Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Conservatives

  • Democracy Café: July

    July 2023

    A full house at the July 2023 Democracy Café to discuss two topics, both of which are at the top of people’s minds at present: the state of the two party system and immigration.

    The first topic was around the question How do we get out of the two party system? One of the first comments to be made was that we had an adversarial system exemplified by the knockabout prime minsters questions once a week. Surely it would be better if efforts were directed at how to improve matters (the economy and social concerns for example) rather than spend time on this political theatre.

    Some pointed to other countries which had coalitions which of course we had at the beginning of the last decade. Several of the problems the country has faced recently had a cross party feel to them eg, Northern Ireland, Covid and even Brexit. This indicated that problems were in fact bigger than the parties. It was suggested that with coalitions, minority parties assumed disproportionate power. Some disagreed with this assertion saying they thought it was something of a myth. It probably does depend on the numbers.

    The argument was forcibly put for a written constitution. This led on to the need to separate the government from the House of Commons. The present system meant the governing party and the HoC were almost one thus neutralising the Commons and MPs. The result was it almost became a dictatorship (the elective dictatorship we have discussed previously). The sole purpose of the HoC it was argued was to pass legislation and agree the budget.

    The role of MPs in relation to their constituents was mentioned. Those who contacted their local MP – who in the case of Salisbury was a member of government – were met with the response that he could do nothing because he was barred by collective responsibility. Or they got a anodyne response that was simply the party line.

    With emails and organisations urging the public to ‘get in touch with their MP’, can he or she cope with the volume of material? Was it worthwhile doing so? ‘Yes’ was the response and it can work.

    A dissenting voice was the problem with coalitions was that they tended to be slow. The first past the post system (FPTP) did give rise to strong government it was suggested. There was a tension between authoritarianism and democracy and the tendency of governments is towards the former came up several times.

    The prevailing mood of the discussion so far was the feeling that the ordinary voter was overlooked in the system we have. How could voters voices be heard? What mattered in the process was the swing voter who were critical in some constituencies. As if to counter this pessimistic view the role of protest groups in changing the political climate was noted. The example given was the suffragettes which was true to an extent although the suffragists laboured for four decades without success and it took further two decades for the suffragettes to get votes for women.

    The debate was predicated on the notion of two parties being distinct and with little opportunity for other parties to make headway. However, quite how different were the two parties? If the Conservatives were truly a right wing party then government expenditure would be cut and no doubt other typically right wing polices would be enacted. It was in fact difficult sometimes to see them apart. Indeed, a problem for the Labour party was their policy ideas being taken from them by the government, the windfall tax a recent example.

    Which other countries have FPTP it was asked? Belarus was the answer, hardly an ideal exemplar and which seemed to sum things up quite well. We should not get carried away by claims about the authoritarian nature of the government – we do still have fundamental freedoms. The very fact we were able to meet and have a perfectly free debate would not be possible in other truly authoritarian states.

    People fundamentally wanted to see good decision making. The calibre of those going into parliament – and perhaps more to the point – high calibre people not going into parliament, was depressing. It was still difficult for women to make headway particularly in view of the large number of abuse cases (‘pestminster’) currently being investigated. The culture within politics was discouraging it was suggested.

    How to get change? We do get the politics and politicians we deserve to an extent which pointed to making sure people were educated about the system. This included schools but it seems that civics classes are no more. Whether outside people should go into schools was queried – surely they would import bias? The purpose of such talks was about the system of government, not party policies. Groups like ourselves debating these issues was part of the mix it was noted.

    Conclusions? One thought was that many problems came down to one of two solutions which pointed to two political parties. Historically, the Conservatives represented the owners of capital and Labour the wage earners (somewhat oversimplified) which again suggested a two party system. We were depressed by the quality of the people who represent us but, it is we who vote them in. Would a better educated electorate make a difference? Perhaps. Change was possible however and campaign groups can effect change. The FPTP system has hindered change as we have noted before – UKIP with its 3 million votes but had only one MP.

    The second debate was should we welcome migrants or not? A question of considerable political salience at present. The first problem was defining terms – was it refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants we were talking about? The question was left hanging.

    Migration of one kind of another had been with us since the dawn of time, we originated in Africa after all. Many of those in the room will have some foreign blood. The problem today it was claimed was coloured migrants – we seemed to be reasonably unconcerned about people coming here from America, Canada, Australia and so on, but those stepping off the boats caused fury.

    One curiosity was people expressing great pride with their sons or daughters going to foreign climes and doing well there. But people coming here are regarded with hostility by many. What exactly is the difference? We are proud of our emigrants but hostile to other’s immigrants. A question left unanswered was ‘what criteria should we apply to judge if someone was to be made welcome here?’

    Those who had spent time in the USA said the system was a little different and it was important to gain accreditation i.e. the green card. In the UK it was less clear cut.

    Many people leaving their homes were doing so not because they wanted to but because of war, persecution, climate problems and similar factors. If we were so angered by a proportion of them ending up on our shores – literally in the case of the Channel crossings – then we should do more to improve matters where they live. Yet the government has cut foreign aid. In a similar vein, many were fleeing areas like the middle east – places like Syria and Iraq – where western policies, especially those of the UK and France after WWI, were the root cause of problems today.

    The situation in the health service was noted. The service depended on a vast number of overseas staff many of whom left because of feeling unwelcome during the Referendum and latterly, we were losing significant numbers of clinical staff to Australia, Canada and elsewhere.

    The attitude of Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel, drew almost universal disdain. They were descendants of immigrants welcomed here yet were now vociferously campaigning against those coming after them.

    A view was expressed that immigrants were a cost to the taxpayer. It was pointed out however that if they were allowed to work, they would contribute to the economy and pay tax. So far from being a burden they would be a benefit. There was need of a culture change and to see such people in a more positive light. This might change attitudes. The contrast with Sicily was noted where people buying and doing up properties were welcomed as they were a boost to the local economy.

    We are an island with a very clear border namely the sea. There are countries where borders have shifted considerably especially in eastern Europe for example Poland and Romania. Yet there were still hatreds and enmities suggesting that the problem was connected with culture, ethnicity or language. It was not just an issue of borders and nationality.

    One of the aspects of the political scene was how politicians tried to take the high moral ground: it wasn’t prejudice or animosity towards immigrants they claimed, it was instead a war against the people smugglers. It was a pity more did not recognise this attempted sleight of hand. The smugglers were capitalising on a problem that existed, not creating it.

    Someone had seen a minister claim on TV that we needed immigrants to keep wages down and hence solve inflation.

    On the subject of Rwanda, the country had been used by Israel with the same purpose in mind. They had abandoned it because it just seemed to increase the incidence of smuggling. All those sent there left immediately and attempted to return to Europe.

    To encourage or deter – two opposite policies which mimicked the two party system – which is where we sort of came in …

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on 12 August at 10:00 am and in Salisbury Library

  • Democracy Café, March

    March 2023

    This was the first meeting in our new home at the Library. It turned out to be a good location with no distracting noise and of course it is central.

    The first topic was almost a forgone conclusion: namely, Gary Lineker who was the subject of a major row. Gary is the presenter of the BBC’s Match of the Day and following the announcement of the latest bill by the government to deter refugees travelling by boat across the Channel, declaring them automatically illegal, had tweeted “An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” This had prompted his suspension from the programme and as the other presenters decided not to appear meaning the programme would have to be aired without a presenter at all.

    A large number of points were made in what turned out to be an interesting debate. The first point was that he was freelance and not a BBC employee. As a sports presenter, he should be free to express his political views as a matter of free speech. If he had tweeted his support for the government’s proposals, what someone wondered, would have been the reaction?

    The view was expressed that celebrities from other realms of work should not be allowed to express their political views (this did not receive much support).

    The BBC’s view was even though he isn’t a political commentator, he has an enormous following and is thus influential.

    An important point was made that this whole row had acted as a distraction to the real issue namely the immigration and asylum system itself and the failure of government policy to tackle this issue adequately. Was the bill merely theatre someone wondered? The government knew it wouldn’t work it was suggested but just wanted to show that they were trying to do something knowing it had little chance of becoming law. Someone who had met the local Conservative MP in the past few days reported he did not think his party to be in power after the election which might support this view. Greg Dyke, former DG of the BBC, was quoted as saying in an interview that he thought the BBC was mistaken as it gave the perception they had bowed to government pressure.

    A feature of the debate – and a key element of Lineker’s tweet – was the issue of free speech. It was noted that Lineker did not use the word ‘Nazi’ that some commentators and politicians had accused him of. Was the range of recent bills inhibiting protest and limiting access to judicial review, together with attacks on the BBC in general and Lineker in particular, signs of growing authoritarianism a la Germany in the ’30s? Was the reported decision, also by the BBC, not to broadcast the final episode of the forthcoming Attenborough series because of a fear of a right-wing backlash, a further example of a creeping curtailment of free speech?

    It was noted that over the past few weeks, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and Lee Anderson, all currently serving as Conservative MPs, had been given their own shows on GB News. They will be free to air their views every week yet there has not been an outcry about their appointments or conflicts of interest. We were also reminded of the scandal surrounding the appointment of Richard Sharp as chair of the BBC following his substantial contribution to the Conservative party and his failure to declare to the selection board his role in securing a major loan for Boris Johnson, prime minister at the time, who subsequently appointed him.

    The debate moved on to the issue of impartiality and was true impartiality ever possible anyway? There is a legal case at present where the views of Fox News presenters appeared to different from those aired during the Trump era. This aspect of the debate arose around the question of ‘balance’ which sat alongside ‘impartiality’ at the core of the problem. Climate was an example where the BBC balanced reporting of climate change by inviting speakers who did not accept global warming to debate with scientists who did. This resulted in a false balance since the ‘deniers’ had little science to support their views. After a prolonged outcry, this no longer happens. On the other hand, employees of local government, government departments and agencies are not allowed to engage in political activity or air their views on these matters in public.

    Linked to this was the failure by broadcasters to ask who was funding some of the people they interviewed. Some contributors were funded by fossil fuel interests which was not declared to the listening or viewing public.

    Hard to sum up but there was a feeling that it was important for commentators to be free to air their views. There was a simmering sense that with the foreign ownership of our media and with hostility towards the BBC (and we might have added Channel 4) we were at risk of losing key elements of free speech and a slow drift towards a one party state was not impossible. The first thing the BBC should do someone suggested is not follow what the government says.

    In the second half we attempted to tackle the question who runs Britain? You cannot say we lack ambition.

    The first theory out of the blocks was it was all rooted in money. The City and other interests were focused on this aspect. It was money which gave you power someone said. Second was the influence of public schools and their desire to maintain their influence in society and, it was claimed ‘to keep at all costs, the socialists out [of power]’. They devoted great efforts to maintain their role in society.

    The media was mentioned on the basis of ‘who controls the media controls the message’. Whether that is so true today with such a diversity of platforms is to be questioned. We were then introduced to the Beckhard and Gleicher’s change formula – which is probably the first time a formula has been introduced into our proceedings – and that is (D x V) + FS > C where D is dissatisfaction, V is vision and FS, first steps. Latterly, the C component has been replaced by R representing resistance to change. If the first set of factors is greater than the second, change might happen. To note is that if any of the left hand terms are zero, there will be no change.

    Corporations were another source of power and the multi-national ones in particular. Not all were venal it was pointed out and some did want to improve the lot of their fellow man.

    China was mentioned and the role of Deng Xiaoping who, following the death of Mao, told the Chinese to ‘go out and make money’. This led a discussion of the seemingly impregnable one party states like former East Germany and Romania which, despite having formidable security apparatuses, collapsed quickly following modest protests. Would China be like that despite their highly sophisticated surveillance system? Their swift change of course on Covid lockdown in the face of protest was noted. However, the failure of the Arab spring demonstrated that not all protests and uprisings led to happy results – look at Egypt.

    One of the paradoxes of politics today in relation to who runs the country, was the fundamental belief of the current government in less government following the neoliberal agenda. They believed in freedom and the ebb and flow of markets to decide matters, not government interventions. Well that was the theory.

    Two debates which circled freedom of speech and good government. The first focused on a specific incident and a tweet by Gary Lineker, the second on the more general issue of where the power lies in our country. The support Lineker received, while we were debating this issue, and resulting in the disruption of the BBC’s sports coverage, perhaps demonstrated that power can often be illusory and hard to control.

    Peter Curbishley

    Book mentioned: Another Now, Yanis Varoufakis, 2020, Vintage

    Of relevance:

    Who Governs Britain? Anthony King, 2015, Pelican

    Posh Boys: how the English public schools run Britain, Robert Verkaik, 2018, One World

  • Selecting the new prime minister

    Is the current system fit for purpose?

    To which, many would answer ‘no’. The prime minister is the prime minister for the whole country. Although he or she is the leader of the party able to form a government, they are running the country as a whole for the benefit of the all the people. Yet the selection process starts with only Conservative MPs making the choice.

    I am sure we can all be confident that the MPs are doing that on the disinterested basis of who might be the best candidate to carry out that extremely important role. There may be some however, just some, who are voting for the candidate who has promised them preferment in some form: maybe even that treasured cabinet post with its car and chauffeur. That is a choice based on personal ambition not on who might be best for the country.

    Next comes the vote of the Conservative membership. A self-selected group of trusty souls who live mostly in the south or home counties: around 200,000 of them it seems (since membership of the party has dropped dramatically over the years). How many will have experienced the effects of policies carried out by their party? They read about them in the papers and see interviews with various folk but direct experience? Limited.

    And how about the selection process itself with the candidate interviews on television? A great deal of the first session on Channel 4 was taken up with trust issues. A rather pointless exercise in my view which seemed to lead nowhere. Then there were the spats about tax reductions or no tax reductions. Setting aside the nonsense as I have argued elsewhere, that it is a myth that we are automatically better off with lower taxes if services are reduced or are non-existent: the arguments themselves were no more than cursory. It was almost pantomimic ‘oh yes you can!’ ‘oh no you can’t!’ they cried – all that was missing was someone to cry out ‘look behind you’. Only Sunak stood out reasonably well as someone who seemed to know what was actually possible.

    In the week when temperature records were broken – and not by just a fraction of a degree – it was chilling to listen to their desire to carry on with fossil fuels.

    So we will have just Conservative MPs selecting the two candidates, from an altogether lacklustre field, who will go forward to the final vote of a tiny and extremely unrepresentative part of the kingdom.

    And, a factor that does not seem to have occurred yet to the commentariat, is the continuing presence of Johnson. Like a wounded beast, raging but not yet dead, he will be a continuing presence on the backbenches. As a narcissist, he does not, and will not, have any grasp or acceptance of his role in what is to come. As the new PM struggles with the mounting and quite frightening crises which lie ahead, he will be there to jeer and be a focus of discontent. ‘What have you done?’ cries the Mail. Others, such as supporters sent to the backbenches with him will say the same before too long. Neither Sunak, with his history of curious tax arrangements, who will have a great deal of difficulty showing that he has any kind of understanding of how ordinary people live, nor Truss who will quite simply be out of her depth and I think, is a bit delusional, will be able to rise to the challenges. They will also have a great deal of difficulty in distancing themselves from the policies which have led us here and which they so vociferously supported all these past years.

    Locally, John Glen MP is supporting Rishi Sunak and he is another one who has relentlessly supported government policies and paraded that support week in and week out in the Salisbury Journal, who must now try and pirouette to a completely new position. What were they debating on Channel 4? Ah yes – trust, that was it.

    Altogether, it is simply no way to run a country or to select its leader. Every element of the chain has serious weaknesses and shortcomings. In all the press and media excitement and breathless interviews, it is sometimes difficult to see the overall picture of a failed system guaranteed to produce a failed result. It is just not a way to select our new leader.

    Peter Curbishley

    CORRECTION: There are 160,000 Conservative members, not 200,000 as stated above. Apologies for the error. PC

    UPDATE: Liz Truss was appointed Prime Minister on 7 September 2022

    [A personal view not necessarily reflecting the wider membership of SDA]

  • Democracy Café: July

    Meeting of the Democracy Café, July 2022

    This meeting was held following the week in which Boris Johnson was forced to resign as prime minister of Great Britain and the start of the selection process for a new PM. The final straw was the revelations about Chris Pincher, the deputy chief whip, and when and how much the prime minister knew of his unwelcome groping of other men. Johnson was found to have lied about the matter and this prompted a series of resignations which rapidly grew to a flood resulting in his departure, although he was still in Downing Street as we speak, and he had formed a new cabinet. The uncertainty surrounding his departure led to the first question we debated: Do we need a written constitution? This is not the first time we have debated this.

    Peter Hennessy, a writer on the UK political scene, called our system the ‘good chaps’ model, a kind of echo of Victorian times when gentlemen ran things and there were rules – some unwritten – about they were to behave honourably. This point was made along with the point that one problem with a written constitution was that changing it was difficult. Ireland has such a constitution and they have been able to change it so perhaps it is possible. Mary Dejevsky, writing in the Independent, has argued recent events demonstrate that reliance on the gentlemanly way of running things was no longer tenable and that we needed a written constitution.

    The point was made however, that we did have a wide range of rules and procedures governing behaviour, including precedent, but if they were to be brought together who got to decide? If it was parliament then they are likely to do it to suit themselves.

    We were brought up short by the question: what is the purpose of a constitution, written or otherwise? Later in the debate the question, what problem does a written constitution solve? I suppose it is fair to say we circled these questions in our debate. We were reminded that we do have a constitution of sorts and that is Magna Carta. Later we had the Great Reform Act. The same speaker noted that Germany’s constitution was written by the Allies after the war. Chile was given as an example and the country, post Pinochet, is engaged in constitutional reform following a period of unrest. Consultations, rather like citizens’ assemblies, have taken place with a wide range of groups including minorities and native Americans. It is about to finish and to be voted on by the people.

    Other influences were discussed. These included the old favourite, the media, but also the judiciary and the role of a small group of public schools. If we do have a written constitution, who will police it? The Judges? Apart from the fact they are drawn from a very narrow section of society, who appoints them? They could rule on what was legal, but not necessarily the right thing which was more a matter of judgement. It was noted that Russia has a constitution but it has effectively been ignored by Putin. The media, as we have discussed on many times before, wield enormous power yet are run in the main by individuals who live abroad. It is they who inform the people so it is vital that this duty is carried out as fairly as possible and that the information they provide is as honest and balanced as possible. Are they doing that? Any system – written or otherwise – would require a well informed citizenry.

    On this point, it was said that it would be important that any such constitution was available for schools, by implication that it would be written in a plain fashion and jargon free. Someone with young children said they were looking at surveys on line which asked questions about their beliefs and ideas on various issues of the day. This then suggested a political party which most fitted those beliefs. Encouraging, and a shift away from just looking at personalities.

    Human rights should be at the heart of any constitution, a sensitive issue at present with the government bent on abolishing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights. This point was not really pursued.

    Finally, we got onto discussing the role of the monarch. After a discussion about King Charles who had argued he could not be tried for treason since he was the king (so could not commit treason against himself I think was the point), we got onto the role of the current Queen in the light of the events of this week. Some commentators had apparently opined that Her Majesty should not be ‘dragged into’ the row over Johnson’s will he/won’t he? shenanigans this week. What then was the point of the monarch? Why have one when it could be argued, there was a pressing need for some kind of final arbiter?

    In the second half we moved on to our second question which was the psychology of leadership. It turned out to be closely linked to the first debate. It started naturally enough, with the question of Johnson’s personality. People voted it was said, for politicians like Johnson, who had charisma: the word ‘machismo’ was mentioned. Keir Starmer’s problem was that people thought he lacked it.

    This led to a general discussion about personality. To sum up this point, people simply voted for people with a likeable personality. They were not turned on by ‘men in grey suits’ (interesting – we do not have a phrase ‘women in grey skirts’). It was also noted that Johnson was lucky in his opponents: Corbyn and Livingstone.

    There has also been a move towards TV debates which favoured those who were good at this kind of activity (products of Oxford University perhaps where they have a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons). But were they the right people to run things? A highly regarded prime minister was Clem Atlee for example would have been extremely unlikely to get anywhere near No: 10 in today’s climate of celebrity politicians yet was an extremely effective and highly regarded prime minister.

    At this point the idea of psychometric testing was introduced. This led onto a discussion of teams and the point that a good team has a variety of personality types. There are various models and tests surrounding this to establish an individuals best place in a team according to their personality.

    Various disasters in the armed services had led to a thorough appraisal of leadership and a variety of tests and training to determine leadership skills. Young recruits for example are given various tasks in a group to see how they perform and one of the centres is based in Westbury.

    Back to our parliamentary system and the difference is immediately obvious. An MP is selected, not on leadership skills or how they would perform in a team but on how they performed in front of a selection panel. That was often influenced by whether the candidate was seen to be ‘one of us’. Once in parliament they might be selected to become minister following, in some cases, a brief period of ‘training’ as a PPS. There was no training offered for this ministerial role and it is immediately apparent that many individuals are simply not up to the task. Indeed, many who were appointed did so on the basis of their loyalty to the leader not necessarily on their abilities or relevant experience. Since many MPs nowadays were career politicians and many never have had what might be referred to as a ‘real job’, there was precious little of that experience anyway. Is it any surprise then we get the results we do? It’s a wonder it’s not worse in fact. Why cannot the system sort out ‘flaky’ people someone ruefully asked?

    Will there be a reaction to the cult of personality following the departure of Johnson? There were many angry people on both sides of the political divide.

    We ended with a comment by the journalist Peter Oborne who, speaking at an event in Salisbury some years ago, was asked about Johnson and his reply was ‘he is not a team player’. Greg Dyke was quoted as saying he would ‘not allow [Johnson] to run my bath’.

    Two interesting discussions broadly about how our country is run. We have a hotchpotch of a system based on the concept of good chaps who do the right thing when appropriate. Recent events tested this to the limit so maybe we do need some kind of constitution. The people who run it are not selected on their management or team skills but on loyalty to the party and to its leader. There is precious little training in ‘how to be a minister’. Three dysfunctional bits add up to a dysfunctional whole.

    Peter Curbishley

    Readers might like to read the book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman (Atlantic Books, 2019) which gives an interesting and quite sympathetic picture of an MP’s life.

  • Democracy Café: May

    This meeting took place via Zoom the day after the results were known of the Hartlepool by-election and of some of the local election results as well. The Hartlepool election was a significant win for the Conservatives in what had been long regarded as a safe Labour seat. They won by a significant margin and with a big swing to the party. (We were reminded in the Sunday papers that the captain of HMS Amethyst in the ‘Yangtze Incident’ was the first to be MP when the constituency was formed).

    This prompted the winning topic of discussion: Why do people vote Tory? The government – and Boris Johnson personally – had for weeks been mired in a variety of sleaze allegations the most recent of which was the huge cost of redecorating the No 10 flat using money allegedly from a Conservative party donor. This had resulted in a number of enquiries being set up to establish the facts. Previously, there had been the Greensill lobbying saga involving the previous prime minister, David Cameron, and before that a series of allegations of contracts being given to friends, acquaintances or supporters of the party and its ministers, the so-called ‘chumocracy’. Despite this, and other shortcomings including one of the worst per capita Covid-19 death rates, the Conservatives romped home to a comfortable victory and made significant gains in the English local elections as well.

    One participant kicked off with a series of ideas about why this was the case. They thought:

    • politics was no longer about facts but a matter of style. There was a link to the game of ‘cavalier and roundheads‘
    • politics was more about show business and by inference, Boris Johnson was brilliant at this
    • there was a high degree of ignorance about how politics worked
    • the first past the post voting system made the system as a whole dysfunctional
    • politics was now the province of ‘mountebanks and snake oil salesmen‘

    To which someone added:

    • The election had to be seen in context, similar to war time, people opt for safety first. Later, it was suggested it was a kind of ‘Falkland’s moment’ not forgetting that until the time of that war, Mrs Thatcher was really struggling to make headway.
    • there was a high degree of pragmatism as the government had aimed to give them what they wanted eg the freeport with its promise of lots of jobs for the area. An interview in the town revealed that the vaccine success was a major factor (and could have mentioned that in a Brexit supporting town, the poor performance in the EU with their vaccination programme was also a factor).

    It was quickly pointed out that the Conservatives were not being that true to their core beliefs at present. They were a party of small government, low public spending, low regulation and the pre-eminence of the free market. The pandemic meant they were spending heavily, printing money and engaged in considerable government activity, the very opposite of the austerity years.

    It was also pointed out that voting Conservative was a ‘respectable’ thing to do. Some thought voting Conservative was risk averse and that once the pandemic had faded from view, the problems of Brexit will resurface. On the other hand, statements by various ministers that the sleaze stories had not made an impact (not ‘cut through’) with the public were described as shameful. Sleaze did not seem to matter because the public were not interested. Whatever happened to integrity?

    It was not long before Labour’s performance was brought up and Sir Keir Starmer was thought disappointing although it was pointed out he had been unable to campaign in person because of the pandemic. He is seen as dull. What Labour stood for was also very unclear.

    Back to Hartlepool and it was noted that the area had changed significantly over the years. It used to be a solid working class town whereas now it was trendy and gentrified with a social mix that had changed considerably. Had Labour recognised this change both here and elsewhere? The election had focused on the pandemic and Boris Johnson is seen as successful in having led a successful vaccination programme many believed. The easing of lockdown also brought a feelgood factor into play.

    The Conservatives will be emboldened by these election results. A worry was that a range of restrictive legislation will be quickly enacted. Restrictions on Judicial Review, the risk of being arrested and acquiring a criminal record for campaigning, and immunity for some wrongdoings by military personnel, together with harsher immigration and refugee regimes were all likely to proceed at pace. A voter ID system will further entrench their hold. It was pointed out that many of these policies are very popular among the public. Reductions in overseas aid for example received overwhelming support.

    Part of our discussion focused on the notion of a change from a ‘we society’ to a ‘me society’. People were less and less interested in collective solutions and more on what they could do for themselves. To an extent this struck at the heart of the Labour party project.

    Another factor was short-termism. Attention spans were short and by the time facts became known, we had all moved on. It makes changing policy week by week that much easier. Whatever happened to the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ for example which was a key policy less than a decade ago? An enquiry into what happened with Covid will not report until people have long forgotten what took place. An article by Vince Cable on this topic was recommended. It was a piece about short-termism and its relation to actions on climate change.

    Bearing in mind the strange times and the dominance of Covid and the vaccination programme, will a return to ‘normal’ politics see people changing their minds? Maybe, but it was noted that people are very slow to change their minds. Will concerns about Brexit begin to take over from the pandemic in a few months?

    I am not sure we ended up getting to the bottom of these events. The Conservatives have done well to sell themselves with snappy slogans such as ‘levelling up,’ ‘take back control’ and ‘Get Brexit done’ which have served them well. Thinking of a Labour or LibDem equivalent is hard. The successful vaccination programme and easing of lockdown has also served them well. Hartlepool was a keen Brexit town and Boris Johnson has delivered on that front. Labour’s choice of a pro-Remain candidate seemed ill-judged. But whether this will last is another matter. The Jersey fishing dispute – which happened a day or two before the election – is perhaps a taste of what is to come.

    A recommended website which was mentioned in discussions is: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ Another site with Covid facts is https://covidfaq.co

    Peter Curbishley

  • Virtual Democracy Café

    About ten of us met for a Democracy Café meeting on Saturday 8 August via Zoom. I say ‘about’ because one member had a lot of buffering and did not make the second half and one came for the second half only. We are at least keeping the flag flying.

    The proposed topics were all sort of related: the increase in apparent cronyism with contracts going to friends of friends without announcement or tender (wouldn’t be so bad if the projects worked but they don’t even do that); is Black Lives Matter a distraction? and the Tory party’s view of community.

    The week had started with the announcement of a proposed wholesale reform of the planning system by ‘honest Bob’ Jenrick the minister concerned. The ideas is to introduce three zones which would allocate land for various types of development and would give developers a fast track to development (it is claimed). Trevor (who lives in Devizes) said he was hoping to meet his local MP, Danny Kruger, to discuss the issue of community led planning. The Conservatives were said to be keen on the idea although the question was, will they resource it? It does not always seem to be recognised that running and managing ‘community’ events costs money. It will be interesting to hear what Kruger says. The government were once keen on the idea of citizens’ juries but dropped them because many of the proposals emerged from Labour run authorities.

    Local Governance

    It was noted that the government has an almost visceral dislike of local government which has been evident during the pandemic. They are happy to give funds to the likes of Serco rather than support existing LA health teams run down during austerity. Why government is giving out these contracts is being challenged by the Good Law Project. But, it was pointed out, the government had put more into local government recently. Maybe this could herald a change in attitude? We were reminded of the Lansley reforms of the NHS which caused such immense harm and drastically reduced local input.

    Covid-19 had seen a rise in volunteering, community involvement and the activity of local groups and charities. Since local government was not functioning as it should, could the use of community groups be a better way to run things in future? Burke’s idea of ‘little platoons’ had been taken over however by the rise in extreme libertarianism.

    A problem with local involvement it was pointed out was that people often choose what were termed ‘cuddly’ projects to contibute or give money to. Effort and resources may not go to areas of real need if this process was pushed too far. Encouraging people to think strategically was also difficult it was noted. This could be alleviated with proper guidance such as with a citizens’ jury process.

    Linked to this was the issue of ‘infantilising’ of the general public by government ministers. They were aided in this by the echo chamber of social media. It would seem the prime minister and his aids were quite happy to promote this process. Local government was in a pretty poor state and the government should have done more to reverse this: that it hadn’t reflected perhaps its dislike of them and a desire for control.

    Science

    This part of the debate was around influence, the media and social media. I had been listening to the BBC’s How They Made us Doubt Everything (still available) which discussed how the tobacco and oil companies had systematically developed systems and methods to sow doubt on the science. For example, scientists always refer to the ‘uncertainty’ of their results and this was misused to claim that the science as a whole is uncertain. As we have discussed before, the need for balance in TV and Radio reporting meant climate deniers had equal say, leaving the impression that the science was less certain than it is. These arguments are also set out in the book Merchants of Doubt.

    One person said about their son who disbelieved ‘the media’ ie the BBC, newspapers and so on, and preferred to believe what they read on social media. The latter were promoting – or rather allowing the promotion of – anti vaccination for example. Media organisations filter out extremes or wholly unsupported assertions whereas anything can get published on social media which made it attractive to some. It gave them the sense they were getting at the truth which mainstream media was denying them access to. It did give people the opportunity to challenge received opinion.

    Paradoxically, it was noted that the government always said it was ‘following the science’ when it made an announcement. But whose science since the alternative Sage group and WHO often said different things? Maybe it was part of its desire to shift blame with the implied assumption that science is always right.

    We ended with a brief discussion about the future and whether Salisbury Democracy Alliance should have something to say in the local elections. Not to be a party seeking votes but to promote ideas of better government and decisions by using citizens’ juries for example. The meeting took place after the ‘will it, won’t it’ debate about pedestrianisation in Salisbury. [Indeed, one of our participants, Mark, had a letter printed in the Salisbury Journal on this subject (6 August 2020)]. An announcement made, then backtracked and little sign of serious research or consultation. Snafu* as the Americans would say. It was in the long term interests of democracy that better decisions were made. Thus we ended on a positive note.

    Peter Curbishley

    *situation normal all fouled up, although sometimes ‘fouled’ is replaced with something stronger

  • Will our politics change?

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

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

    The drivers of change

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

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

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

    Will it happen?

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

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

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

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

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

    Why have we come to this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley