Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: election

  • 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.

  • Selecting the new prime minister

    Is the current system fit for purpose?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

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

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

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

  • People power

    This is the title of a letter from our chair published in the Salisbury Journal on Thursday 15 April 2021 on the subject of Citizens’ Assemblies.

    It is time to restore the faith of the citizens of Salisbury in the political process.  To that end, it is heartening to see so many candidates for the City and County elections to be held on May 6th embracing the idea of giving a voice to a wide cross section of the citizens of Salisbury.  Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Independent candidates have all pledged their support for the idea of Citizens’ Assemblies or Citizens’ Juries to consider deeply issues like how to meet the climate emergency or how to revitalise our city centre.  The Conservatives are the notable exception.  Have they not learned that they need to restore the faith of the citizens of Salisbury after their shabby treatment of us in recent years?

    Members of Citizens’ Assemblies/Juries  are chosen by a process called ‘sortition‘, where letters are sent out inviting citizens to participate and those who respond positively are then chosen at random to be representative of the make up or our community in terms of income level, ethnicity, gender and age.  The citizens who are chosen to attend are paid to attend much like a jury in a trial.  This process ensures that people who would not normally be engaged in such issues are give n the means to participate.  

    The participants study the evidence from all sides and make recommendations for our community which are not based on political dogma, sectional interests or personal favour.  Councillors – for all their commitment and hard work – rarely have the opportunity to focus so closely on one issue, hear from the experts scrutinise the evidence and work collaboratively with others to make fully informed recommendations.  This deliberative process is being used in communities throughout the world.   A recent OECD report covered 300 examples world wide.

    Why will the Conservatives at both city and county level not back a process which gives power to members of our community in Salisbury?  We have seen the consequences of poor decision making by the councils for our city.  It is time to restore power to our community. 

    Dr Mark Potts

    Chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance

  • Democracy Café, December meeting

    The December 2019 meeting took place a day after the emphatic win by the Conservatives in the General Election. Boris Johnson was returned with an increased majority of 80. The Labour party is now engaged in what will be an extended period of soul searching and will in a few months, elect a new leader. The LibDem leader lost her seat and although they increased their vote this was not rewarded with any additional seats

    It was not surprising therefore when the various suggested topics all centred around the state of politics today. There seems little doubt that the main issue in the election was the seemingly never ending saga of Brexit. Boris Johnson had stuck to his key theme of ‘Get Brexit done!’ and this clearly had resonated with the public many of whom are fed up with the whole issue and want it all over.

    The discussion about what happened ranged quite widely. What was the meaning of traditional Labour supporting areas in the north voting for the Conservatives? Many of the traditional jobs in large areas of the north have gone and with it those ideas of collectivism and solidarity. ‘Thatcher’s children’ were now the norm. Many have forgotten the battles of the past such as the Jarrow march it was noted. The achievements of trade unions have also been forgotten.

    What do people mean by ‘socialism’ now? Was it some combination of public ownership and controls on capitalism? Someone argued for the complete absence of private capital. People wanted capitalism but with limits and were happy overall with a mixed economy.

    Mention of a more equal press drew the only applause of the meeting. It seems undeniable that, although fewer and fewer read a newspaper, the relentless bias of the right wing press did have some kind of effect.

    The discussion had focused thus far on the problems experienced by Labour and where they might go in the future to recover. The point was made on the other hand that the Conservatives had their own ideological problems. Their beliefs – dating back to the Thatcher era – were based on small government, low taxes, private enterprise, deregulation, competition and free trade. The effects of these policies were increasingly becoming clear. They have been acutely experienced by the ‘left behind’. To reverse these problems, to retain what Boris Johnson called the ‘borrowed votes in the north, and to rectify a decade of cuts to health, schools and to infrastructure generally, was going to require significant reversal of policy. All this while the next stage of Brexit was in full swing. Will the Conservatives be able to carry out such a change in their core ideology?

    Individualism seemed to be a thing which counts now. Many of the public who are interviewed seem only concerned with their own situation not on wider issues. The ‘aspiration of the individual’ is what counts someone said. Or was it to be a member of a fairer society? Did people understand the difference between capitalism and socialism in any event?

    Inevitably, we got onto personality. It seems that neither of the party leaders was liked nor trusted. At the Salisbury hustings for example, people laughed at John Glen when he referred to trust in Boris Johnson. Studio audiences also laughed when trust was mentioned in the same sentence as his name. Corbyn was widely disliked and distrusted on a wide number of issues. So is the result of this election a one-off and a result of people’s attitudes to these two men?

    An argument developed about immigration – one of the prime political concerns today and one that crops up on the doorstep. Indeed, at the last Salisbury for Europe street event, there were two people with strong and fierce anti immigrant views. The difficulty it was stressed was the difference between genuine concerns about the scale and impact on the one hand and prejudice on the other. ‘White working class people look out of their door and see something completely different’ it was said. It was regrettable that words like ‘swamp’ and ‘flood’ were used however. The point that without immigrants, the health service could no operate, food would not be prepared and vegetables left unpicked was not made. The problem has a long history it was noted, Enoch Powell for example.

    We continued along similar lines after a break and the discussion moved on the nature of the current system – a familiar topic for the cafe. Salisbury is a safe Tory seat which means that someone could live a lifetime in the City and not ever be represented. That an MP represents all the constituents cut little ice.

    One theme was how well can the public understand the complexity of government? This brought up the issue of the Referendum: do MP’s go with what they believe or what the voters told them? This was the difference between an MP being a delegate or a representative. Large parts of the public seem to want the former.

    Proportional representation has its own problems and can lead to a small party wielding disproportionate power. The DUP is a recent example. Now that Johnson has a big majority, he will safely ignore them. But in a sense that illustrates the basic problem: one minute the DUP is influential, a day later, they can be ignored. Whatever one thinks of the DUP – and few this side of the Irish Sea will think favourably of them – how representative and balanced is this system of voting. For three years, the ERG has wielded enormous power and influence over government policy. Now, a day later, they can be largely sidelined.

    The point was made that democracy is about the ability to challenge the government and Gina Miller was instanced. It was about the right to speak. So in a sense, no votes were wasted as it showed the depth of feeling about a subject.

    Conclusion

    No definite conclusion but a widespread feeling that things are not right. The damaging effect of a foreign owned right wing press and its influence on voting was expressed. First past the post might, on occasion, produce a strong government which its supporters claim, but it more usually ends up with marginal government and does not represent actual voting. In Salisbury, some felt that they are never represented nor ever can be.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café

    This meeting (9 November 2019) took place a couple of days after the official start of the General Election campaign which will take place on 12 December 2019. Both topics chosen had a political feel to them – to be expected I suppose – and both were related.

    The first topic was should we be able to delete social media history from when we were young? The concern was that rash or ill-considered comments made in someone’s youth could be dragged much late in life to embarrass them. This applies to political and other public figures of course and the point was made that the media was always on the lookout for such remarks. The main charge laid against someone in these cases was hypocrisy and some wondered whether this was said too quickly. Maynard Keynes is credited* with saying ‘when the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?’

    Someone observed that to change one’s mind shows you have one.

    Much of the discussion focused on trust and how to establish it. Consistency was one aspect and being able to see what someone said in the past and compare it with today was a way. Deleting the past would frustrate that of course. Some examples were quoted of well known politicians arguing, before the Referendum, for a second one once details were known are now to be heard saying people knew full well what they were voting for. The question of course is where and when to draw it.  These were not statements made when they were young. 

    It was noted that student debates were often on some nonsense subject so to hold someone to things they said then would perhaps be unreasonable. It was also said by several people that we all change our minds as we go through life, cannot politicians do the same? It would seem that time and distance in the past is the key here. If someone did change their mind, was it not justified to ask them why and to give a reason?

    The debate moved on to freedom of speech issues and the issue of causing offence was discussed. There is arguably an increase in the number of instances where politicians and others are asked to apologise for ‘causing offence’ to a group, usually a minority one. There was a difference of opinion here with some thinking that causing offence was a real problem and can make minorities feel vulnerable or victimised. Sometimes this hate speech led to physical acts.

    Another significant point made by several, was the importance of teaching children to question what they read and the information they receive. They should learn the important distinction between facts and opinions.

    The second half of the session switched to the question ‘can a politician tell the truth today and expect to be elected?’ The election had started with some startling claims to spend vast sums on various parts of the economy. Could any politician stand up and say that this may be reckless or unaffordable and would in any event take many years to achieve (the promise of more GPs for example would take a decade)?  Was it possible for a prospective politician to say for example ‘our economy is weak, our debt is 80% of GDP, our productivity is poor and if we want a better NHS and more help for the elderly, we are going to have to pay for it with higher taxes.’  

    It was pointed out straightaway that arguably there were a few who did(do) and Shirley Williams and Caroline Lucas were both mentioned.

    The discussion moved quickly onto the life led by MPs now and in particular the role played by social media and the tech giants.  A number of MPs – particularly female MPs – were not standing again the main reason appeared to be the constant stream of death, rape and other violent threats they regularly receive.  The life of an ordinary MP was described at length in Elizabeth Hardman’s book Why we get the wrong politicians. She paints a fairly dismal picture of life in parliament and the expense and problems of getting there in the first place.  At the end of the book you get a good understanding of why we end up with such poor decision making, bad laws and poor governance.

    Another key debating point was the nature of ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ and who decides? A lot of what politicians say is about what will happen in the future if they are elected into office. This is by its nature speculative. In this connection, a local MP can make all sorts of promises but they are promises about his or her party and over which they will have little say (unless they become a minister).

    Needless to say the Referendum was mentioned and the point was made that our system was based on the concept of an MP being a representative. This had changed into them becoming delegates. So an MP who thought, prior to the referendum, that we should stay in the EU but his or her constituency voted to come out, what should they do? Were they honest to continue carrying out a policy which they believed to be wrong? Some thought they were not. Also, carrying on supporting a policy knowing that it could not be done was dishonest.

    The role of the media was discussed and it was suggested that they often focused a lot on the future which, as we’ve said, is essentially speculative. It was here that we touched on the first debate because what politicians say they will do has to be looked at in terms of what they said they would do in the past and did they do it?

    Was it the media’s duty to inform? Some would say yes but it was also noted that newspapers were about selling papers and they had to reflect to a large degree what their readers wanted. No doubt if there was a demand for facts then they would be provided. At least conventional media was subject to some kind of control and the laws of defamation. Social media platforms were outside anyone’s control and enabled people to say anything and say it anonymously. Which is where we came in and the role social media is having in the nation’s discourse…

    No doubt we shall come back to this topic area in the future.  The next meeting was scheduled for 14th December but it may be too noisy to have a debate in the Playhouse.  We shall meet anyway and see.  

    Peter Curbishley

    *there are doubts whether JMK said this.

  • Democracy Cafe

    The next DC is tomorrow Saturday 9th November at 10 as usual in the Playhouse. With the general election announced the other day, there will surely be lots to talk about. The bidding war between the two main parties is extraordinary: it only seemed like yesterday that the cry was our financial woes, and the need for austerity (remember that?), was due to the Labour party recklessly overspending. Now countless billions are promised.

    Is this degree of spending the right answer anyway? Will pumping that degree of money into the economy risk inflation? Are the promises to be believed?

    Lots to discuss and it doesn’t have to be about the election anyway.