The next DC takes place this Saturday 10 January starting at 10 am in the Library. Free to come but a contribution to our funds would be welcome. Finishes at noon and you can see reports of previous cafes on this site.
Lots to talk about but you do not have to have your own topic.
June 2025
UPDATE: there is an interview with Mark Potts on That’s TV and the link is here (6 June)
The third of the assemblies was held on Sunday 1st and 42 took part to discuss the suggestions put forward by the previous two. There was earnest debate on all the tables and there were some who were passionate about their topic or what was important to them. We ended up with our top five and these will go forward to contribute to the national debate. We hope some of those who volunteered to go to London will be able to do so to carry the message forward.
It occurred to me as the afternoon wore on listening to the debates on each of the tables, that where else is there for this kind of debate? Our election process – national or local – will consist of the parties telling you of their plans for the country or the area. You don’t get to debate them unless you are a member of one of the parties and even then, policy is often imposed from on high. If you go to a hustings, as I did last year, the candidates have their say and one or two from the audience get to ask a question, but there is no debate in any meaningful sense of the term. It’s all very ‘top down’ with non party members – the vast majority – being passive recipients of the supposed wisdom of our political masters.
Yet in the three assemblies, there were six hours of vigorous debate by a wide range of people. A few came more than once but the majority were first timers. Things didn’t quite go to plan as the last event was meant to be a game of two halves: each group to select their top five and then in the second half, to decide on the final five having heard what the other’s thought. Well, we more or less decided on the top five after the first session so the debate switched to suggesting which one or two topics were the most important.
What are the top five you are eager to discover:
1. Housing
Provide more good quality and low energy consuming homes, which are genuinely affordable and some of which will be in public ownership. Ensure that developers provide such homes, fully meeting their planning obligations and including the provision of appropriate and agreed infra-structure. [this is a combination of the various individual suggestions into one piece of text].
2. Transport
Produce and implement a traffic plan for the city with youth advocacy, that includes low emission zones, car free zones, people friendly routes, promotes active travel, considers 15-minute communities and free or cheap bus travel, especially for under 21s.
3. A Community Hub
Create a community hub for young people and families including 3G sports pitches and activities including life skills.
4. An Environmental Centre
Create an environmental centre which provides Salisbury’s residents with information on sustainable homes, travel and living. A permanent, free home will allow Ecohub to provide a better information and advice service to local residents.
Residents and the environment would benefit from this service as sustainable homes and transport save money while reducing greenhouse gases.
5. A College for Performing Arts in Salisbury.
One of the topics which arose in several debates and in discussions afterwards, was the matter of where the power lies and who is in a position to deliver on any of these. If we take housing for example, why do we not have more affordable homes? Why are new houses going up around Salisbury and elsewhere, the majority of which do not have solar panels and are not built to zero emission standards? Why are we building on flood plains? Why are developers able to promise affordable homes at the planning application stage then amazingly, discover that once on site they cannot afford to actually provide them? These were all things discussed during our three sessions. It is likely that most involved at the local level – officers and councillors – are well aware of these problems yet are largely powerless to do anything about them. It’s about where power lies.
The government has decided that we need houses – lots of them. They have also stated that one of the major problems is the planning system (full disclosure: I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, now retired). Reform the system they claim and Hey Presto! masses of houses will appear to solve the problem. There are one or two snags though. Firstly, the developers already have 2 or more years of land with planning permissions in the bag but are not building on them. Some people have alleged it is because land is an appreciating asset so it can sit on the balance sheet steadily getting more valuable. It is also alleged that the big builders decide among themselves where to build so as not to depress prices by all building in the same vicinity. To build houses you need services: boring things like drains, a supply of fresh water, electricity, roads and somewhere to send the err, foul water. If local planning committees point some of these issues out, and maybe turn down the application for this or other reasons, the developer can appeal knowing they will get a favourable hearing. The Minister might also call it in and decide for himself.
So you can ‘reform’ (=weaken) the system and you will get more houses but they will be poorly insulated, packed in together, and without solar panels. Oh and you can kiss goodbye to any affordable homes.
But back to the assemblies which demonstrated that this is a matter of great concern to people. They are unhappy at seeing huge estates appearing with no doctor’s surgery, sometimes no shop or community space – just rows of lookalike houses. They think it ludicrous that houses should be built on land susceptible to flooding. One of the issues today with our febrile political system is the wide dissatisfaction people have with it. They feel marginalised. They feel not listened to. They say things like ‘they’re all the same’ which is not true but widely believed.
So maybe this exercise is a small contribution to allowing people more say in their affairs. It has revealed a thirst by people to have their say, not just tick a box at an election and then be forgotten.
We will be contributing to the national event and locally, we want to follow through with the City and Wiltshire Councils. One of our goals is a citizen’s assembly a place where policy matters of moment can be discussed involving experts and local people. We want to move away from the process where people are invited to comment on policies more or less agreed anyway, a kind of tokenism.
Peter Curbishley
The next Democracy Café is on Saturday 14 June starting at 10:00 in the Central Library.
May 2025
Once again we must thank Salisbury Library for allowing us to use their space for our debate.
The 8th May is Victory in Europe Day and was celebrated this year with a high level of publicity. Only a handful of those who fought in the war remain now. The question posed was should we continue to celebrate VE Day? The first comment was that millions died and the war should never have happened. Politicians knew what Hitler was up to in the ’30s and should have acted sooner not wait until war was inevitable.
Perhaps we should say ‘commemorate’ not ‘celebrate’. It was important to remember and to learn some of the lessons. A Quaker perspective was that we should remember all the dead of all the wars. It was noted that one of Hampshire’s parks was the site of a former hospital for the thousands injured in the Crimean War. Now all that’s left is small plaque in the ground the memorial having been removed some years ago.
The claim was made that the celebrations are an ‘unfortunate political act with the purpose of maintaining imperialist and militaristic attitudes’. It had echoes of ‘keep Britain strong’. It fed some of the myths about ourselves someone thought, the erroneous claim that ‘we fought alone’ was strong. The reality that we were helped by many nations who provided soldiers and other support. It was also true that the contribution by Indian and Caribbean people had largely been written out of the histories. We were reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s quote ‘There was never a good war or a bad peace’ (1783).
The contribution of the Russians to the war was noted who were our allies at the time. They are not invited to the UK celebrations for obvious reasons. How was Germany celebrating these events it was asked? [They do seem to have a modest ceremony]. Germans were present at the Paris events. The EU was sanctioning two European politicians who went to the Russian celebrations in Moscow. The contrast with the Moscow ceremonies was remarked on where the parades consisted of weaponry and had a militaristic theme. Would there be a day when we and the Russians could celebrate together? That seems a long way off at present. Maybe the centenary could be held in Strasbourg with all the combatants there …
The myths about the war might have contributed to the Brexit decision by those who may not have fully appreciated the role played by other nations in the conflict and the ultimate victory. Some believed ‘we liberated them [the Europeans] so they should be grateful’ was a belief it was suggested.
There was nothing wrong in being proud of one’s country it was suggested.
A recurrent theme, stated by several, was the importance of remembering. These terrible conflicts which cost millions of lives and left millions more wounded, should not be forgotten but the precise nature of how they should be remembered was unclear. Several were unhappy at the jingoistic nature of the VE Day celebrations and the ‘capture’ of the event by politicians, royalty and the military. Should we just have Armistice Day? Dunkirk was mentioned which had been a major disaster for the BEF and resulted in a huge loss of equipment and men. Yet somehow it has been transformed into a celebration and the ‘Dunkirk spirit’ was part of the nation’s folk law.
Finally, the role of the UN was raised as an instrument to act as international policeman. This had been one of the intentions following the failure of the League of Nations. However, it was pointed out that the US which had become the supreme power after the war and did not want a UN able to interfere or ‘police’ its affairs. We do not take international law seriously was a sobering thought.
In the second half we debated the notion should voting be made compulsory? One of the problems of our debates which are introduced without prior preparation is that most do not know the background facts. There is a detailed discussion of this topic in Wikipedia and since Australia was mentioned, they have had the system since 1924. There are around 20 countries which have it. Chile also has this system it was noted.
The topic arose because of the recent local elections (and one parliamentary by-election) where it was noted that the Reform candidate won on a 20% turnout in a local constituency. With so few voting was it time to make it compulsory? The point was made that it is our responsibility as citizens to take part in the selection of those who run things.
The right to vote was hard won over many decades. The suffragists and the suffragettes were mentioned.
The problem was that many thought that their vote would not make any difference. Although enormous attention was paid to the voting process and elections, we were reminded that parliamentarians and the government itself were subject to sustained and well funded lobbying. MPs were not always transparent about the degree of outside influence they were subject to or represented. All MPs should declare their interests in all debates and not rely on various rules which allowed them not to do this. In media interviews, interviewees are never asked ‘who funds you?’ leaving voters in the dark about the role and influence of lobbying and vested interests.
The MP for nearby East Wiltshire, Danny Kruger, is currently being investigated by the Commons authorities for allegedly not declaring his involvement and funding by a religious organisation opposed to the Assisted Dying bill.
It was inevitable it was suggested that MPs came with a set of beliefs and views which they could hardly leave at the door of the House of Commons. Perhaps it was a cynical view but the point was made that any politician bent on a career in politics had ‘sold their soul’ so was there any point in a deep dive into their background and beliefs?
If compulsion was introduced then various changes would have to be made. What about people who did not have mental capacity? What about people who were living abroad for an extended period?
It was noted that many did not vote because they thought none of the parties or candidates would make any difference to their lives. So there would have to be a ‘none of the above’ is compulsion was the norm. We should not overlook the fact that low turnouts were a measure of people’s frustrations. The low level of voting by young people was troubling and it was suggested that they felt ‘screwed over’ by the current system. However, voting was one of the few times we could make our views known.
One issue with local politics was they were strongly influenced by national events. So people tended not to vote for who was the best candidate locally but to express displeasure at what the government was doing. So many may have voted locally for Reform for example with its strong statements on stopping the boat crossings, about which they could do next to nothing locally as it was a national – not to say international – issue. An increase in independent candidates would overcome this in part it was suggested. Frome was mentioned and someone noted that in Cornwall there were attempts to organise locally to solve local problems.
Many asked what would be the sanctions for not voting?
The next meeting is on June 14th.
Peter Curbishley
A reminder that the third People’s Assembly takes part on June 1st at the Football stadium starting at 2pm. If you’re interested in coming please contact Mark on mapotts53@gmail.com or leave a note here.
Would you like to join us on the committee? We are trying to improve the standard of political decision making including the introduction of citizen’s juries.
Latest posts:
May 2025
It’s the Democracy Café meeting this Saturday, 10 May starting at 10:00 as usual and finishing at noon. It’s in Salisbury Library and we are grateful to the Library for allowing us to use the space for these meetings. If you want to get a flavour of the debates see reports elsewhere on this site. You can come with a topic you would like to hear debated or just see what comes up – your choice.
The elections last week, and the rise of Reform, is making waves at present. Is this a protest against the two-party system? Do any of the parties have answers to the Nation’s problems? Wiltshire Council is no longer Conservative dominated – surely a seismic change. Lots to debate!
We hope to see you there.
January 2025
Two good debates today on what at first sight might have been dissimilar topics but turned out not to be so. Elon Musk has been much in the news this past week with a number of what some might regard as outrageous remarks. The first question was How should the nation respond to Elon Musk? It seemed from several of his interventions that people were affronted by them and that he was given so much air time and publicity. It was noted for example that in this week’s New Statesman (10 – 16 January) Will Dunn points out that the BBC has devoted 179 articles to him in comparison to only 33 on Xi Jinping.
Should we separate the man from the issues? It was noted that he has a prescription for Ketamine, a powerful drug not approved by the FDA. He seems to be up most of the night writing his posts on X. It was suggested he is volatile and was desperate for attention. He has a talent for making the political weather with a global reach on his platform. He has altered the algorithms to enable his utterances to gain global attention. The only way to control him was via regulation.
Recently, he called Jess Philips MP a ‘rape genocide apologist’ and suggested she be jailed for not holding a public enquiry over the rape gangs in Oldham. It was regrettable someone said that there was not a joint political response deploring these remarks about a British politician. Instead, some Conservatives sought to make political capital.
Musk’s father, Errol, was quoted as saying that his son wanted to ‘improve the world’.
It was suggested that one response was not to use X (said by someone who admitted not using social media platforms). However, it was noted that many wanted to hear his views and if he was banned from the UK, they would be ‘up in arms’. There were many who admired his wealth. We were reminded that Brazil did indeed turn X off and forced it to pay fines and make changes. The actual outcome seems uncertain however. But how many knew of the Brazil action it was asked? [The inference was that we were not really informed of this by UK media].
Was the response just about Asian men involved in grooming someone asked [it was not just about that although that seems to have ignited the current row].
Would we be better off with a benevolent dictator? The problem with democracies was that there was constant change with governments coming and going. The current Labour government seems no better than the previous Conservative one it was claimed. In their defence it was said that it will take some time to rectify the economy. Back to Musk and his volatility was noted. After all, he was recently a Democratic supporter now he was funding Donald Trump. It was suggested that he did not seem to have any core principles.
We got onto his enormous wealth. It did not seem to make him happy it was said (back to the ketamine for depression). Why does he do it? It was about power it was suggested, he was not interested in society. It wasn’t just Musk it was pointed out: what about Waheed Ali who gave funds to the Labour Party?
A problem was the extreme wealth of the oligarchs. This disparity had been allowed to develop with more and more going to fewer and fewer people. We now have a situation where wealth trumps democracy. The solution was to remove money from the election process with only supporters’ money being used by the parties. This did not address the ‘Musk problem’ however since it did not involve money to a party [the rumoured donation to Reform does not seem likely now]. Another suggestion was fixed funding for parties.
Another issue was the power the likes of Musk enjoyed. It was more than just wild statements on X. The case of Starlink and the war in Ukraine. Musk has allegedly deactivated SpaceX satellite access to Ukraine in the Crimean area thus depriving the Ukrainians the ability to attack Russian warships with drones. This is denied by Musk who said that the links were never activated in the first place.
Why do people want to listen to him or read his views? One possible reason was that he offered straightforward solutions like all populists. Government was complex and a constant balancing act between different demands for funding and how to raise taxes. Populists offered simple solutions.
In view of the decision by Meta (Facebook et al) to remove all their fact checkers, as well as Musk allowing people back onto X who had been previously banned, the son of one of those present wanted all censorship ended i.e. complete free speech. Freedom of expression was seen as a kind of ‘God’. We did not debate this further but it was clear that not everyone agreed with this.
It was suggested that we (the public that is) are partly responsible and the point was our gullibility. Musk would not have the traction if more were sceptical of his various statements. We fawned over our royalty for example.
Going back to leaving the platform, it was suggested there were two options: quit, or stay and fight. This was in relation to a Labour MP saying he was leaving X. He was part of government and he should confront the issue head on. He was ‘just being a coward’ by leaving it was suggested.
A point not noted was that Musk was close (at the moment) to Donald Trump and this meant he was considered more influential. British politicians were reluctant to confront him because of that connection.
Finally, we were reminded that there were similarities between Musk and the Murdochs of yesteryear. He had had enormous influence with Mrs Thatcher and then Tony Blair, both keen to pay court to him and his papers. Oligarchs and megalomaniacs were nothing new … It was pointed out though that it is different today because of the immediacy of the internet and social media, things not available in Murdoch’s heyday.
The second debate was around What would give people hope? a worthy antidote to our previous discussion. People needed hope and a constructive vision to their lives the proposer said. Elon Musk was a symptom of a lack of belief and a kind of reaction to capitalism.
The case of Alexei Navalny was given as an example of hope and belief. He asked ‘what was the worst [the Russian government] can do to me?’ and he accepted that. Despite everything, he held true to his beliefs. [Navalny died in a Siberian prison camp on 16 February last year. The cause of death is unknown].
One person said that what gives him hope is that more people are aware of how bad things have become for a majority of people. More were ‘awake and alive’ to pain and suffering in the world. This was countered by someone who said ‘do they [really] know?’ and if so, do they care? This was followed by several who remarked on the distinction between the national and the local. There were many examples of kindness at the local or community level. On the matter of ‘care’, someone thought there were those who cared and those who didn’t – a kind of division. This prompted the question ‘has the nation state failed?’ The Democratic system does not seem to be working. Was it to do with political parties and the whipping system? [It was said the LibDems do not have whips: they do]. It was remarked that when an MP first enters parliament, the whips will ask if there is anything about their past they should know about? This acted both ways but it did mean it gave them control over a member by threatening to release sensitive information to the media if the member steps out of line.
This raised the question, do we vote for parties or candidates? The ability of some candidates (and thus many MPs) did not matter so long as they were representing the ‘right’ party. Parties were very similar it was suggested. Just look at the current Labour government and you still see free market ideas, neoliberalism and only this week, more privatisation of the NHS being suggested. When it comes to it can you slip a Rizla between them? We needed more votes going to people or parties with radical ideas. We needed a clearer idea of what politicians stand for. We cannot see this now. Change came from people caring about things.
Do we need tighter controls on MPs in particular the number who had outside jobs: some indeed with several. Only this week Nigel Farage for example, was shown to have nine jobs in all. Surely there needed to be stricter rules. Also a need for greater integrity.
This brought up the proposals for more deliberative democracy and citizens’ assemblies something Salisbury Democracy Alliance is seeking to promote in the area (see below). It would allow a wide range of expert views to be incorporated into local decision making and also improve citizen involvement in the political process. So far the response from the County and the City has been lukewarm. There were moves to reform the House of Lords with greater involvement of ‘ordinary people’ with a range of backgrounds (see an earlier post).
Another point – echoing something said earlier in the debate – was around populists offering simple or simplistic solutions to complex problems. He saw politics as a kind of circle rather than a straightforward set of divisions. There was often agreement over what the problems were. Do we generalise too much someone asked: the Thatcher revolution had failed many thought but what is being suggested in its place? How do we start a new revolution?
The Southport riots was mentioned a feature of which was the large number of people who turned out the day after the disturbances to clean up and offer support to those affected. This was a hopeful sign. In the context of Elon Musk we debated earlier, not all wealthy individuals were like that and Bill [and Melinda] Gates had used his fortune to enormous beneficial effect in Africa through their Foundation.
Someone who has just come back from a long trip to South East Asia said what was noticeable was the generosity of the people they met even though they lived in poor conditions. There seemed to be more hope surrounded as they were by family, community and friends, supported also by faith.
Finally, it was noted that most MPs go into politics for the best of reasons and with good intentions. Once there they can become ‘lobby fodder’ unless they are ambitious and seek to gain promotion in which case towing the party line is essential.
Did we answer the question? One theme was the need for a closer attachment to basic values. This was not just for politicians. The distinction between local actions and the national was interesting. Indeed, almost to sum up all the points in the two debates, the Southport riots provided a good example. They were whipped up on X with a variety of false and inflammatory statements but followed up afterwards by scores of local people coming out with buckets and brooms to clear up the mess. We must surely take great hope from that.
The next Café is on February 8th at 10:00.
Peter Curbishley
Books mentioned:
How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t. Ian Dunt (2023). Weidenfield & Nicolson.
Why We Get the Wrong Politicians. Isabel Hardman, (2019), Atlantic Books.
Who Governs Britain? Anthony King, (2015), Pelican.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance
The Café is one part of the activities of SDA. We are keen to improve the quality of government especially at the local level and as we noted above, introduce citizens’ assemblies into the county. We meet from time to time and our next meeting is on 28th of this month starting at 2pm in the Boston Tea Party (upstairs). If you would like to join us in this activity you would be more than welcome. PC
January 2025
Past event
Yes, this is the first Democracy Café of the New Year, today, Saturday, 11th January at 10:00 in the Library. With Donald Trump about to become President again in a short while, and with Elon Musk as his assistant, we’re in for a bumpy ride. Talking of Musk—who seems to fill the news these days—his announcement about the leader of Reform was a great surprise: we all thought he was set to donate a vast sum to the party (which it isn’t technically). One minute they’re all posing for a photo, next he wants Farage out.
At home, things seem to be going spiffingly well for the Labour Party with approval ratings for Sir Keir dropping like a stone. The not quite poor enough elderly have lost their heating allowance and the farmers are still angry. The economy is flatlining. Business confidence at a low ebb it was reported this morning. So lots to discuss: or something quite different (and less gloomy?).
The Café is part of the Salisbury Democracy Alliance and we are still keen on having a Citizens’ Assembly sometime. Would an Assembly have suggested the £3.2m Fisherton Street works as a way to improve the economy and amenity of the City for example? So far we have received little more than polite interest from the powers that be.
Would you be interested in joining us in this endeavour? Our next meeting is at the Boston Tea Party on 28th at 2pm. Or have a word at the Café.
Look forward to seeing you TODAY and a Happy New Year to you all!
PC
October 2024
Don’t forget it’s the Café today, Saturday 12th in the Library starting at 10:00 for 2 hours. All are welcome. Browse this site for examples of previous debates. You can suggest your own topic or vote for someone else’s.
The group (17 strong this week) met on September 14th as usual in the Library with 2 topics chosen by vote for discussion.
The first of these was ”Should the power of the media be in the hands of the people who currently control it?” The media has been a fairly constant topic in our discussions, both national and local.
Much of the debate centred around trying to understand how influenced people are by the media, both the press and social media. The newspaper market is small and elderly, but dominates politics. It was suggested that papers used to be driven by their readers, but that now the owners choose what is important, and this can be dangerous. Defined as “framing”, this means the reader receiving a partial view, which can be resistant to persuasion. (It was said that positive ideas need 5 times more effort than negative to have an effect).
Politicians are afraid of the media, but, as one member said, they should “grow a backbone.”
It was also pointed out that a factor in news reporting is the prevalence of SLAPPS (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), by which the judiciary can interfere with the publishing of unwelcome information about a person or organization, simply because of the cost of pursuing a case, if charged with defamation. The practice of wealthy litigants paying a sum into court means plaintiffs run the risk of having to pay both sides costs – which runs into millions – if they loose. The Murdochs have paid over £1bn to keep phone hacking out of the news using methods such as this. It’s called ‘British justice’.
But those under 40 don’t tend to read papers. Social media gives access to your preferences and this leads to confirmation bias. For many, social media is where they are getting nearly all their news. A possible remedy would be to make the algorithms available to the public. (There may also be a need for opportunities to be created to re-educate older people about social media)
Another suggestion was that The Guardian model of the newspaper being owned by a Trust could be a better option than ownership? Someone else observed that podcasts are a better source of information.
Likewise with social media sites – open source sites such as Bluesky or Signal don’t use the algorithms that X or TikTok do.
The recent riots have been a useful indicator of the issues. Certain parts of the Press could be accused of adding fuel to the fire, while ostensibly standing aside. The people on the streets were prosecuted, but not those who incited them. The Government’s subsequent prosecutions did not include some who were implicated in the background.
In conclusion, we were left wondering “why do people believe what they believe?” Whether we are nearer an answer remains to be seen.
The second discussion concerned whether the Government should stop selling arms to Israel. Some attendees felt (quite strongly) that there was no justification at all for selling arms, believing that claims of genocide were true. Others were concerned about the possible loss of influence it would involve.
Questions were asked about the extent of British involvement – we are low on the list of suppliers, but arms sales generally are big business (8-10% of our exports), and it is important in our area, even if more through agencies than actual manufacture. The Foreign Office has an open licence policy, but the new government has withdrawn 30 licences out of about 350 over concerns about international humanitarian law.
Concern was expressed about proportionality. It was pointed out that Israel’s targeting ability was greater than events would suggest which may have a bearing on what we should sell. They are a powerful military, the most powerful in the region.
The comparison with our sales to Ukraine was made. The racial angle of the distinction was noted.
International bodies have agreed that the regime is one of apartheid. This seems to be part of a change in attitude over the course of the war. It was questioned whether younger people who don’t get news from the newspapers (see above; the difficulty of journalists getting to the war zones was also noted) might have a different understanding of the situation. Generally the fear was that (partly due to the change in attitude in the US to its historic policing role) a sense of paralysis has set in. The situation was described as the economic colonization of Israel by the US and the political colonization of the US by Israel.
A view was expressed that Israel may have no wish to agree a peace deal since off the coast of Gaza is a vast oil and gas field. Were a Palestinian state to have access to this resource, it would alter the politics of the region immensely.
Clearly not an issue that is going to be resolved soon, but the debate was thoughtful and informative. As so often happens with our debates, the two topics were related since our view of the conflict in Gaza has been powerfully influenced by media coverage and the lack of independent coverage from Gaza itself.
Andrew Hemming
– For those interested in further details of arms sales generally, please go the the Campaign Against the Arms Trade site.
– Glasgow University has a keen interest in media matters and publishes research of interest. Scroll to articles published by the late Greg Philo in particular. See also Bad News (Routledge & Kegan Paul pub)
Democracy Café this morning, Saturday, 10th starting at 10:00 in Salisbury library. It will last 2 hours and there is a short break in the middle. Lots to talk about with the recent events. See you there.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 