Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Climate change

  • Democracy Cafe: November

    November 2022

    We had two lively discussions at our meeting on 12 November 2022 and it was good to see a higher level of participants again following the dip in numbers after Lockdown. The first topic was around the Stop Oil protests who had caused disruption to the M25 recently. The question was around protest and breaking the law. The proposer of the question said there were two main responses: those who were sympathetic or empathetic to the cause (and one assumes the protest) contrasted with those who didn’t who thought they were pathetic people and ‘snowflakes’.

    The discussion started off with a debate about climate change itself and the statement that ‘feelings are not facts’. Gas was essential, it was claimed, for the production of fertilizer, the lack of which would result in the deaths of millions for want of food.

    We returned to the issue at hand and the fact that if we feel those in power are not listening then we are entitled to take action. However, it was argued, we have to accept the penalty for any civil disobedience involved. In response to the charge about ‘feelings not being facts’, we operate on an emotional level as well as factual and that this was a legitimate part of our response.

    Civil disobedience was the cornerstone of our democracy. The series of bills the government was currently pushing through parliament for example the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill, represented it was claimed an attempt by government to curtail such protest. The act when it becomes law will mean lawyers and teachers for example, taking part in demonstrations, risked losing their jobs should they be arrested. One person thought that we were slowly moving towards a totalitarian state especially when the new Justice and Courts act has made challenging government decisions a lot more difficult. There were many restrictions in place around Westminster which further prevented the show of dissent.

    The point was made that the media are particularly bad at reporting peaceful protests. It was also pointed out that whereas there was considerable coverage of the highly visible M25 protests, the daily ‘under the radar’ lobbying by corporations which takes place in parliament – but which was extremely effective in securing for them advantageous treatment of one kind or another – was seldom reported. Another example of peaceful protest was a visit to the local MP by a group of local Amnesty members to raise concerns about the collection of bills which will have the effect of curtailing or inhibiting protests. It was doubtful if this had much of an effect. The role of the media was stressed because only if they were concerned did the public become aware of the problem.

    It was noted that the suffragists formed in the 1866 with the specific aim of campaigning for votes for women peacefully or ‘respectfully’ as they expressed it. Their campaigns yielded nothing and in 1903, the suffragettes were formed who campaigned, sometimes violently, to get them and this was agreed in 1928.

    Back to global warming and it was claimed that people concerned about this were not able to come up with the relevant facts. To claim that ‘scientists say’ was not convincing since many of them depended on commercial funding of one kind or another which called into question their impartiality. It was also pointed out that it will be the poorest in the world who will pay the price not the affluent West. Claims of climate disaster of one kind or another have been made for many years it was said but they seldom happened. An example was that Manhattan would be under water by the year 2000.

    The role of economic ideology was suggested as a reason for a reluctance to act on things like climate reforms. The prevailing ideology was neoliberal, and protests were seen as a cost to doing business and thus damaged the economy. It was claimed that our local MP, Mr John Glen, as a treasury minister, was dictated to by commercial interests. It was pointed out however that he was the MP for all his constituents.

    Finally, the ‘straw man’ argument was noted namely, M25 protests preventing ambulances getting through. This was often claimed but protesters specifically allowed emergency vehicles to pass.

    These highly visible protests raise great passions and many are angry at the disruption caused to daily life. People wanted protests to be other than disruptive. The problem was that they then became invisible and the media would take no notice. Since government was in hoc to business and commercial interests and lobbyists, was this the only way to make the voice of protest heard? Demonstrations were not welcome by the current government hence the slew of legislation designed to outlaw any form of protest seen as a nuisance or an inconvenience.

    Our second topic was whether the idealism of post war in connection with the NHS and education been overtaken by capitalist thinking? Education for many decades after the war was free but in recent years it has been replaced by fees certainly at the university level. Free education for adults has gone. Chunks of the NHS are being privatised. It was claimed that these services were being ‘contaminated’ by the profit motive.

    Why do we have education (for the masses) at all it was asked? The answer, it was claimed, was because the industrial and commercial world needed people for its workforce. This was part of the answer it was true although the push for better education came sometime after the height of the industrial revolution. Increased concerns about superior education – particularly technical – in Germany and USA was also of concern to governments of the day. Another factor was the after-effects of the Great War and the depression. There was a wave of social welfare reforms after WWII with the creation of the health service following the Beveridge Report and the 1944 Butler Act (Education). While it was true there was a fear of civil disturbance by government, there was a number of research and other reports published concerned with how people could lead better lives and fulfil their potential. It did seem that there was a degree of idealism in those post war years.

    The debate moved on following a challenge that the premise of the question implied that capitalism was a bad word. The problem was not that capitalism was bad per se but that it was focused on the profit motive. Money dictates what happens someone said. The problems arose if profit became the sole driving force. There was the neoliberalism belief that the private sector was superior to the public and this has led, in education, to the academy movement. It was the profit motive which made them superior it was claimed. The proposition was difficult to test however since few statistics or analyses were available. Academies did not have to follow the national curriculum so comparison was difficult. Nor did academies have to employ qualified teachers.

    Britain’s education system was once admired around the world which was not the case today. Finland was mentioned as having an excellent and much-admired system. There were no private schools there and all teachers were highly qualified.

    The problems of capitalism was highlighted by the privatisation of the water companies. Little investment had taken place and instead high dividends had been paid out. Rivers had become polluted by sewage discharges and vast quantities were poured into the sea. But, many of those self-same dividends went to pension funds etc so we all profited to an extent. Unfortunately, the activities of a few rogue enterprises tainted the whole sector – not all firms behaved like the water companies. There was a spectrum of companies from the ‘toxic’ to the ordinary firms.

    It did seem to be agreed that something had been lost. The idealism of the post war years has been replaced by a focus on private firms and commercial interests whose pursuit of profit was not always for the benefit of the citizen. There was, in a sense, a link to the first debate and the influence corporations have in the parliamentary process. Private firms had been able to influence policy across a range of areas. People were becoming more and more concerned at the lack of progress on climate change and there was also considerable disquiet at the state the NHS was now in. Was the introduction of laws to inhibit and criminalise protest because government was beginning to realise that corporate led policies were no longer working nor popular? A debate for another time perhaps.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books of interest relevant to the discussion:

    Taking Rights Seriously, Ronald Dworkin, 1997, Bloomsbury

    23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang, 2011, Penguin

    NOTE 1. One of the proposed questions we did not debate was the claim that Pfizer did not test its Covid vaccine before release. This was apparently based on a European Commission hearing on 11 October involving the firm. The claim is misleading it appears and readers may like to read this report by Full Fact which explains the context.

    NOTE 2. We may be changing venue in the future but our next meeting on 10 December will be in Brown Street at 10:00 as usual. Details in due course.

  • EcoHub project

    Progress with the EcoHub project and news of a gig in Brown Street

    Since Salisbury Democracy Alliance and RSA Fellows co-hosted the meeting in May which was the origin of the Salisbury EcoHub project, we are circulatting the newsletter (below) and notification of our benefit gig at Brown Street on Oct 22nd with the legendary campaigning band Seize the Day (attached).

    The EcoHub project is approaching a key phase in its development, whether to incorporate ourselves as a charity (an Incorporated Charitable Organisation or ICO) or in some other form, which will then enable us to start the search for suitable premises in which to realise our aim of setting up an environment centre in Salisbury. This will provide a place where the people of Salisbury can go for information on climate change and the other threats to our ecological survival, and on practical questions such as “how can I reduce energy bills, or put solar panels on my roof, or where can I go to recycle X or Y?”. Crucially, it will also provide a hub and shared facility linking together the many voluntary groups in Salisbury (including SDA) who are each active in their own various ways in confronting the crises which confront us in the present climate and ecological emergencies.

    We would greatly welcome both SDA itself and as many of its members as possible signing up as potential members of Salisbury EcoHub Alliance as it moves towards becoming an incorporated body to fulfil our aims.

    Salisbury EcoHub Alliance – Newsletter #1

    How was the EcoHub born?

    The population of Salisbury and its surrounding area includes a large number of people who are concerned about climate change and other environmental issues. Many are active in one or more voluntary groups or organisations addressing these matters.

    In May 2022 an open meeting was held under the auspices of Salisbury Democracy Alliance and Salisbury RSA Fellows Network to explore ways forward in collectively tackling these issues in general and the current climate emergency in particular.

    By far the most popular proposal arising from that meeting was to set up a shared premises in Salisbury where members and supporters of these various groups could meet and interact with each other and the general public. Thus the Salisbury EcoHub project was born. This first meeting set up a volunteer working group to produce a Mission Statement for the project, which was finalised at a meeting the following month.

    The project received backing from Salisbury City Council in the form of an offer of a free stall pitch in Salisbury Market to promote the EcoHub and this was incorporated in the Mission Statement, which is attached.

    What have we achieved so far?

    Since these initial meetings, a core group has continued to meet on a weekly basis and to correspond by email. Our first market stall took place on 3rd September and stalls are continuing on a weekly basis, between 9-12 every Saturday (but not tomorrow!). Please visit the stall, or volunteer to help out if you can.

    A general leaflet was produced for use on the stall, and an initial internet presence set up under the wing of the Salisbury Transition City website.

    A benefit gig featuring the legendary campaigning band Seize the Day will take place on Saturday 22nd October at 29 Brown Street: tickets can be booked online here. The flyer is attached – we hope you will publicise it on social media to help make the gig a great success. Printed copies of the flyer can also be picked up from our market stall.

    What are the next steps?

    We have been actively researching suitable formal organisational structures, including that of an Incorporated Charitable Organisation (ICO) using a Charities Commission model constitution. We have set up consultative meetings with established Environment Centres:

    Sarah Mai from Shrewsbury Environment Centre joined our weekly meeting at The Pheasant, Salt Lane

    Swansea Environment Centre organisers joined us by Zoom on Thursday 6 October at 6pm link here

    You are welcome to attend these meetings: please email us on salisburyecohub@gmail.com if you need further details.

    Following this consultation, we expect to reach a conclusion on the best structure to adopt, and to hold a formal general meeting to adopt a constitution and appoint officers (trustees or directors).

    As we become a more formal organisation we will need to develop a membership base. If you would like to become a member, either as an individual or on behalf of your organisation or business, please fill in the form below. This will enable you to vote at formal meetings and help ensure that our organisation is run on an open and democratic basis and can grow into a legal entity that can apply for grants and rent or lease premises. You can find further information on our website at www.transitionsalisbury.org/ecohub, and we will keep you in touch with our progress by email.

    No cost, no obligation. As we are still an embryonic organisation, there is at present no membership fee, and all are welcome to participate. However, we do welcome small voluntary donations to help cover ongoing expenses, and any pledges of additional financial support once the project progresses further. You may withdraw from membership at any time if you choose to do so.


    Membership form

    (Please return this form by copying and pasting it into an email to salisburyecohub@gmail.com)


    I wish to become a member of the Salisbury EcoHub Alliance when it adopts a formal structure, and to be consulted in that process. Please keep me informed of progress

    I hereby give permission for Salisbury EcoHub Alliance to hold my personal data for that purpose.
    Note: whatever formal structure is adopted will be such as protects members (whether individuals or group representatives) from personal liability.

    Name (individual) ………………………………………………

    email …………………………………………………

    Members may join as an individual or as a representative of a group or organisation. If joining on behalf of an organisation, please also complete the following questions.

    Name of group or organisation ……………………………………………………………………………….

    If joining on behalf of a group or organisation, has it formally authorised this? Yes/No
    Is your group happy to be listed as a member of Salisbury EcoHub Alliance? Yes / No
    Can we include a link to your group’s website on the EcoHub website? Yes /No

    Group website link …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..


    Might your group be interested in showcasing itself on our market stall?     Yes/No/ Perhaps

    Seizetheday print (1)Download

  • Future meetings

    We must apologise to those of you who have sent messages and have not received an answer. The menu field used to have a red spot to alert us to a message but for reasons unknown, it has stopped so we were not aware of people writing in. Apologies.

    Nearly all were asking ‘were we meeting’ and the answer is ‘yes’ and we are doing so at 29 Brown St in Salisbury. The Democracy Café meets at 10:00 on the second Saturday of the month so the next meeting is on June 11th. If things change then we will post something here as quickly as we can. With summer coming (brilliant sunshine as I type this) we are meeting outside but we can repair inside if it become inclement.

    This Saturday 21st May we are holding our first Talkshop event so you need to register quickly if you want to come. Details in a previous post.

  • 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

  • Citizens’ Jury: progress

    One of the projects the Alliance is keen to progress is to hold a Citizens’ Jury in Salisbury. The idea is to assemble a randomly chosen group of people to discuss a particular problem or topic in some depth. Advised by experts in the topic, the group comes together over several weekends and aims to come to some kind of conclusion. The idea is particularly useful with those knotty and difficult issues which can divide communities sometimes for many years. Salisbury has several of those for example, traffic, pedestrianisation and how the city should adapt to climate change. Views can become entrenched and often detached from any rational examination of the evidence.

    At a meeting of the core group today, we heard of the progress being made. Several political parties have CJs in their manifesto. A meeting was held with Kendal Town Council who held a jury on the topic of climate. Kendal is relevant because they are a parish council like Salisbury.

    We discussed the prospects for funding through the Area Board. We also considered how we could secure a majority of councillors keen to support the idea. On that front, progress is being made although there are some councillors who are not in favour. In view of recent voting results, there may be more of a groundswell of support by people who feel their views were being ignored and this in turn may be reflected in some politician’s attitudes.

    Further meetings are due to be held to see if the idea can be progressed into an actual project. For now, we can say there is cautious optimism that we may be successful in securing agreement and funding for a jury to be held.

    PC

  • 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]