Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Democracy Cafe

  • Democracy Café

    VE Day celebrations provided one of the topics for this months Café discussions

    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:

  • Democracy Café

    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.

  • Democracy Café: April

    Two topics discussed of current political interest

    April 2025

    The Café took place days following Donald Trump’s announcement of a range of tariffs which has caused ructions in world markets and threaten to destroy the way the international economic system has worked since WWII.

    But the winning topic was of a domestic nature and concerned a government bill which aim to introduce a system of reports which in their wording: ‘[…] is to prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council’s Imposition guidelines, reinforce equal access to pre-sentence reports and support consistency in application across all demographic groups‘. The worry was that there is not currently a ‘level playing field’ and that certain groups – ethnic minorities, people from religious minorities, and women – suffer differentially in the justice system.

    This had become politically sensitive with some politicians claiming that white people would suffer from this treatment if it became law. It would create a two tier system they maintained and white people would accordingly suffer. It was argued that courts needed to take everyone’s circumstances into account in relation to sentencing. The book The Devil You Know was mentioned in this connection, written by a psychiatrist who interviewed people who committed serious crimes to try and understand their stories and motivations. She gave this year’s Reith Lecture series.

    Objectors said that it risked introducing a two-tier system and one politician said it was ‘blatant bias against Christians’ and ‘straight white men’. It was noted however that there was already a two-tier system with a disproportionate number of black men in prison. It was also noted that since the ending of legal aid, there were many who could not obtain justice at all. Another change which has taken place in recent years was victim statements. These were introduced to remind the courts that there were people who had suffered greatly from a criminal act.

    A case was mentioned of someone who had entered the country illegally, held for 7 years without charge [I could not find a reference to this]. How can the legal system justify this?

    It was argued that the legal system has arisen from a power structure which was essentially Christian in nature. Not everyone agreed with this: many of our laws were based on common law going back centuries. We were also reminded that early Christians were extremely violent in the promotion of their beliefs.

    Digression

    At this point we digressed from the topic in hand and the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt was mentioned. She was the lady arrested and eventually found guilty by the court in Bournemouth for breaching the Public Spaces Protection Order by standing outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth holding a sign saying ‘Here to talk if you want to’. She was fined £20,000 and given a conditional discharge. These are the bald facts of the case as widely reported. It was suggested however, that this was an attack on the freedom of expression. It was also suggested that Tossici-Bolt was on the other hand a ‘front’ for American evangelicals. The US funded organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) did indeed help fund the case but I could find no evidence that she acted for them. Readers would need to refer to their website to understand the nature and activities of this organisation. [They also have an extensive Wikipedia entry].

    It was questioned whether she had been warned before her arrest? She had indeed been asked to move by the police but refused. She had also been offered a fixed penalty notice but she declined it, hence her arrest. The Americans had commented on the case as an example of the lack of free speech in the UK. She is free to speak and campaign but to do it outside the PSPO.

    There was discussion about the extent of Christian influence on our laws. It was noted that historically, people believed they would go to hell (in the literal sense) if they lied in court for example. Christianity has strongly influenced our culture and beliefs it was argued and it was noted that in the US, God and religious beliefs were a powerful influence. It has driven their views on abortion for example [see the reference to ADF above who funded the overturning of Roe v, Wade] The benign nature of early Christianity was questioned however as they were extremely violent in promoting their beliefs in the early centuries.

    We were reminded of Lord Acton’s quote ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

    On the struggle for power, Magna Carta was mentioned which concerned a very narrow group of people namely the King, the Barons and some property owners. The word ‘woman’ only appears once in the document. This prompted the comment concerning the present day and the farmer’s protests (being property owners I think was the link though not all farmers own their land). Despite causing disruption in London concerning their protest about the capital gains tax changes introduced last year, none had been arrested. This was contrasted with the arrest of women in a Quaker meeting house in Westminster who were planning a protest.

    But back to the question and it was said surely, it is better to be informed about people (during the judicial process) than simply to continue with the policy of locking people up? Someone who had been a social worker said he was often asked to produce reports by the courts but he did not think this was for everyone. We have too many in prison and this contrasted with the Nordic countries and the Netherlands who were reducing their prison populations. However, the role of the media and its allegations towards any politician advocating such ideas was that they were guilty of being ‘soft on crime’.

    Overall, there was probably agreement that it was better for courts to be informed about defendants and their circumstances rather than just rely on punishment.

    For our second debate, we looked at the proposition: was what has happened in the US [Trump and the tariffs etc] a blessing in disguise? We had a somewhat Hollywood view of America and some of the realities of life there did not always reach our screens. The health service for example: we have seen several TV series showing heroic doctors – Dr Kildare and ER for example – whereas around 20 million Americans had no access to health care. Someone who had lived in America said that she had received excellent service in the US whereas she has been waiting months for treatment here. Someone else who had worked in the US said he knew of someone involved in a motorcycle accident which damaged his leg, but who did not have Medicaid, was taken to a hospital where they simply amputated it, no attempt was made, it was suggested, to save it which might have happened if he did have medical insurance.

    The economic effects of Trump’s actions were mentioned and how there had been some ‘bragging’ about the economic effects especially from those who had profited from the stock market gyrations. One suggested it was a ‘clever business deal’.

    Brexit was mentioned and the idea that we could stand on our own since leaving and this looked a little fragile now in view of Trump’s actions and tariffs. We should form closer links with Canada and the EU. We should also be supporting the UN and the ideas of accountability and the rule of law. Gordon Brown had suggested using the IMF and the World Bank in the process of building a new world order. The problem however is that both institutions are American controlled. Removing the dollar as a reserve currency was another suggestion which is something China and a clutch of other countries like Brazil and South Africa is trying to do. It was noted that Iraq, then the largest oil producer, wanted to tie its production to the Euro and this might have been part of the motive for the Iraq war. Since the stated reasons for the war (Iraq’s alleged programme to produce weapons of mass destruction and links to AL Qaeda were both wrong) this theory is not altogether outlandish.

    How feasible was detaching ourselves from the US it was asked? The US has cut aid to WHO and its own US aid programmes but other countries had not stepped forward to fix the breach. We were closely linked militarily with bases around the country. We had very close links between the intelligence services particularly the NSA and GCHQ. We also made components for American aircraft such as the F35. Detaching ourselves from these relationships would be both difficult and unwise. We were reminded of the Five Eyes programme.

    History goes in cycles it was noted. The US has a constitution (which the UK hasn’t) and Trump was facing many legal challenges. The Washington Post was mentioned but we were reminded that it had been acquired by Jeff Bezos who had prevented it from endorsing the Democrats at the election. We must be aware of US firms seeking investments in key areas such as Palantir. They were looking to acquire NHS data and the worry was the government would sell this off cheaply for short-term gain and to the detriment of the long-term health of the country. Allowing such firms to have access to the NHS’s data is a huge risk. The other concern was tax and major US firms like Amazon make massive profits in the UK yet managed (quite legally) to pay next to no tax since the transactions take place in a tax haven.

    How will it all end? Even if Congress decides to stand up to him, the results could be violent since many Americans feel he speaks for them. We were reminded of the massive gun ownership in the States. Attention was drawn to the film Civil War which was a kind of imagined scenario of what an insurrection could look like in the States.

    It was noted that two US Supreme Court justices were reported to be quite angry over recent events and ignoring established government protocols. It has centred around the Court’s demand that Kilmar Abrego Garcia be retrieved from El Salvador. It showed that Trump can be resisted.

    The gradual decline in international law prompted the thought of what happened in the 1930’s in Germany where the Nazis gradually built their power by denigrating the law and gradually reducing rights along the path to power. Was there a risk of similar things happening in the UK?

    Did we debate the question? Not really. Perhaps we are too close to it and the events too raw for notion that it might be for the long term benefit of the UK to forge closer links with like minded nations. We were warned that the idea of forming a closer link with China had serious risks.

    Books mentioned:

    The Devil You Know, 2022, Dr Gwen Adshead, Faber & Faber Ltd

    The Darkening Age: Christian Destruction of the Classical World, 2017, Catherine Nixey, Macmillan

    Next meeting on May 10th. The next People’s Assembly takes place on June 1st at the Football Club starting at 2pm. Booking is done by contacting mapotts53@gmail.com. It is free but a small contribution can be made if you wish. [UPDATE: 15 April] We’ve just held our second on 13th and a write up is now posted. There is a report of the first here.

    Rating: 1 out of 5.

    Have you thought of joining us? We are trying to improve the standard of democracy and governance in the area and would welcome anyone with similar interests to join us.

    1748786400

      days

      hours  minutes  seconds

    until

    People’s Assembly

  • Democracy Café

    Next Democracy Café

    April 2025

    Write – up soon. The last Democracy Café was this morning Saturday, 12 April starting at 10:00 as usual and finishing at noon. In Salisbury Library, upstairs (there is a lift). Lots to discuss with the momentous events following Trump’s election and the imposition of tariffs which have shaken the world order. What should our relations with the US be now? Are they ‘friends’ anymore? There will be many attending on Saturday or reading this who have links over the pond: I can think of many in my family circle who are living/working in the US. Should we impose tariffs?

    And what about Europe and the dreaded ‘B’ word no one dare mention not least in the Labour party. Should we be thinking of a closer … no, no, don’t go there – too terrifying a thought.

    You see summaries of previous cafes on this site and the last one here.

    Local elections are coming up and although they are ‘local’, many will use them to express a view of the government. What should the issues be?

    Which brings me neatly to the second People’s Assembly taking place on Sunday 13 April (yes the day after – we are gluttons for punishment) at the St Gregory’s Hall in St G’s Avenue (off the Wilton Road, by snaky bridge). Attendance is looking good but there may still be places so contact mappots53@gmail.com if you would like to come. Starts at 2pm and finishes after 4. Free with a parting collection. See a report on the first Assembly. There was also a report in the Salisbury Journal.

    Hope to see at one or both events.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: March

    Café took place following tumultuous events in USA

    March 2025

    The Café started with a short introduction by the facilitator reporting back on the People’s Assembly which had been run the previous week. Around 40 attended, 50 all told, and the event secured good coverage in the local media. The next event is on 13 April and to secure a place contact mapotts53@gmail.com. We were also delighted to welcome a visitor from Horsham in E Sussex who is thinking of setting up a café in that town.

    We are grateful to Salisbury Library for their generous offer to use their space for our meetings.

    The Café took place in the week following the unseemly meeting in the White House between President Zelensky of Ukraine and President Trump and his team.

    The first question which won the vote was would we agree to a return of conscription? Conscription ended in the UK in 1963. Some saw it as having benefits for our youth: imbuing discipline in young people although it was noted that politicians were keen for it for other people’s children not their own. What was the difference between national service and conscription someone asked: there probably isn’t in reality. Were we desperate enough yet for this someone asked?

    The previous government had talked about a form of national service for school leavers. The problem was a hotchpotch of programmes for young people with little coherence for those who did not go to university, the less able and those with special needs. Someone felt that education had failed young people. Many parents don’t like their children going to school it was suggested and there had been a rise in home schooling. Echoing a discussion last time, there was little attention paid to the teaching of values they thought.

    A Quaker insisted that there was a right to object. He felt there was something of an obsession with military matters. In this context, it was noted that the nation faced threats which were not of a military nature eg cyber attacks, financial and bacteriological threats. We should be alive to these just as much as recruiting for the armed services. It wasn’t all boots on the ground. Someone who was a conscientious objector spoke of his service in an ambulance unit. Should we not aim for societies to live in a world without wars? It didn’t matter how you killed: what was the difference between a soldier in the field and someone sitting in front of a screen thousands of miles away pressing a button? Both had effects on the individual. Julian Assange and Wikileaks had revealed the extent of killing at a distance mainly by the US.

    The Quaker approach was questioned: what do they do to defend themselves? They did have a right to react (in reference to the Ukraine invasion) was the answer. The example of Einstein was mentioned who was in the US when Hitler came to power and decided not to go back to Germany. At that point he renounced his pacifism. After Hiroshima (which his discoveries in physics helped bring about) he became a pacifist again. The point being that people can change their minds.

    The government’s change of focus was introduced (the decision to reduce overseas aid funding to put more money into defence to reach 2.5% of GDP). We were never asked about this it was noted. It was suggested that it was a debate our leaders wanted us to have, to create enemies, even suggesting it was our leaders were the real enemies. The thinker and writer Prof. Mearsheimer was mentioned in the context of Ukraine (by now we had drifted away somewhat from conscription) and a lengthy essay on his thinking is available here. You will note that many do not agree with his views. Jeffrey Sachs was mentioned and his views about the eastward push of NATO and the idea that Americans had taken over the role the British Empire had in earlier times. His speech to the EU is a recommended read. Both suggested a need for our own foreign policy (divorced from the US was implied). The impetus behind the creation of the EEC, which was partly to end the centuries of wars which had taken place between European nations, has been forgotten it was said.

    It was suggested that every war since Vietnam has been a war of choice. This related to the references in the previous paragraph about America’s role in the world.

    Back to the plot and the problems within the armed services needed addressing. Issues of bullying and sexual harassment were common. This touched on the problem of retention of people within the services. The process in the Nordic nations and Switzerland where all able bodied men and women are required to do some kind of military service, Militärdienst (Switzerland). A recent referendum there voted 73% in favour of maintaining conscription.

    In relation to Ukraine, why weren’t we talking the language of diplomacy someone asked? The democratic process had been undermined at speed by the actions of Donald Trump someone said. There had been no time for the parliamentary process to have its say. The speed was deliberate it was suggested, the process of ‘flooding the zone’ (©Steve Bannon). It was a question of getting used to uncertainty.

    Well, we didn’t really answer the question! Conscription arose in times of war and that is unlikely as far as the UK is concerned. It might arise in connection with troops being sent to Ukraine a matter we did not directly discuss. Since the armed services have seen funding fall to seriously low levels and the standing army was at a very low ebb, maybe conscription might be needed. The debate circled around events in Ukraine which led us to part two …

    The second half kicked off with the question is the Trump approach to Ukraine the only practical one? There was a review of the current situation. Biden’s leadership saw no prospect of an end to the fighting; Putin has too much as stake to give up now especially after recent events; Trump is providing a solution which is not what Ukrainians want; he is forcing – or trying to force – Zelensky to concede. Debate.

    The similarities to the ’30s was mentioned and the policy of appeasement. A lot depends on Putin’s intentions someone thought: will he be satisfied with what he’s got (the implication being he won’t be)? Thousands have died but Trump’s way is giving Putin all the cards. We returned to some of the points in the first half debate. We were led to believe ‘Russia bad’ ‘America good’ but both had imperial ambitions as the above references will attest. The eastward push of NATO was a factor in recent events although it was noted that these new members wanted to join for their protection.

    Trump’s approach was purely transactional it was noted with an eye on securing mineral deals in Ukraine – no doubt at favourable prices – for American mining companies.

    Putin was fundamentally different someone noted, he was a liar and did not stick to agreements. The Minsk agreement was referred to which demanded nothing of Russia and was a precursor to the 2022 invasion. Remember the Novichok attack in Salisbury. At this point, Craig Murray’s take on the Skripal’s and Navalny was brought up, essentially disbelieving the received narrative of Putin ordering assassinations. We were reminded of the Katyn massacre of Polish soldiers carried out by the NKVD in WWII.

    It felt wrong it was said, that is to allow Russia to get away with invading which might lead to further actions in places like Moldova and the Baltic states.

    A bit of Russian history was mentioned namely that they were late to democracy. Attempts in the late nineteenth centuries to install a democratic system failed until the eventual October revolution took place. They had a sense of inferiority and this, it was suggested, was a factor in their thinking. They had been frequently invaded by Napoleon, Hitler and by western ‘White’ forces after the revolution. Ukraine had its own history and previous domination under the Tsars led to the policy of attempted Russification, suppression of the language and deportations of thousands of members of the intelligentsia.

    There was discussion, frankly difficult to summarise, around the eastward push of NATO being a factor, the role of the CIA and a quote by Kissinger ‘to be a enemy of the USA is dangerous, to be a friend, fatal’.

    The two debates circled around the same topic really and that was Ukraine. But we did discuss the changing perceptions of the USA brought into stark focus with the recent statements and actions from the White House. The USA was effectively an empire and had carried out a range of activities around the world to destabilise nations or leaders who tried to resist their power (see the books mentioned below). This power was used for the benefit of American firms, a factor plainly evident in Trump’s approach to Ukraine. So there is nothing new in his attitudes. This was forcing an urgent rethink of policy on defence and ultimately much else in Europe. Perhaps people were beginning to recast their view of America? Maybe we will see conscription …

    Next meeting on 12 April.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    The Racket: a rogue reporter vs the American Empire, 2024, Matt Kennard

    The New Rulers of the World, 2016, John Pilger

    Would you like to join us? We are a small team and would welcome anyone interested in democracy and people having their say. Next café is on 12th April and that would be a good moment to have a word.

  • Democracy Café

    March Café takes place today

    March 2025

    The March Democracy Café takes place today, 8 March, starting at 10:00 as usual in the Library, upstairs. For new people, it lasts 2 hours with a short break. The idea is to discuss a topic suggested and voted on by the people present. We usually end up selecting two topics. You do not have to have a topic (and broadly speaking, half of those who come don’t) but you are welcome to participate in what is chosen.

    Some may have attended our first People’s Assembly last Saturday or you may have read about it in the Salisbury Journal or the Avon Gazette. This is part of our programme to involve people in political debate and decision making. Many feel frustrated by the current system where political parties seem to be dominated by commercial or media interests. If you missed last Saturday, there are two more and the next is on 13th April starting at 2pm. The link above tells you how to reserve a space.

    Members

    Have you thought of joining us? We want to do more and our ambition is to have a Citizen’s Assembly sometime. This is a process where people attend several weekends to debate a topic or problem and this is informed by the presence of experts in that field. The results where this has been tried have been impressive. We welcome those who would like to join us in our endeavours. Wiltshire is proving a hard nut to crack being somewhat stuck in its ways with a ‘we know best’ attitude: but we’re still trying.

  • Democracy Café: February

    February 2025

    Largest assembly for the Café since its formation

    The room in the Library was full for our café on 8th February and we discussed two quite unrelated topics. But first, it is timely to thank Salisbury Library for giving us this space. Libraries have had a tough time in recent years with one report saying 180 have closed since 2016. We much appreciate them for enabling us to meet there.

    There were a large number of topics suggested (around 16) and the one which won the most votes was How do we get growth, and do we want it? This of course arose following speeches by Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer who have nailed the Labour party’s flag to the growth mast as the solution to the country’s many ills. ‘To believe in growth on a planet with finite resources is either a madman or an economist’ thus spake David Attenborough. The third runway idea seemed to ignore environmental issues which appeared at one time to be an important element of Labour’s policy. But how to change the narrative was the question. The assumption that growth was the answer to problems is almost assumed wisdom without it ever being questioned.

    The idea of a third runway at Heathrow was unlikely to be successful it was thought: interestingly, the reasons didn’t need to be spelled out. Kate Raworth’s book Doughnut Economics was mentioned which included a critique on the very topic we are discussing.

    Tax should be reframed as a social good

    Tax (as ever) was mentioned and the observation that people want services but the moment raising taxes to pay for them is mentioned it was political death. There was no sense of pride in paying tax as a contribution to the public realm. Tax was always presented negatively as a cost not a contribution. It should be reframed as a social good (this was the first time a remark was applauded in the history of the Café!). The results of not doing things (as in not spending on schools, hospitals etc I think was meant) never seemed to be discussed. ‘Living Danishley’ was mentioned – an economy with higher taxes but also higher welfare where there did seem to be higher levels of contentment. One hopes the people of Greenland agree.

    It was pointed out that there were two aspects to growth: the short term focusing on GDP and the longer term which was concerned with matters such as productivity, improvements in which have defeated politicians for decades. We must not lose sight we were reminded of some of the benefits of growth, the reduction in poverty for example

    A fundamental point which seems to escape most politicians, is what matters is that those with assets already tend to gain the most whilst those without assets tend to lose out. Almost Biblical in fact: “for he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.” Which seems apposite in Trumpworld. It was about the distribution of wealth. It was noted that just 62 people own half the world’s wealth. Since much of this wealth was in a tax haven somewhere, it was ‘dead money’. One of the consequences of not investing was the huge rise in child poverty. Estimates vary depending on definitions and whether relative or absolute poverty was meant, but what was clear was a huge rise in the numbers. It was not all right for many with poverty and poor housing common.

    The point was made that GDP (Gross Domestic Product in case you weren’t paying attention in your economics class) didn’t measure everything. In fact it measures income and there are many aspects which make life worth living which are not measured. The Happiness Index being used in Bhutan was an interesting observation (and the link is well worth a look if this is new to you). Another point is that changes in GDP were incremental and often very small amounts of a percentage or fractions of a percent. Distribution (of wealth) was much more significant.

    The book The Spirit Level was mentioned and one of its key findings that inequality hurts all people not just those at the bottom of the heap so to speak. It was noted that the welfare state introduced after the war had been ‘bypassed’ as it was expressed and politicians today don’t promote social responsibility. This was linked to the tax point above. The state was increasingly relying on charities to step in and do the things the state used to do.

    ‘Getting rich’ was the only philosophy

    No Democracy Café is complete without mention of the media. It was suggested that one problem was the media’s desire to glamorise rich people so that wealth was regarded as a good thing in itself. Do we trust social media? ‘No’ was the answer (unfortunately, many do). However, it was pointed out that not all social media was the same and it did allow for a diversity of views. It devoted too much time to discredit reliable sources someone said. The failure by the government to enunciate a coherent philosophy didn’t help it was suggested leaving the idea that to get rich was the (only) way forward. Bad news makes the headlines someone observed. Large elements of our media were owned by foreign oligarchs who were able to control the narrative.

    Overall, a general conclusion that growth by itself was of little value unless more was done to ensure it was distributed more fairly. Ignoring the environment to achieve it didn’t find favour either.

    The second topic was What are the burning issues facing Salisbury and what are the solutions? Transport was quick out of the blocks followed by the numbers of empty shops. A big rise in foodbank use was mentioned and flooding.

    On transport, the related issue of congestion was brought up. Charging people to enter the town centre was suggested. A suggestion to one of the Area Boards a few years ago that the City centre be pedestrianised was not met with enthusiasm to put it mildly. There was a strong car lobby in the City. Attempts to make Salisbury more people friendly didn’t always get far. The Cycling Opportunities Group for Salisbury (COGS) had suggested safe cycle routes for example which did not fully succeed.

    Building houses on the flood plain was mentioned by several and was unsurprisingly, not seen as a good idea. As water levels rise … well you get the idea. At this point it was noted that several of the suggestions were beyond the powers of the City Council to do anything about. It was after all – absurdly – a parish council with very limited powers. It was also limited to the City boundary and did not include adjacent villages or places like Wilton. The Council may well object to housing on the flood plain but housebuilders had huge resources to be able to defy the council and the minister would overrule any objections [that very day, the Guardian reported ministers’ intentions to build thousands of houses on such areas]. Halt Harnham Housebuilding was mentioned. The drivers for change were not local.

    On the topic of housing two matters were mentioned. Many older people lived in large properties and might like to downsize. It was not easy however and the costs of some supported housing were high and uncertain. Second homes were criticised although Salisbury is not such a centre for this. Some places in Cornwall and Wales were plagued by them.

    What the vision was for Salisbury was questioned. What will the City look like (at some future time)?

    What was there to keep young people in Salisbury? What reasons were there for them to stay here? Things like the LGBQ café had closed down for example. Someone asked ‘why should I come to Salisbury?’ With closed shops and an increase in cafés and hairdressers, it lacked excitement they thought. It was observed that in some Baltic states, multiple shop owners had to relocate on the periphery and only small retailers allowed in the centre. However, someone said that the most common question they get asked is ‘where is Marks and Spencers?’

    It was suggested that part of the problem was that Trowbridge felt remote. The Plain was a definite barrier with poor communications. There was an argument for the county to be split into two, north and south (forgive me for adding a link to a piece on this subject).

    The role of private contracts with the local hospital was mentioned. This was a concern and ‘backdoor’ privatisation of the NHS was a worry generally. Trying to find out the true story here is not easy with company take overs and such like. Twenty20 Capital is an ex Virgin organisation and we must be worried that a venture capital entity is taking over the local hospital. Will it follow the usual practice of these companies to strip the place bare and ‘do a water industry’?

    There was some discussion on the College which now apparently did little in the way of further education. It was a result someone said of ‘Ofstedisation’ that is learning which was all about outcomes and outputs. Several issues discussed and we were reminded of the forthcoming People’s Assemblies in Salisbury that attendees might be interested in.

    Peter Curbishley

    Items mentioned:

    Simon Schama: History of Us BBC iPlayer

    The Spirit Level, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, 2009, Allen Lane

    Doughnut Economics, Kate Raworth, Penguin

  • Annual meeting

    January 2024

    We held our annual meeting on 28 January at the Boston Tea Party and the following matters were discussed:

    – The existing officers of SDA keep their positions. Marks Potts as chair; Andrew Hemmings as Treasurer and Peter Curbishley, publicity and the website.

    – We discussed the Democracy Café which continues to meet and it has been a success. There was a suggestion for a change in format. After discussion it was agreed we would vote for the following months topic at the end of the previous session so that people knew something about what was to be discussed. We would do this once as an experiment. This was a change in the original concept and there might be a problem of people arriving with too much material. One problem is the time between cafés which meant fresh topics would be too late. We will see.

    – We agreed on a presence at People in the Park in May. There was a discussion on doing a role play exercise based on our presence there but it would be too difficult to organise.

    – There was a discussion based on Phil Tinline’s Democracy programme on the BBC. Could we do a similar exercise here in Salisbury? We will explore to see in he could come and give us a talk on the subject as his parents live in Salisbury. Perhaps in the Autumn.

    – We have funds of £212.

    The rest of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of Assemble and there is more on this topic on our next post.

    The next Democracy Café takes place on February 8th starting at 10:00 in the Central Library. If you would like to join us you would be very welcome.

  • Democracy Café – January

    Elon Musk and hope for the future were the two topics we chose today

    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.

    ‘Elon Musk would get less traction if we were more sceptical’

    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

  • Next Democracy Café

    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