Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Democracy Cafe

  • Democracy Café: June

    June 2024

    This café took place two weeks into the general election and just after what had become a major faux pas by the prime minister who left the D-Day landing commemorations early to attend an ITV interview. This had produced a blizzard of negative publicity and Rishi Sunak issued an apology. It brings us to our first topic which was what is the purpose of commemorating military achievements and is the purpose achieved?

    Referring to the Normandy landings, it was noted that there are few survivors left and that this was probably the last to be held on that scale in Normandy. How long do we continue with them and what is the aim? One said it was important to say ‘thank you’ to all those who took part and the many who gave their lives. It did also promote the idea of ‘never again’. However, this was also the theme of WWI commemorations – the war to end all wars – yet it did happen again. Incidentally, the invasion planning was carried out in nearby Wilton.

    There were worries about glorification though. There was also concern about only commemorating wars we won, what about the losses and defeats? War was about both. ‘Lest we forget’ is one of the phrases one hears at these events but one speaker noted a memorial to the Boer War in Hampshire has disappeared leaving only a base. This war had a profound effect on British social policy following what was termed the ‘recruits crisis‘ and an initially disastrous campaign yet has now been forgotten.

    One of the central points about the D-Day invasion was that it was a collaborative effort between us, the US, Canada and a host of other nations from what was then the Empire. It was a celebration of what nations did together to defeat an enemy. Referring to Rishi Sunak’s early exit it was noted that in his apology he said “having attended all the British events, I returned home before the international leaders event later in the day”. It was remarked that this had a kind of hint of Brexit to it: the notion of being part of an international commemoration was less important than focusing on the British side of things. This theme recurred later in the discussion with the question on how we get on with our neighbours. We seem happy to celebrate a violent event (however worthy and necessary) but less happy at celebrating peace. Was it because conflicts generally generate media attention? Defeating the Nazis was a simple and easy to understand story.

    On the subject of peace one speaker spoke about peace education and how they had attempted to introduce it into schools. Some schools had agreed but it often didn’t last (parental disapproval?) but they were happy to invite in military representatives.

    The discussion moved on to the question of generational issues. It was suggested that these commemorations are a product of the ‘boomer generation’. Some of them harboured the belief that ‘Britain is great’ and any idea of national service was not for them – the sort of thinking that led to Brexit. In a similar vein, Britain is a much more diverse nation now, how important was D-Day for them?

    There was discussion around the political issues. What did politicians believe? For the veterans it was important to keep the memories alive and it was obvious it affected them deeply. Some became tearful when remembering lost friends and comrades even after all this time.

    We were reminded that WWII was total war and millions were involved on the home front and in factories and other locations, all of whom played a part in the invasion. The commemorations tended to focus on the military side of things.

    But back to the question and whether it has had its time. We tend to skip over the military defeats and it was noted that victors get to write the history. Are we clinging to the wrong things? Part of the answer is that D-Day is still relatively close. We do not remember the battle of Hastings for example yet which had huge implications for the country: a chunk of our language, the pattern of land ownership and our judicial system all derive from that event.

    Surely what was needed was to teach children critical thinking. If more were able to question the background to wars, why they happen and the political or diplomatic failures that often led up to them, then this might lead to greater reluctance by the public for military adventures. We need to understand the politics of war and how they happen.

    The absence of a Russian presence in Normandy was noted for obvious reasons. Yet the eastern front was crucial to the success of D-Day since many German divisions were tied up in the east (or wiped out in Stalingrad) which thus improved Allied chances on the beaches. Despite the problems in Ukraine, there is no commemoration of the Russian contribution which was substantial. There was brief discussion about the numbers and 20 million was mentioned. The figure could in fact be even higher.

    We were reminded by a veteran of the Korean war which followed a few years after the end of WWII yet there was no commemoration of that.

    Finally, despite the solemnity of the occasion in Normandy and the moving speeches, the principal victors of the war who formed the Security Council of the newly formed United Nations, were now the biggest arms sellers in the world, the UK being among them. We cheerfully sell weapons to all manner of states causing untold misery and death around the world.

    We moved onto the second topic is the general election fair? This arose following the row raging during the week about Labour’s tax plans. Rishi Sunak, during the leader’s debate on ITV had alleged that Labour will increase everyone’s taxes by £2,000 and claimed this figure had been produced by the Treasury. It transpired that this was partially true but the figures had been calculated on assumptions provided by the Conservatives and did not make clear that it would be over a four year period.

    One suggestion was that telling lies should be a criminal offence. The problem would be however proving it was a lie and the time it would take to get to trial by which time the election would be over.

    It was pointed out that a lot of fact checking already goes on and this particular misstatement had in fact been quickly corrected. Unfortunately someone noted, the very fact of correction somehow made it more potent in people’s minds – think of the £350m figure on the Vote Leave bus. Untrue but it stuck.

    The importance of hustings was noted the problem being too few attended them.

    The problem of the TV debate was it was about one leader rubbishing the other and the moderator did little to stop them. What did we learn from the debate? The question was asked rhetorically implying not very much. It was suggested that it might be a case of collusion by broadcasters and the politicians. After all, the scrapping made a lot of news which means lots of viewers, never mind the veracity.

    I am not sure we came up with any solutions. We briefly touched on PR but how that would improve the fairness of the debate was not discussed. We also briefly discussed tactical voting and how, for example, to achieve a more ‘green’ set of policies when both parties offered feeble ones.

    Finally, we discussed a third topic because the voting was tied. This was another election issue namely: the advantages of a years compulsory community service for those leaving school. The first point was ‘who pays?’ We could not answer this.

    We quickly got onto Rousseau and the notion of social contract which seems to be lost today in a society more concerned with personal matters. There was value in encouraging community service and the country could not do without volunteers. More young people might volunteer it was suggested but they needed paid work to pay for higher education and somewhere to live.

    Scandinavia was mentioned and the higher tax rates in those countries but with higher levels of social support. Britain was fixated on lower taxes it was suggested and the belief that we were automatically better off with lower levels of tax was widely believed. The connection between low taxes and poor public services did not seem to be understood. Another factor was privatisation and which had eroded the whole system it was claimed. On the topic of privatisation, water was mentioned and that CEOs of these companies should be fined for failing to meet targets not given multi-million bonuses. I suppose we can all fantasise about such things.

    An intriguing suggestion was that all young people should receive training in how to handle a disaster, a fire for example or what to do after a road crash. This could be done by extending the school day.

    One speaker drew on experience of circa the ’80s when we had a variety of training schemes: YOPs; YTS and then young apprentice schemes. Funding – as in the lack of – was a problem and it offered poor education for many young people. It was also a vehicle for mostly poorer children and was not popular among middle class folk. Their children did gap years.

    It might be a good idea some thought but it would need proper funding, and proper supervision by trained people. It would also need a lot of organisation. Previous experience suggests it would be done on the cheap and would offer young people very little of value. Compulsion was not the answer it was agreed. It was also noted that small voluntary organisations are daunted by the bureaucracy of doing things of this nature with all the checks, DBS, and necessary reporting which are costly and off-putting.

    A short debate but it was agreed that more thought was needed and a lot more detail about how it would work for the benefit of young people and also the recipients.

    Three interesting debates all with an election feel to them.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café

    Next Democracy Café

    June 2024

    Past event

    The next Café is this Saturday 8 June starting at 10:00 as usual in the Library. I suspect the election might generate at least one suggestion as a topic – we’ll see.

  • Democracy Café, May

    May 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Two interesting debates and several remarked how enjoyable they were.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

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

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

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

  • Democracy Café

    May 2024

    This morning Saturday, May 11th, at 10am join us for the May 2024 Democracy Café at Salisbury Library. Come along with your own suggested topic for discussion if you wish or just come along to join in the discussion.

    A summary of previous discussions can be found on our website:

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance – Bringing new ideas for democracy to Salisbury

    On Saturday 18th May we will be taking part in the People in the Park event in Elizabeth Gardens. Come along to visit the SDA stand and have a chat. More information about the event can be found here:

    People In The Park 2024

  • Democracy Café

    April 2024

    There was a Democracy Café today as usual starting at 10:00 in the Library. If you haven’t been before – and we do get a number of new people coming each time – you can read some of our previous debates on this site to get an idea. You can suggest a topic if you wish and if it’s voted on, it will be debated (be prepared just to say a few words to introduce it if the topic is not obvious). Finishes at noon with a break at half-time. Free but if you can spare a groat or two it would be appreciated.

    PC

  • Democracy Café

    There will be a Democracy Café this Saturday, 13th April starting at 10:00 as usual in Salisbury Library (upstairs). All welcome. Finishes at noon and there is a break at 11:00. Come with a suggested topic if you wish or just join in what is voted on.

    See you there.

  • Democracy Café: March

    March 2024

    A dozen members of the group attended this meeting and, after a slightly faltering start, two topics were, as usual, chosen for discussion.

    The most popular choice was consideration of the implications of a Trump win in the American presidential election in November. Concerns were expressed about his possible foreign policy (with regard to Ukraine, trade and Taiwan among other issues) and domestically, particularly his hostility to green matters, and the question of his willingness to leave office.

    The fossil fuels issue was brought up more than once, as was Trump’s attitude to women and worries about how his policies on immigration might turn out. On the other side, it was pointed out that Trump had ejected fewer people than Obama, presided over the lowest inflation for 45 years and the highest employment levels ever. Insofar as there was a debate on his merits or demerits, the prevailing view was that his unpredictability was a problem (a surprising link to Jeremy Corbyn). There was discussion of the polarisation of U.S. society that Trump embodied, notably the weaponisation of general disaffection (that Biden had not managed to utilise) and the fear of the white population of becoming a minority. Observations were made about the possible causes of Trump’s behaviour, as well as disappointment that he had not controlled big business when in power.

    The second topic of the day was “What are British values?” It was generally agreed that there was no answer to the question that would be meaningful, but rather there was an implication that our values are by definition better than anyone else’s. This could be attributed to having had an empire (or mere snobbishness). Our island history meant that we were less affected by neighbours (though it was noted that we were “perfidious Albion”) and more likely to want to be different. It was suggested that one of our virtues was an ability to fix things (notably when in Europe) and a pragmatic approach. We take the emotion out of things. This led on, though, to a debate on the post-imperial development of the UK as a financial centre (with questionable activities) – secrecy became a value along with duplicity. We were brought back to a consideration of the Enlightenment ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity as a code of values, if not specifically British.

    Andrew Hemming

    The next meeting is on Saturday 13th April starting at 10:00 in Salisbury Library. We are grateful to the Library for allowing us to use the space for our meetings.

  • March Democracy Café

    March 2024

    The March edition of the Democracy Café will take place on Saturday, 9th March starting at 10am upstairs in Salisbury Library. Come along for a drink and some stimulating conversation about issues that you deem to be important. A summary of the conversations from the February Café are available to read on our website – Democracy Café – Salisbury Democracy Alliance

    As a postscript to the first topic that we discussed at the February café, Mark Potts, the chair of SDA, is expecting the Salisbury Journal to publish a letter regarding the issues around John Glen in next week’s paper, or on their website. Discussions with the editor have been ongoing.

    Just a reminder that our partner organisation, the RSA, are holding an event in Salisbury Library this coming Thursday, 7th March, to mark World Book Day. Details of the event and registration can be found here – RSA Salisbury: World Book Day – RSA (thersa.org)

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    A good turnout for two debates as usual the first being a bit of a surprise. The New Statesman in its 2 – 8th February edition had made two serious allegations concerning the MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen, in a piece entitled: The Rotten State: How corruption and chumocracy are pulling the British Nation apart (subscription needed). The first debate centred on these allegations and what it meant for the future of the MP and the constituency in the forthcoming general election. 

    The two allegations were as follows: ’[…] the Future Fund, established in 2020 by the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, at a cost of £1.1bn to support British start-ups. The taxpayer has lost almost £300m on the Future Fund, which has given money to the businesses of centimillionaire wife, Ashata Murty, [and] the cabinet office minister John Glen […]’. Mr Glen has shares in a sub-Saharan African mining firm. The second allegation was that Mr Glen attended meetings (which he probably chaired as the City Minister) with the banks to arrange £71bn in loans as part of the Covid recovery. The article suggests that £17bn of this has gone missing according to the Public Accounts Committee. When attempts were made to provide details the journalist was told by the Treasury ‘we do not hold minutes of the meeting’. 

    The proposer of the topic has written to Mr Glen but his answers were somewhat vague. It was up to the Treasury to keep minutes he said. It was quickly noted that this was becoming part of a pattern with large numbers of WhatsApp messages being deleted both in Scotland and in England in connection with the Covid enquiry. It was simply not satisfactory for the business of the country to be run this way with politicians able to delete the records at will or, in the case of Mr Glen, for their to be no record in the first place.

    It was suggested that Covid was an event to enable a large sum of money to be transferred to a small number of people. It was not clear if everyone agreed with this point. The same speaker mentioned Walter Lippmann who spoke about how people were deliberately distracted from the main issue. 

    The fact that there was no mention of these allegations in the Salisbury Journal was a surprise it was suggested. They do not seem to have asked any questions of him or sought a response. Maybe we should all write to the Journal and ask ‘why not?!’ Did it matter who was the MP? someone said. Yes it did and we right to expect a certain standard of honesty and integrity from those who represented us. 

    One speaker said she always got a response when she wrote but many others said they did not. They only got a reply if it was a ‘standard’ one they said. One member had written to him about matters in the Maldives for example which Mr Glen has said he has a special interest in since there was a group of Maldivians who lived in the City. No reply has been received**. Another response was to say as a minister he was unable to interfere in another department. 

    Back to the Journal and it was asked how influential was it? Difficult to answer but it did have a much lower readership which was true of all newspapers it was noted. However, it did give Mr Glen a column each week in which he can tell us what he is doing and as such was a ‘mouthpiece’ for him. 

    There was a brief discussion about the need to improve local journalism and the Trust News Initiative was mentioned.

    The second debate centred on Palestine and ideas around creating a state. The war in Gaza was in full spate at present with a reported 27,000 dead and many thousands missing. The proposer noted that Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, had mooted the idea of a separate Palestinian state. But who would fix the boundaries especially as the Israelis wanted to take more land? Would not be better if the countries of the Middle East held centre stage rather than ‘outside’ countries such as the US?

    One speaker noted that Palestine had been offered statehood in 1948, again after the Yom Kippur war and also after Camp David talks. Each time they have refused. At elections they have voted for Hamas who murdered the opposition and who’s only motive is the extinction of the Jewish State. It was also noted the leadership lived in Qatar. While this may be true, it was noted that Hamas had also been supported by Mr Netanyahu partly to destabilise the Palestinian leadership. 

    This narrative overlooked the significant role played by the US in the region and the powerful influence they had on Middle Eastern politics. The real issue is the relationship between the US and Iran which was a key driver of the politics of the area.

    Several speakers referred to outside influences over history – one even went back to the Romans! Perhaps they might ask in the area ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?’ More recently, Britain took a keen interest because we wanted a secure route for Persian oil through the Suez Canal. Mention was also made of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the role of Lloyd George in seeking Jewish support to get the US into WWI. We played a role in the UN Mandate in what was then called Palestine. There was also the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between France and Britain concerning post-war and post Ottoman spheres of influence in the area. One comment was from someone who served with Army in the area in 1948 in an attempt to keep the peace. He referred to the 900 or so British soldiers who were murdered during this time. Wounds run deep. 

    Latterly, the Americans have held sway. A solution can only come it was said if there was a regional deal. To achieve this some of the Palestinian leadership needed to be released from Israeli gaols. 

    But the overriding series of comments centred on the role of outside influence of one kind or another. The selling of arms by several western countries particularly the US and Britain although Russian and China are involved, can only inflame the situation. The Abrahamic Accords in 2020 were mentioned and the commitment to recognise both sides diplomatically. They were called ‘Abrahamic’ because they recognised Abraham as a common link between the two religions.

    South Africa was mentioned who had launched the case against Israel in the International Criminal Court accusing them of genocide in Gaza which Israel has denied. Could they be mediators? The crucial point someone said was what was needed was a country which didn’t have history in the area. This would rule out USA, Britain, France and some others, all of whom have meddled or had a role in pursuing their interests over the interests of the people who live there. A related factor is possibly a sense of collective and almost atavistic guilt in some of the powers involved especially their bad treatment of Jews over the centuries: their expulsion from York in the twelfth century for example, their expulsion from Spain and so on, not to mention the Holocaust itself. 

    Northern Ireland was mentioned and the decades of the ‘Troubles’. It was eventually resolved by negotiation, pressure on the UK from the US, and a Canadian negotiator. These things can be resolved. In this connection, António Guterres*, the UN General Secretary was suggested as a possible mediator.

    As a final note, the practice of calling someone ‘anti-Semitic’ when they criticised Israel was deprecated. 

    For once, two unrelated debates as different as chalk and cheese (a good Wiltshire based expression). The next meeting is on Saturday 9th March, same place, same time.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Guterres is Portuguese.

    ** Correction 16 February: a reply has now been received and Mr Glen said he will raise the matter with the FCO.

    Books:

    The Palestine – Israel Conflict, 2015, Dan Cohen-Sherbok and Dawoud El-Alami, Oneworld.

    The Balfour Declaration. 2018, Bernard Regan, Verso.

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    The next meeting of the café is this Saturday, 10 February at 10:00 as usual in the Library (upstairs) and all are welcome. If you haven’t been before, have a look at the write-ups of previous cafés to get a feel of what we talk about. The meetings last 2 hours with a short break in the middle. We look forward to seeing you there.

    PC