August 2023
To let you know that the next Democracy Café takes place today, Saturday 12 August starting at 10:00 to be held in Salisbury Library (upstairs). It lasts two hours and it is free to attend but if you do have a spare groat or two to contribute, that would be appreciated. You can see write ups of our many previous meetings on this site. Essentially, you are free to suggest a topic for discussion and we then vote on the suggestions. We tend to tackle two topics typically.
July 2023
A full house at the July 2023 Democracy Café to discuss two topics, both of which are at the top of people’s minds at present: the state of the two party system and immigration.
The first topic was around the question How do we get out of the two party system? One of the first comments to be made was that we had an adversarial system exemplified by the knockabout prime minsters questions once a week. Surely it would be better if efforts were directed at how to improve matters (the economy and social concerns for example) rather than spend time on this political theatre.
Some pointed to other countries which had coalitions which of course we had at the beginning of the last decade. Several of the problems the country has faced recently had a cross party feel to them eg, Northern Ireland, Covid and even Brexit. This indicated that problems were in fact bigger than the parties. It was suggested that with coalitions, minority parties assumed disproportionate power. Some disagreed with this assertion saying they thought it was something of a myth. It probably does depend on the numbers.
The argument was forcibly put for a written constitution. This led on to the need to separate the government from the House of Commons. The present system meant the governing party and the HoC were almost one thus neutralising the Commons and MPs. The result was it almost became a dictatorship (the elective dictatorship we have discussed previously). The sole purpose of the HoC it was argued was to pass legislation and agree the budget.
The role of MPs in relation to their constituents was mentioned. Those who contacted their local MP – who in the case of Salisbury was a member of government – were met with the response that he could do nothing because he was barred by collective responsibility. Or they got a anodyne response that was simply the party line.
With emails and organisations urging the public to ‘get in touch with their MP’, can he or she cope with the volume of material? Was it worthwhile doing so? ‘Yes’ was the response and it can work.
A dissenting voice was the problem with coalitions was that they tended to be slow. The first past the post system (FPTP) did give rise to strong government it was suggested. There was a tension between authoritarianism and democracy and the tendency of governments is towards the former came up several times.
The prevailing mood of the discussion so far was the feeling that the ordinary voter was overlooked in the system we have. How could voters voices be heard? What mattered in the process was the swing voter who were critical in some constituencies. As if to counter this pessimistic view the role of protest groups in changing the political climate was noted. The example given was the suffragettes which was true to an extent although the suffragists laboured for four decades without success and it took further two decades for the suffragettes to get votes for women.
The debate was predicated on the notion of two parties being distinct and with little opportunity for other parties to make headway. However, quite how different were the two parties? If the Conservatives were truly a right wing party then government expenditure would be cut and no doubt other typically right wing polices would be enacted. It was in fact difficult sometimes to see them apart. Indeed, a problem for the Labour party was their policy ideas being taken from them by the government, the windfall tax a recent example.
Which other countries have FPTP it was asked? Belarus was the answer, hardly an ideal exemplar and which seemed to sum things up quite well. We should not get carried away by claims about the authoritarian nature of the government – we do still have fundamental freedoms. The very fact we were able to meet and have a perfectly free debate would not be possible in other truly authoritarian states.
People fundamentally wanted to see good decision making. The calibre of those going into parliament – and perhaps more to the point – high calibre people not going into parliament, was depressing. It was still difficult for women to make headway particularly in view of the large number of abuse cases (‘pestminster’) currently being investigated. The culture within politics was discouraging it was suggested.
How to get change? We do get the politics and politicians we deserve to an extent which pointed to making sure people were educated about the system. This included schools but it seems that civics classes are no more. Whether outside people should go into schools was queried – surely they would import bias? The purpose of such talks was about the system of government, not party policies. Groups like ourselves debating these issues was part of the mix it was noted.
Conclusions? One thought was that many problems came down to one of two solutions which pointed to two political parties. Historically, the Conservatives represented the owners of capital and Labour the wage earners (somewhat oversimplified) which again suggested a two party system. We were depressed by the quality of the people who represent us but, it is we who vote them in. Would a better educated electorate make a difference? Perhaps. Change was possible however and campaign groups can effect change. The FPTP system has hindered change as we have noted before – UKIP with its 3 million votes but had only one MP.
The second debate was should we welcome migrants or not? A question of considerable political salience at present. The first problem was defining terms – was it refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants we were talking about? The question was left hanging.
Migration of one kind of another had been with us since the dawn of time, we originated in Africa after all. Many of those in the room will have some foreign blood. The problem today it was claimed was coloured migrants – we seemed to be reasonably unconcerned about people coming here from America, Canada, Australia and so on, but those stepping off the boats caused fury.
One curiosity was people expressing great pride with their sons or daughters going to foreign climes and doing well there. But people coming here are regarded with hostility by many. What exactly is the difference? We are proud of our emigrants but hostile to other’s immigrants. A question left unanswered was ‘what criteria should we apply to judge if someone was to be made welcome here?’
Those who had spent time in the USA said the system was a little different and it was important to gain accreditation i.e. the green card. In the UK it was less clear cut.
Many people leaving their homes were doing so not because they wanted to but because of war, persecution, climate problems and similar factors. If we were so angered by a proportion of them ending up on our shores – literally in the case of the Channel crossings – then we should do more to improve matters where they live. Yet the government has cut foreign aid. In a similar vein, many were fleeing areas like the middle east – places like Syria and Iraq – where western policies, especially those of the UK and France after WWI, were the root cause of problems today.
The situation in the health service was noted. The service depended on a vast number of overseas staff many of whom left because of feeling unwelcome during the Referendum and latterly, we were losing significant numbers of clinical staff to Australia, Canada and elsewhere.
The attitude of Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel, drew almost universal disdain. They were descendants of immigrants welcomed here yet were now vociferously campaigning against those coming after them.
A view was expressed that immigrants were a cost to the taxpayer. It was pointed out however that if they were allowed to work, they would contribute to the economy and pay tax. So far from being a burden they would be a benefit. There was need of a culture change and to see such people in a more positive light. This might change attitudes. The contrast with Sicily was noted where people buying and doing up properties were welcomed as they were a boost to the local economy.
We are an island with a very clear border namely the sea. There are countries where borders have shifted considerably especially in eastern Europe for example Poland and Romania. Yet there were still hatreds and enmities suggesting that the problem was connected with culture, ethnicity or language. It was not just an issue of borders and nationality.
One of the aspects of the political scene was how politicians tried to take the high moral ground: it wasn’t prejudice or animosity towards immigrants they claimed, it was instead a war against the people smugglers. It was a pity more did not recognise this attempted sleight of hand. The smugglers were capitalising on a problem that existed, not creating it.
Someone had seen a minister claim on TV that we needed immigrants to keep wages down and hence solve inflation.
On the subject of Rwanda, the country had been used by Israel with the same purpose in mind. They had abandoned it because it just seemed to increase the incidence of smuggling. All those sent there left immediately and attempted to return to Europe.
To encourage or deter – two opposite policies which mimicked the two party system – which is where we sort of came in …
Peter Curbishley
Next meeting on 12 August at 10:00 am and in Salisbury Library
June 2023
Dickie Bellringer of this parish wrote to the Salisbury Journal who published his letter on June 22nd.
“Ian Curr is right to suggest that citizens assemblies (CAs) ‘may prove the next step forward’ (June 8th). Indeed the current Labour, LibDem and Independent leadership all expressed support for the idea when they were candidates for the election. But then the realities of of a stretched public purse kicked in and CAs have slipped down the agenda, largely because of the cost.
“As I said in may last letter however, Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) expects to be able to deliver a CA for less than £18,000, with the help of local partners and if we got a firm commitment from Salisbury City Council (SCC), then the SDA would commit to raising a significant proportion.
“As of March 31 this year the SCC’s readily accessible reserves stood at £2.01 million presumbly less the cost of the parish polls. Those reserves are about £800,000 more than minimum required by the council’s Financial Regulations. No doubt it makes sense to have in reserve more than the bare minimum, especially in these uncertain economic times. Nevertheless, it seems that the council’s financial position is relatively healthy, which is a tribute to the efficiency of the administration and officers.
“All I ask is that, with £12,000 already set aside in the budget for community engagement and SDA’s commitment to raise money itself, the SCC administration consider pushing CAs back up the agenda.”
Dickie Bellringer
(founding member of SDA)
June 2023
A small, but perfectly formed group, met in the Library on Saturday 10 June 2023 and two topics were voted for discussion. It was held after the fairly momentous day in national politics when Boris Johnson had stepped down as MP having received a draft of the privileges committee report which is apparently damming of his behaviour. His honours list was also published with various individuals of dubious merit being ennobled or honoured in some way including his hair dresser which might come as a surprise to those who assumed it was mown rather than cut.
The first topic asked whether Sir Keir Starmer risked throwing out the baby with the bathwater by seeking to appeal to the middle ground. One worry was the decision to deselect the sitting North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll for sharing a platform with Ken Loach the film maker who himself was expelled from the party for his associations with proscribed groups. This worried several people as it seems to be a sign of eliminating anyone who disagrees with the party line.
One theme, which was expressed at several moments during the debate was the lack of vision by the Labour party. Some also thought he (Sir Keir Starmer) was floundering and that he was not a good communicator. Others also wondered if the policies would in fact be put into practice if and when they formed a government. He lacked charisma and perhaps most seriously, did not give people a sense of hope.
Others disagreed most particularly with the idea he was floundering. It has to be recognised that the opposition has so much against it. If it spelt out policies too soon they would either be trashed or taken by the government, witness the windfall tax on the oil companies. There is a need to believe in him it was suggested. The difference between the two main parties was noted: the Conservatives for their loyalty (although that was somewhat doubtful at present) and the Labour party where there were often splits or major differences of policy and direction to be seen.
As ever, we moved on to discuss how the media treat the parties and it was noted that the announcement by Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, that the proposed £28bn spend on green infrastructure would not take place straightaway, was pounced on by nearly all of the media but by contrast, the multiple spending promises dropped by the Conservatives received much less prominence.
The reluctance of the party to take on the media in contrast to Prince Harry’s battle with the Mirror was commented on. There was a different media landscape now with very few young people buying or reading a newspaper. It was claimed that young people were more idealistic and perhaps the point here was that they were not attracted to the tabloid end of the market with its kiss and tell type stories. By contrast it was claimed that the new TV stations such as GB News with its fairly partisan approach was said to be popular with young people.
What a lot of the media coverage lacked was nuance. Few issues were black and white, right or wrong and yet coverage was often cast in an unnuanced way.
To be ‘left wing’ was something of an insult it was noted. A curious observation and poses the question why? It went with ‘woke’ and meant it was an easy insult to throw at someone or a party. Why this should be we didn’t explore and it might be a question for a future debate.
Can an honest politician survive today? Could someone who ‘told it how it was’ and what is needed to fix our economy, society generally, the need for higher taxes and perhaps a tax on property, could such a person ever be elected? Almost certainly not although Mick Lynch was mentioned (who is not actually a politician). Are all politicians doomed to tell lies to get elected and then attempt to do what they think needs to be done afterwards? Which sort of brought us back to Sir Keir – not the suggestion of lying – but the need to steer a careful course, not spell out policy positions too soon for fear of being attacked.
The second debate was quite different. This was the question Julian Assange has lost his appeal, should we be worried? This concerns the extended legal battle against extradition to the US which has been trying to get him to trial for a number of years. It came a day after Donald Trump was charged on 37 counts relating to removing top secret documents from the White House and leaving them lying around in various places in his house in Florida.
The first point was that this was about freedom of speech and the press and Assange has performed a public service by revealing some of the activities being carried out by our governments. He was doing his job as a journalist including revealing some of the appalling activities being perpetrated in Guantanamo Bay. It was not clear if his revelations had done any actual harm.
It was admitted that he was a strange personality and he had been accused of sexual assault in Sweden, charges now dropped. However, there was a principle at stake.
A different view was to ask ‘why are we seeking to override the law in America?’ Surely it was up to the Americans to decide his fate? But what about the Sacoolas case and Harry Dunn? She fled the UK claiming diplomatic immunity following the accidental death of Harry Dunn? The extradition treaty was very one-sided it was noted: the Americans can extradite from the UK but refuse to allow Americans to be sent here for trial. Sacoolas will not come to the UK to stand trial.
Could Assange receive a fair trial in the US? Anyone with knowledge of the American legal system would doubt that.
Governments want to curtail freedom of the press. Around the world, journalists are arrested, abducted or murdered.
However, governments were entitled to hold some secrets. However distasteful, our government engages in espionage with a view, partly at least, to protect our interests and to be aware of countries or other entities which might wish to do us harm. The problem was when this spilled over into unwarranted intrusion of private individuals, in short it was a matter of trust. People’s trust in our government was not high and many no longer had trust in the government not hide secrets we should know about. It was observed that we were supposed to be a society controlled by law but the problem was that the vast majority of us could not afford access to it because of the enormous cost. The quality and impartiality of the judiciary was also called in question.
This led to a discussion of the case of Carol Cadwalladr who had done sterling work in exposing vote rigging in connection with Aaron Bank’s alleged activities and his many meetings with Kremlin officials (which he denies). Outrage has been caused by a judge’s ruling in the latest appeal by Banks that she will have to pay some of his costs which will amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Her journalism has performed a public service yet by some esoteric legal reasoning she is made financially the poorer. Other media did not develop the story possibly because it exposed wrongdoing with the Brexit vote. She was insultingly referred to by Andrew Neil as ‘Carol Codswallop’ among other insults. The judges’ decision was yet another expensive blow to the freedom of the press and the free speech generally.
Final word: a fair trial for Julian Assange was ‘for the birds.’
Peter Curbishley
April 2023
Despite it being Easter weekend, we had a good attendance at this meeting in the Library and we were pleased to welcome two new participants. We had two interesting debates and we could well have gone beyond our allotted time.
The first was Is representative government truly democratic? We started with the famous President Lincoln quote of 1863 after the battle of Gettysburg: ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth’. The problem is the combination of representation and democracy, two concepts which do not necessarily fit together. Apparently, it was Robespierre, who met an untimely end, who combined these two ideas. We were also reminded that Plato’s idea of representation was to limit it to those who were capable of reason.
Brexit was an example of representative democracy it was pointed out and the result was it did tie the hands of the government to this decision (for good or ill). This immediately brought up the point that in our electoral system: MPs are representatives of their constituencies, not delegates. But who, it was asked, is being represented? The assumption that it was the ordinary elector is unrealistic. It was the wealthy and corporate interests who really held sway [the debate took place in the week when a Conservative MP was caught in a sting by Times’ reporters offering to sell his services to a fictitious gambling company for a fee of £10,000. This came a fortnight after two ex-ministers were caught in a similar sting].
It was further suggested that the premise was wrong: MPs are selected not elected. The ‘elective dictatorship’ of Lord Hailsham was mentioned. Some have been groomed for some years for senior positions in their parties. This linked to the comment that historically, MPs were older whereas nowadays they had little of no real work experience outside the political milieu. They left university and spent their years in the Westminster environment before becoming an MP.
The general tone of the discussion was a sense of dissatisfaction with our politicians but it was pointed out that a lot of good work was done in parliament – evident if you read Hansard – but this was almost never reported. We only read of the conflicts and scandals.
We moved on to voting and the Australian rule that everyone had to vote. The counter view was that if people don’t want to vote why should they be forced? It was a dilemma. Belgium was mentioned in connection with MPs becoming part of the executive so who then do they represent, their constituents or the government? In that country, if the equivalent of an MP becomes a minister, they resign their seat and and there is a by-election. If they are sacked one assumes they leave the government altogether … [now there’s an idea]. Later, the question of voter apathy was mentioned.
Do people vote for the individual or their policies? Some said the former; some the latter. It was suggested that parliament is a reflection of our views, the collective zeitgeist so to speak. We had a diversion into what Andrew Bridgen MP said in parliament and this link gives the background to that. It concerned claims – since retracted – about the risks and effectiveness of Covid vaccines. The attempt to introduce equal pay for women by Barbara Castle was mentioned where attempts to introduce it were frustrated by what was thought to be the will of the (male?) public. It was suggested that women do now have equal pay. Legislation introduced by Theresa May requiring companies with over 200 employees shows however, that women definitely do not receive equal pay for equal work.
What we know is mediated by the media – a familiar point in these meetings. The necessity for good information was stressed and the need to hold the media to account: the issue of social media was mentioned which is largely unregulated. Inevitably, all information was filtered and imperfect it was noted. Information was about power and the process of infantilization, i.e. keeping us (the public) away from the real decisions by deflecting us towards things that don’t matter was suggested. Different countries had differing approaches and the current unrest in France demonstrated that country’s approach to political change which was often violent. The ‘British don’t go on marches, instead we go on shuffles’.
At several times there was the suggestion that decisions should be made at the lowest level in the political process and in that connection, Flatpack Democracy in Frome was mentioned. A post from 2017 reports on the talk given to the Compass group gives more details.
But back to the question and that the melding of democracy and representation was imperfect and sometimes muddled. It was sort of assumed that they were much the same and as we have debated, who represents us, how they are selected (or elected) and who they actually represent is by no means clear and whether it gives us ‘democracy’ is perhaps to be doubted. The need for a constitution was suggested but this point was not developed.
The fact that Switzerland holds regular referenda was mentioned.
Finally, a Channel 4 programme about a hotel in a village being occupied by asylum seekers was mentioned as a kind of example which reflected some of the points we discussed. A hotel had been block-booked by the Home Office to house a significant number of refugees and asylum seekers. There had been no prior consultation. The village was split: some were hostile some were sympathetic. It shows the problem of democracy in that how do you represent such profoundly different views? Whether it’s representation, a referendum or any other form, there are those who are fierce in their antipathy and those who are not. It wasn’t about what system therefore, it was about people and their attitudes.
Which segues nicely into our second debate which was What are the benefits of Brexit? Well, it has to be said that there were few put forward. The news this week was of long queues at Dover because, it was thought, to be the result of the need to stamp all passports now we have left the EU although this was denied by the government.
One argument was the failure of some banks in Europe in particular Credit Suisse although it was pointed out that Switzerland was not in the EU and some American banks had failed as well. The Swiss bank failed because of mismanagement and it had little to do with the EU. The nonsense of Greece being treated the same fiscally as Germany was mentioned which led to a crisis in that country.
One profound point was made and that was we can no longer blame the EU for our troubles. We had got into the habit of blaming the EU so now we have left, that excuse is no longer available. Perhaps it was an opportunity for the country to grow up. Governments have always tried to deflect bad news elsewhere to detract from their own failings.
A big benefit for Brexit was said to be sovereignty and the slogan ‘take back control’ was a key rallying cry during the run up to the Referendum. The argument was that we were in hock to ‘unelected European judges’ rather ignoring the fact that European judges are elected and UK ones aren’t. It was quickly pointed out that our decision to leave demonstrated we did have sovereignty. The judicial system is not part of the EU.
Walter Lipman’s quote about the bewildered herd was mentioned again – see the January Café. In that connection the speaker went on to refer to the purchase by JP Morgan of 25 of the most influential newspapers in the US in 1917 in order to influence the decision to get the country to enter the European war then raging. The point being how the media, or more particularly the owners of media, can influence debate, attitudes and decisions in a country.
A lot of subsequent comments focused on the benefits of EU membership and the EU generally. For example, Europe has been riven by wars, certainly since the fifteenth century, including two major world wars and one lasting for almost a hundred years. Yet since the last war, Europe has seen the longest period of peace in a millennia. [Ukraine was not mentioned but that is not a war between two or more European states].
Historically, France had a system of internal tariffs introduced by the ‘July Monarchy’ in 1830 as people moved from region to region. When these were abolished, everyone prospered. Several noted the ability to move around the continent once free movement was introduced (back to the queues at Dover). Free movement and free trade benefited the ordinary people it was suggested.
It seems that some people are beginning to change their minds. The government (even if they wanted to) would find changing theirs extremely difficult. Will we ever be able to have an honest discussion someone asked and perhaps be able to admit we were wrong?
A possible benefit, following the shortages of salads imported from Europe, was an increased interest in self-sufficiency.
And whatever happened to the £350m that we will save by no longer being members of the EU? This had to remain an open question.
There was a brief discussion about the role of the City of London.
Two interesting debates and actually linked in many ways. The need for informed decisions was crucial for good government. When a poorly informed populace elected MPs, some of whom had been selected for them, a media which was partisan, an unregulated social media and a government which was heavily influenced by commercial and corporate interests, it was perhaps a wonder we weren’t in a bigger pickle than we are.
Peter Curbishley
An interesting take on democracy and the Brexit debate is Peter Geoghan’s book Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics, 2020, Head of Zeus Ltd , which is well worth reading.
Completed.
Our next meeting of the Democracy Café will be this Saturday, 8 April at 10:00 as usual finishing at noon. It will be in the Library (upstairs) as last time. Look forward to seeing you there.
March 2023
Eight of us met this week to discuss progress and make plans for forthcoming event. This is to keep the wider membership in the picture and is not meant to be an authoritative minute of the meeting. Also present were three members of RSA.
Talkshop
The main topic of conversation was around the next Talkshop event and we spent some time reviewing 60 cards with suggestions and possible projects. Some were of limited relevance to Salisbury but we still managed to identify two dozen possibles from the full list. After lengthy discussion we boiled it down to 4 possible topics:
We then spent some time discussing invitees which will include local politicians, Area Board people, Chambers, TUs. We discussed publicity and it will include posters in schools, the WCA newsletter, Transition City and no doubt others will be added at the planning stage. It will be a ticketed event.
The objective was agreed: ‘to develop a set of policy objectives or projects involving local people and which could be implemented by Salisbury City Council and if necessary, Wiltshire Council’.
It will run in Brown Street on May 27th from 10:00 ’till noon prompt.
Planning
It was brought to the group’s attention that in the last edition of The Planner, the journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, there was a leading article on the subject of community involvement and citizen’s assemblies. It is likely that officers in WC planning dept. will have seen the article and it was agreed we would write to the head of planning suggesting a meeting to discuss. Update: letter sent 18th March copy below.
Local Plan
Consultation on the local plan was well underway and it was queried whether we should make some kind of response. The plan was well advance it was noted and it was suggested there were a number of shortcomings which will make its implementation problematic. See an earlier post and see also a response to our letter lamenting the lack of a citizens’ assembly during the preparation phase.
Eco Hub stall
We shared a stall in February in the Market Place and the results were a little disappointing. For next time the lessons learned were: sharing a stall does not work; there were too few flyers and we need something similar to the Brexitometer run by Salisbury for Europe that is, a board with options or questions to engage passers by.
People in the Park
Whether we should have a stall at this event again was discussed but the cost of insurance – which exhibitors have to pay themselves this year, means it is no longer viable.
Democracy Café
The last café was run the previous Saturday in the new venue in the Library. This had been a success although if numbers grew too large it might be a problem. The next meeting is on 8 April. A report of the last meeting can be read here.
Generally we felt it had been a worthwhile meeting and plans for the second Talkshop look exciting. The next planning meeting is on 18 April at 14:00 probably in Brown Street (to be confirmed).
PC
March 2023
This was the first meeting in our new home at the Library. It turned out to be a good location with no distracting noise and of course it is central.
The first topic was almost a forgone conclusion: namely, Gary Lineker who was the subject of a major row. Gary is the presenter of the BBC’s Match of the Day and following the announcement of the latest bill by the government to deter refugees travelling by boat across the Channel, declaring them automatically illegal, had tweeted “An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” This had prompted his suspension from the programme and as the other presenters decided not to appear meaning the programme would have to be aired without a presenter at all.
A large number of points were made in what turned out to be an interesting debate. The first point was that he was freelance and not a BBC employee. As a sports presenter, he should be free to express his political views as a matter of free speech. If he had tweeted his support for the government’s proposals, what someone wondered, would have been the reaction?
The view was expressed that celebrities from other realms of work should not be allowed to express their political views (this did not receive much support).
The BBC’s view was even though he isn’t a political commentator, he has an enormous following and is thus influential.
An important point was made that this whole row had acted as a distraction to the real issue namely the immigration and asylum system itself and the failure of government policy to tackle this issue adequately. Was the bill merely theatre someone wondered? The government knew it wouldn’t work it was suggested but just wanted to show that they were trying to do something knowing it had little chance of becoming law. Someone who had met the local Conservative MP in the past few days reported he did not think his party to be in power after the election which might support this view. Greg Dyke, former DG of the BBC, was quoted as saying in an interview that he thought the BBC was mistaken as it gave the perception they had bowed to government pressure.
A feature of the debate – and a key element of Lineker’s tweet – was the issue of free speech. It was noted that Lineker did not use the word ‘Nazi’ that some commentators and politicians had accused him of. Was the range of recent bills inhibiting protest and limiting access to judicial review, together with attacks on the BBC in general and Lineker in particular, signs of growing authoritarianism a la Germany in the ’30s? Was the reported decision, also by the BBC, not to broadcast the final episode of the forthcoming Attenborough series because of a fear of a right-wing backlash, a further example of a creeping curtailment of free speech?
It was noted that over the past few weeks, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and Lee Anderson, all currently serving as Conservative MPs, had been given their own shows on GB News. They will be free to air their views every week yet there has not been an outcry about their appointments or conflicts of interest. We were also reminded of the scandal surrounding the appointment of Richard Sharp as chair of the BBC following his substantial contribution to the Conservative party and his failure to declare to the selection board his role in securing a major loan for Boris Johnson, prime minister at the time, who subsequently appointed him.
The debate moved on to the issue of impartiality and was true impartiality ever possible anyway? There is a legal case at present where the views of Fox News presenters appeared to different from those aired during the Trump era. This aspect of the debate arose around the question of ‘balance’ which sat alongside ‘impartiality’ at the core of the problem. Climate was an example where the BBC balanced reporting of climate change by inviting speakers who did not accept global warming to debate with scientists who did. This resulted in a false balance since the ‘deniers’ had little science to support their views. After a prolonged outcry, this no longer happens. On the other hand, employees of local government, government departments and agencies are not allowed to engage in political activity or air their views on these matters in public.
Linked to this was the failure by broadcasters to ask who was funding some of the people they interviewed. Some contributors were funded by fossil fuel interests which was not declared to the listening or viewing public.
Hard to sum up but there was a feeling that it was important for commentators to be free to air their views. There was a simmering sense that with the foreign ownership of our media and with hostility towards the BBC (and we might have added Channel 4) we were at risk of losing key elements of free speech and a slow drift towards a one party state was not impossible. The first thing the BBC should do someone suggested is not follow what the government says.
In the second half we attempted to tackle the question who runs Britain? You cannot say we lack ambition.
The first theory out of the blocks was it was all rooted in money. The City and other interests were focused on this aspect. It was money which gave you power someone said. Second was the influence of public schools and their desire to maintain their influence in society and, it was claimed ‘to keep at all costs, the socialists out [of power]’. They devoted great efforts to maintain their role in society.
The media was mentioned on the basis of ‘who controls the media controls the message’. Whether that is so true today with such a diversity of platforms is to be questioned. We were then introduced to the Beckhard and Gleicher’s change formula – which is probably the first time a formula has been introduced into our proceedings – and that is (D x V) + FS > C where D is dissatisfaction, V is vision and FS, first steps. Latterly, the C component has been replaced by R representing resistance to change. If the first set of factors is greater than the second, change might happen. To note is that if any of the left hand terms are zero, there will be no change.
Corporations were another source of power and the multi-national ones in particular. Not all were venal it was pointed out and some did want to improve the lot of their fellow man.
China was mentioned and the role of Deng Xiaoping who, following the death of Mao, told the Chinese to ‘go out and make money’. This led a discussion of the seemingly impregnable one party states like former East Germany and Romania which, despite having formidable security apparatuses, collapsed quickly following modest protests. Would China be like that despite their highly sophisticated surveillance system? Their swift change of course on Covid lockdown in the face of protest was noted. However, the failure of the Arab spring demonstrated that not all protests and uprisings led to happy results – look at Egypt.
One of the paradoxes of politics today in relation to who runs the country, was the fundamental belief of the current government in less government following the neoliberal agenda. They believed in freedom and the ebb and flow of markets to decide matters, not government interventions. Well that was the theory.
Two debates which circled freedom of speech and good government. The first focused on a specific incident and a tweet by Gary Lineker, the second on the more general issue of where the power lies in our country. The support Lineker received, while we were debating this issue, and resulting in the disruption of the BBC’s sports coverage, perhaps demonstrated that power can often be illusory and hard to control.
Peter Curbishley
Book mentioned: Another Now, Yanis Varoufakis, 2020, Vintage
Of relevance:
Who Governs Britain? Anthony King, 2015, Pelican
Posh Boys: how the English public schools run Britain, Robert Verkaik, 2018, One World
Today!
Following the closure of Progress café we have relocated Salisbury Democracy Café to Salisbury Library. So, the next café on Saturday 11 March between 10am and noon will be held in the Portico Gallery on the first floor at the front of the Library. We will normally be in The Lounge area but, unusually, this is occupied on Saturday. Tea and coffee will be available and you are welcome to bring your own mugs if you wish. However, biodegradable paper cups will also be available as well as the library’s own mugs. Hope to see you there.
DB
February 2023
Some cross-over in the topics put up for discussion today but the first one chosen was How important would it be if the UK withdrew from the European Court of Human Rights? This desire is one put forward by several Conservative politicians and some cabinet ministers including the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. It became a hot topic when the Court overruled the intended deportation of immigrants to Rwanda.
The proposer said that it was a threat to our rights. We had signed the Universal Declaration in 1948 and subsequently, the European Convention of Human Rights. Withdrawal from that risked us becoming a ‘tiny little country’. It was all part of Brexit and the idea of ‘taking back control’ particularly our borders. The current government didn’t want anyone telling us what to do. This was particularly relevant in the context of the channel boat crossings. If we left the ECtHR it would give the government more power and the citizens less.
A counter view was that the UN Declaration and the ECtHR were both mistaken since it gave states the legitimacy to remove them (our rights). Our rights came from God it was argued.
Concern was expressed over the power struggle with our relations with Europe. There was a kind of ‘thuggishness’ in our government at present, not just around the bullying allegations against the Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab (which are denied), but the aspect of our role with Europe and the desire to leave the jurisdiction of the court. There was a kind of desire to appear strong. They were keen to show themselves to be above the judges and were seemingly happy to engage in battles with the Good Law Project. That it was a Conservative, Winston Churchill, who was a moving force in the signing of the UN Declaration seems to have been forgotten by some members of that party. We were reminded that the justice system was in crisis at present with massive waits for cases to be heard.
It was pointed out that we got the Human Rights Act because the government was constantly running into problems with the court in Strasbourg. They were overturning decisions by our courts which was proving embarrassing. People seem to have forgotten that our judges were quite reactionary. Examples included rights for disabled people and the right of elderly people to live together in a care home where the decisions of our courts were overturned.
The discussion moved on to discuss the Shamima Begum case. She was one of the three girls who fled to Turkey, thence to Syria, to join ISIS. The debate was around did the government have the right to remove her citizenship and to make her stateless? She currently lives in a camp in Syria. One view was that we should not be concerned about her welfare: she went of her own accord to join a murderous and fanatical group. What happens to her now was on no consequence.
Others pointed out that she was an immature teenager when she left and would have been easily misled. She had become the object of a media hate campaign. Would it not be better to accept that she has British citizenship, to bring her home and put her on trial? Another suggestion was to send her round to schools to explain the severe results of doing something such as she did?
This case – and our earlier discussion – both brought up the role of the media in generating negative ideas about the European Court and cases like Shamima Begum. Was the fact that she was a person of colour important in her demonisation someone wondered? It was important someone stressed, that rights existed for people you don’t like as well as those you do.
This discussion drew to a close with some remarks about our media, with their predominantly overseas ownership. Our rights were hard won over centuries (yes, Magna Carta was mentioned) yet there was a libertarian trend, promoted by some of the foreign media owners, who wanted more deregulation and who believed in increased libertarianism. It was these beliefs which led to the Grenfell Tower tragedy it was suggested. It was pointed out on the other hand that the print media was in danger of losing touch with younger readers in particular who no longer bought papers and often did not agree with their views.
We then moved on to discuss the question Do we need more immigration? a matter which arouses considerable controversy at present. The question was posed in the context of large numbers of European workers having left because of Brexit and sometimes because of the hostile environment. Many of those who came here were not allowed to work.
The economic argument was put forward namely, that British firms had relied on cheap labour, whether indigenous or imported, instead of investing in new kit and skills training. Corporate welfare was mentioned which meant that firms externalised their costs and employees were receiving benefits from the state and some were forced to use foodbanks. It was not just low investment but economic uncertainty which also contributed to our economic problems.
Was the nation’s attitude a reflection of being an island nation it was asked? Other nations had borders which had moved over the centuries with mixed populations. Britain was an island so its borders were fixed. This had engendered an ‘island mentality’.
The contrast in speaking to people whose family members had emigrated and the pride they expressed at their success and evidence of enterprise and ‘get up and go’, with attitudes towards those who came here was interesting. If our people go there, it’s good. If they come here, not good.
Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the need to frighten people to work was brought up. However, it was noted that the number of registered disabled had increased significantly so that, it was claimed, something like 20% of the working population was so designated (this figure was disputed). Many people suffered chronic illnesses it was said.
The discussion moved on to other issues to do with the labour supply and mobility was mentioned. We needed more labour mobility, both nationally and internationally: people needed to go where the work is. Some of the barriers are the housing supply and frictional costs in moving, and affordable childcare. Significant numbers of older people had left the workforce as a result of Covid but many had not returned. Perhaps training to encourage them back might be a solution. It was harder for older people to return however.
Should we in fact promote emigration? A period working abroad could be an attractive option for many.
Two interesting debates, both connected with our attitudes towards the outside world. They concerned a widely held and suspicious view of Europe closely connected with a fear and hostility towards immigrants. Our ‘island mentality’ has no doubt played a part. But it was interesting that just over half a million Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong have come to the UK almost without anyone noticing, whereas the 40,000 boat people had generated considerable anger and almost frenzied media attention. That seemed to point to a basic humanity which still exists in contrast to the hostility which grabs the headlines.
Peter Curbishley
Venue. There are some issues about out venue but we hope to know more before the next meeting on 11 March. Details will be posted here.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 