes in quite fundamental ways. It seemed to enhance nationalistic sentiments. Something has changed she thought. Almost certainly the internet has not helped and aided the spread of harmful attitudes.

    A familiar remark made by people expressing hostility to immigrants and refugees was that ‘we are full up’. This of course takes us back to the housing crisis.

    Well there was something of a tour d’horizon about this debate with philosophical questions about whether it was in fact a ‘crisis’ rather than a wasted opportunity. No one mentioned that the numbers of immigrants in other countries are enormous in comparison the the relatively tiny numbers we experience. We did seem to recognise that attitudes were deep seated and would be difficult to change. The hostility by some politicians and elements of the media – reflecting elements of public opinion – means rational discussion is difficult and the benefits that immigration brings, and has brought, to our society is overlooked.

    And for something completely different for the second half was the question Does climate change matter and do we mind? With more cars on the road than ever, increased pollution and the prospect of hitting 1.5° before too long was ‘frustrating’ the proposer said. The issuance of drilling licences in the North Sea was especially discouraging.

    It was too big a problem and it has the effect of ‘grinding you down’. The oil companies tried to put it on us it was said.

    It was ‘complicated’ someone remarked: can we not use [global warming] rather than try to stop it? The prospect of farming the Tundra was given as an example [if the Tundra melts it will release enormous quantities of methane, a gas more dangerous than carbon dioxide]. Whether in answer to this, it was said global warming increase will be exponential making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and would also see widespread disease spread. Someone added that we must not forget species loss as well. Another point was the chain of connections in wildlife, that is one species depending on the next. The threat to bees was mentioned who are suffering from a combination of a disease, climate and and from organophosphorus pesticides.

    Probably the first time Top Gear has been mentioned in our debates so there has to be a first time for everything. The point it was more than just moving to electric cars but things like integrated transport. In a discussion about long and short journeys, the suggestion that cars are more like Trabants [a basic car in the former East Germany much hated by their users] the point being it would deter people from making long journeys by road.

    Perhaps a better way than forcing us to use Trabants was to use government policy to shape public opinion. So tax inefficient activity and give grants to the more efficient. A good idea in theory but the reaction to Ulez shows that the public has little tolerance of this kind of activity by government. Nothing is joined up someone complained, it all seems to be a collection of ‘micro-problems’.

    We were then introduced to ‘doughnut economics‘ the idea of 3 levels and living sustainably within the ring of the imaginary doughnut.

    Other ideas introduced included the circular economy that is ensuring goods are maintained, reused, repaired rather than just thrown away.

    The question of wealth and inequality arose partly in the sense that those at the top of the economic tree do not have to concern themselves with climate matters since they have the resources to move or mitigate them. But also because unequal societies are unhappy ones and the book The Spirit Level was mentioned. This book and its successor, examined copious statistics to show the more unequal societies the less happy and contented they were. It was a pity that these three ideas were not developed and debated – perhaps another time.

    We ended with a rather sobering thought about children’s lunch boxes and the brand of snack within it was a measure of social class.

    One overriding thought was that we had to ‘own’ the problem that is it isn’t sufficient to see it just as a government problem but for all of us to play a part. A pity again that this was not debated more.

    Two interesting debates and several remarked how enjoyable they were.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    The Spirit Level, Why Equality is Better for Everyone, 2010, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

    The Inner Level, How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-Being, 2018, same authors.

    Too Big to Gaol, 2023, Chris Blackhurst, Inside HSBC, the Mexican drug cartels and the greatest banking scandal of the century.

  • Successful Talkshop held!

    A successful Talkshop was held on Saturday 21 May on the subject of climate

    UPDATE 7 June 2022: a meeting is to be held this Thursday 9th June at 29 Brown St to discuss how to take the idea of an Eco Hub forward.

    A press release about our successful event was sent to the Salisbury Journal but they have declined to publish it in two editions of the paper.

    This was the first such event the Alliance has held and we are naturally delighted it went so well. Nearly 30 attended and there was lively conversation throughout the morning. The event came about as a cheaper means to contribute to the climate debate than the Citizens’ Assembly idea which we are still pursuing.

    Participants were divided into groups of half a dozen or so and issued with cards describing successful schemes established elsewhere in the country and some in USA. These were discussed and each table selected three they felt worth pursuing. We then walked around and looked at all the table’s suggestions and after discussion, formed two, new groups to take things forward.

    The most popular suggestion, attracting great interest, was the idea of an Eco Hub for the city. Essentially, a place where ideas can be discussed and exchanged as well as other more tangible ideas such as an Eco Café. A working group has been formed and will meet in a few weeks to discuss how the idea can be taken forward and made flesh.

    Another group discussed a series of linked ideas to make abandoned spaces into places where wildflowers can grow, trees planted or vegetables grown. It might be part of the Eco Hub in future.

    We must thank the RSA for their help in formulating the event and providing the rubric. We must also thank 29 Brown Street for providing the venue. More will be published about this as time goes by so watch this space. We were delighted that a Member from Salisbury City Council was there and took an active part in the proceedings.

    Pictures showing outside of 29 Brown Street and the Talkshop event about to start. Pictures: SDA

    Peter Curbishley

    UPDATE: 14 June 2022. This is the unpublished press release sent to the Salisbury Journal.

    SALISBURY Democracy Alliance held a successful Talkshop event at 29 Brown Street last week after which plans to form an Eco Hub were agreed. A Talkshop is a relatively new idea involving ordinary people in decision making and is a way of doing democracy differently.

    About 30 people attended and were given cards describing a range of successful environment projects which have been established in the UK and around the world. These were discussed in groups and two were finally selected. One is to establish an Eco Hub which will host practical projects and also to provide a meeting place for ideas and discussion. The second project discussed a series of linked ideas to make abandoned space into places where wildflowers can grow, trees to be planted or vegetables grown.

    Cllr John Wells, Chair of the City Council’s Environment and Climate Committee said “I was delighted to attend this event and found the ideas and discussion stimulating and interesting. I look forward to working with the Hub on projects relevant to the Council’s policies.”

    The Alliance were helped by the RSA, the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce who provided much useful advice.

    Mark Potts, Chair of SDA said ” we were delighted with how the event turned out and it was gratifying to see so many people engaged in eager debate about this important topic.” A meeting has been arranged between several of those present to take these ideas forward.

  • Tackling the Climate Emergency

    Past event
    Event Run by the RSA and Salisbury Democracy Alliance  

    A Climate Emergency has been declared by Salisbury City Council and they are looking for local people to come up with ways of addressing it. We invite you to this event where you will find out what other cities are doing and have the opportunity to come up with ideas that could work in Salisbury or build on what is already here. The resources that we will be using and the methodology have been provided by Talkshop (www.talkshop.org), one of the partners of Salisbury Democracy Alliance. This is a golden opportunity to contribute to an important debate.

    Saturday 21st May 10.00 – 12.30 (Doors open at 9.30)

    29 Brown Street, Salisbury

    This event is being run by the Salisbury RSA Network and Salisbury Democracy Alliance (the same body that runs the regular Democracy Cafe here at Brown Street, part of The Chapel venue).  The SDA website is www.salisburydemocracyalliance.org. The Salisbury RSA website is https://www.thersa.org/fellowship/get-involved/rsa-networks/salisbury-network

    Places are limited and in order to book in to the event go to: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/tackling-the-climate-emergency-tickets-315205386797

    UPDATE: 5 May. Still a small number of places left.

  • Consultation on Climate policy

    In response to a proposal by Wiltshire Council to consult on their climate policy, the following letter was published in the Salisbury Journal on 9 September 2021.

    [The Journal] reported that Wiltshire Council has launched a consultation on its Climate Strategy (Consultation on council’s Climate Strategy now live, 2nd September). Although engagement with the public is always to be welcomed, we question however whether this is the best way to get a proper and balanced view on this important subject.

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance has argued that a much better approach would be achieved by using a citizens’ assembly. This method selects a truly representative group of people who then meet over a period of three weekends and, advised by experts, discuss the topic in some considerable depth.

    This method has been applied very successfully in several parts of the UK and among its most notable successes have been in Northern Ireland.

    The problem with the consultation proposed by Wiltshire Council is that it will attract the ‘usual suspects’ and those with vested interests to protect or promote. It also limits views to those put before them by the council and hence might inhibit new thinking.

    Climate – as we have seen around the world in recent months – is a hugely important subject and merits a properly organised citizens’ assembly which will provide a genuine and informed contribution to policy formulation. Importantly, it will demonstrate proper involvement by citizens and counter any belief that this is another set of policies which the council is imposing on them.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: August 2021

    The two chosen topics were: Do humans have the will to tackle climate change? and, What impact does concentrated ownership have on local newspapers?

    Two of the problems highlighted early on were, firstly, the sheer scale of climate change such that it seemed too big for us to process and the other brought in the issue of short termism in our political system.  But it was suggested that part of the problem was the framing of the topic. It was often portrayed in a binary way – either we will save humanity or there will be catastrophe, whereas climate change can be mitigated and the damage limited.

    An allegory that proved to be popular suggested that there were three monsters with government in the centre flanked by business and the media, all three wallowing in the mire of money.

    On the other hand, it was also thought that you needed to tackle the problem from both ways, from the individual and from the power dynamics of the three-headed monster.  The participants’ attention was drawn to Drawdown which analyses problems associated with climate change and the solutions – only two of which out of the top 20 were things that we could do as individuals.

    It was suggested that we needed to engage more people in the issue and one way was through deliberative democracy and, in particular, Citizens’ Juries, which is something that Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for for many years.   One topic that could benefit from such an approach was the ill-fated People Friendly Streets.

    Another way of engaging people is through and online tool called Pol.is which enables open ended feedback from large numbers of people and is used very successfully in Taiwan.

    The second question revolved around the fate of local newspapers and the impact of their ownership by a small number of giant corporations.  The Salisbury Journal, for example, is owned by Newsquest – the second biggest newspaper conglomerate in the UK, which itself is owned by the giant USA-based Gannett.

    It was suggested that if you looked at public information as a market square, then before the internet papers like the Journal would have occupied the entire square. But since the advent of the internet and the reduction of journalistic standards created by the business model, that dominance has been eroded to the extent that the Journal occupies just one small stall and the rest of the space is taken up with various, often overlapping groups on social media.

    One of the major problems associated with this, it was pointed out, was the lack of independent, trusted provision of credible, unbiased information and facts, of the sort once provided by local newspapers but now under threat by their diminished status and capability.

    One solution to this could be the creation of groups like Salisbury-based The See Through News Newspaper Review Project. It was pointed out, however, that a deeper problem was the philosophical and cultural undermining of the concept of truth itself, particularly with the rise and dominance of post-modernist thinking. Nevertheless, work like the project was vital as part of the fight back to truth – along with deliberative democracy and Citizens’ Juries.

    Dickie Bellringer

  • November’s Bemerton Heath Democracy Café

    CLIMATE change and deliberative democracy were on the menu at November’s meeting of Bemerton Heath Democracy Café.

    The question revolved around whether a Citizen’s Jury in Salisbury would enhance democratic engagement in combatting climate change.

    It was explained that Citizen’s Juries consist of a randomly selected cross-section of the community that then becomes part of the democratic decision-making process – as is happening in Test Valley Borough Council.

    There was some scepticism at first about the idea but after rehearsing some of the challenges posed by climate change, it was suggested that Citizen’s Juries may be part of the answer.

    The deliberation moved on to the recent demonstrations by Extinction Rebellion. Opinion was divided between whether its actions were counter-productive because they often antagonised ordinary people going about their business, or vital because they high-lighted the threat to the future of the planet in a way that lower profile action did not.

    The café is held on the first Saturday in the month at St Michael’s community café in St Michael’s Road between 10am and noon. For more information call Dickie Bellringer on 01722 323453 or bellringer11@btinternet.com

     

     

  • Climate change

    Several of us attended a meeting of the Salisbury Area Board in the Guildhall last night (4 November 2019) which was a joint event with Wiltshire Council (WC) and the City Council (SCC). It was extremely well attended with – I estimated – around 110 or so there.

    There were presentations by a WC officer and by the Mayor for the City. Each table was then asked to think about suggestions they would like to make and there was a feedback session with one from each table.

    Both organisations must be complimented on organising the event and the numbers attending demonstrated real concern for the subject.

    The first thing to note was that both the WC and SCC contributions were essentially top down. It was what they were going to do. They neither of them costed or showed a timescale in any realistic way. It took Prof. Graham Smith, speaking for his table, to point out the need for a baseline analysis. By this I assume he meant the need to assess what would be needed to achieve carbon neutrality by looking at where we are now and where we need to get to. Looking at WC’s webpage on the subject, there are no statistics, solid plans or timetable for what has to be done between now and 2030. Similarly with SCC’s plans.

    Jeremy Nettle emphasised the need to ‘do something now’ and, as he put it ‘it was difficult stuff [and] costs money’. The council has a budget of £56,000 for the work. Both presentations however were short on how people’s minds, attitudes and behaviours could be changed although Nettle did say ‘the hardest thing is changing people’s minds’. It was just a bit light on how.

    The elephant in the room of course was that those present could be assumed to be people who accept the threat of a climate emergency and that something needs to be done urgently. In the population at large there are many who do not. There are still many denialists.

    One speaker noted the limited powers that local government has in comparison with the national government. In that connection we must mention our local MP Mr Glen who, according to ‘They Work for You’ website, generally votes against climate change policies and is openly dismissive of Extinction Rebellion. DeSmog analysis shows him at 15%, a dismal score. The question of making new homes more thermally efficient was mentioned. Fine but what about existing homes? Making rented homes more efficient was voted down by this government (supported as ever by Mr Glen).

    But our biggest disappointment was that neither Mark Read of WC nor Jeremy Nettle of SCC mentioned a Citizens’s Assembly despite several meetings and emails between us and them on this very subject. Cllr Nettle is allegedly in favour and has certainly led us to believe this. Citizen’s’s involvement was left to a request for people to leave their names on a sheet of paper at the exit. This will assemble a wholly unrepresentative list of people – all of whom will be in favour of climate action – and drawn from a narrow demographic.

    The approach does seem to be essentially flawed. Without a structured involvement by the citizens of Salisbury, guided as necessary by appropriate expertise and supported by baseline data, the result is likely to be an uncoordinated series of actions which – however well meaning – are unlikely to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality. Achieving climate change is going to need robust and grounded policies many of which will be met by indifference or hostility. The forces of resistance are well funded by the fossil fuel industry. Both authorities are going to need a lot of solid support from local people and on this showing, they are unlikely to get this.

    Peter Curbishley

    [These views do not necessarily represent those of the Alliance]

  • 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