Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: elections

  • Democracy Café: July

    July 2024

    This was the first café after the recent general election so the question of how representative the voting was and whether democracy was working as it should was a key topic. The first question to be discussed however, concerned prisons: what do we want them to do and how effective is the penal system anyway? This arose because the incoming Labour government has inherited a fearful mess with prisons full and the system at crisis point.

    The first point to be made by someone who regularly visits a prison is that they were pleased the new minister had grasped the issue and in the circumstances, early release was probably the only option to ease the crisis. We were locked into the process of sending more and more people to prison and once there, there was violence, bullying and drugs – mainly spice. The staff were mostly young and inexperienced. Very little was done to prepare inmates for their release back into society.

    It was noted that we locked up more people than other European countries and in this connection, the Netherlands were mentioned who were actually selling off some of their prisons. The appointment of James Timpson as prisons minister was very much welcomed. He had said that one third of those who are in prison should be there, one third not there at all and one third needed rehabilitation.

    It was noted that we do not have the correct balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The emphasis, post Tony Blair’s time, was on punishment. The point was made that the problem was much bigger than the prison system itself and we had to accept that many of the public wanted punishment – indeed they were ‘hell bent’ on it.

    Echoing what was said earlier, once they were inside, there was nothing for them to do and precious little help on offer when they came out. It was small wonder recidivism was so high. Another problem was there was no government focus with several departments involved but which were not coordinated. Someone who visits Erlestoke prison, said it was far from being a ‘holiday camp’ and said it was the loss of liberty in every sense and having to wait long periods for medication and even post. Michael Gove was quoted as saying that the deprivation of liberty was the starting point although I was unable to source this. I did come across several speeches by Gove however in which he emphasises redemption and returning people to useful lives after release.

    Rory Stewart’s book was mentioned who had been a prison’s minister and how difficult he found making changes to the system. He spoke of the terrible conditions and infestation in some of our prisons so it is hardly surprising that people are brutalised. [This book is a must read for those interested in how government works].

    One issue that determines policy and leads people to be keen on prisons is that it acts as a deterrent. However, it was noted that those who commit crimes – at the moment of their criminality – do not think of being caught or life behind bars as a result. [The speaker might have noted they were not too far wrong since detection rates are very small and most crime goes undetected]. Solving crime was therefore important if prison was to be a deterrent.

    Someone said that right wing governments had a predilection for punishment whereas left wing governments were more about solving the problems. Since we now have a Labour government perhaps we could be optimistic. However, as someone has already noted, the Blair government was keen on locking people up so that theory may not hold. Indeed, it was suggested we may be risking getting a rather ‘rosy’ view now we had a Labour government. It was a political hot potato and we still have right wing papers keen on prison and the Reform party which is likely to have a very hard line on penal policy (one of its members was quoted saying ‘bring back the noose’). Many people thought that life in prison was far from the fearful experience we perhaps thought it was a ‘cushy number’, ‘a holiday’ and they had television as well.

    This prompted the question why so many in the public were so keen on punishment. Was it a cultural thing? It was surprising since we have the Howard League for Penal Reform which has successfully campaigned for a century and a half for a more humane and efficient system. Yet many people (and politicians) were stuck in the mentality of more and more people being locked up. We were reminded that not so long ago there was another period of crisis and soul searching about the prison system: the population then was 40,000! Now is over double that.

    One member said he had just spent some time in Asia and visited village communities whilst there. There we no police and they policed themselves. If there was crime of some sort, the elders would dispense justice. He noted that on a bus in parts of Asia, people will offer food to you, something unknown in the UK although sharing a hamburger might be a trifle difficult. He suggested we now have a ‘me’ based culture as opposed to a ‘we’ based one. This made it easier to ignore issues, such as child poverty, and to abdicate responsibility.

    One comment was that people could not imagine what a difference would be like. This was in connection with child poverty and drug abuse. I think the point was that change was difficult if people could not be persuaded that it would bring a better world. Change did happen we were reminded for example we no longer imprisoned children and we don’t punish homosexuals. The play The Mousetrap was based on a real life child abuse case.

    One member said they had taken a 12 year old around Shepton Mallet prison which was now closed but had re-opened to enable people to experience what prison was like. The child had come out shocked by the experience.

    Almost to sum up, it was noted that the whole question of prisons was too toxic a problem for politicians which meant they could not handle it. Was it in fact an opportunity for a citizen’s assembly? This would bring in views from a wide spectrum of people and experts. One did demure however suggesting that the national nature of the problem might make that difficult.

    The question of whether there was a select committee of any kind for prison reform was in existence (there is)?

    An interesting debate and in researching references for things said during our debate, it was noticeable that there are reformers and a realisation among some of the political class that the system is not fit for purpose and is in need of reform. Yet somehow it never goes anywhere and seems just too toxic, as someone said, for reform actually to take place. An answer might be the widespread belief that prisons are holiday camps a view supported by some of our media.

    It was perhaps no surprise that coming only a week after the general election, the question of our democracy and how it works was suggested for debate. There were three topics: do we need to reform the electoral process; did democracy deliver (in the election)? and what to do about Reform and civilising political discourse. It was noted straight away that the Labour party had two thirds of the seats in parliament but only one third of the vote. Also, only 60% voted it was said although the figure appears to be 52%. Reform received 14% of the vote but got only 5 seats whereas the LibDems did only slightly better but were rewarded with 72 seats. It meant that many did not get what they wanted although it was noted that many voted tactically mostly with the aim of removing the Tories from power.

    There was discussion around this and the difference between seats and vote share – considerable in this parliament. It is likely that Reform will argue during this parliament for a fairer system since the current one does not reflect the wishes of the electorate. It is likely that other parties including the LibDems and the Greens will push for some kind of system of proportional representation. There were many in the Labour party who wanted reform so it was not just a minority party issue. Reform of the House of Lords was also mentioned with discussion about a system based on citizen participation briefly discussed.

    The question of Nigel Farage’s behaviour was brought up including his maiden* speech in parliament in which he referred to the previous speaker of the House, John Bercow as ‘a horrible little man’. It was also questioned why we had a company with just two shareholders instead of a political party. Perhaps more significantly someone noted was that Farage secured a high degree of media coverage in contrast to the Greens for example and other smaller parties.

    We discussed the one vote, one person system which was in fact relatively new it was claimed. Did it deliver [good government]? It had given us the Nazis, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson all of whom or which had been voted in at some time.

    One of the principles of our system was that once voted in to be an MP for a constituency, the person so elected represented all the constituents not just those who supported him or her in the election. How do you ensure that an MP actually does this in parliament since from the moment they arrive, they are subject to whipping and have little say in what happens? The reality is we do not really know and as an example, the local MP Mr John Glen often speaks of ‘his postbag’ highly selectively since the known views of those who have written to him never seem to get a mention. Democracy seems to stop the day after an election.

    “democracy seems to stop the day after an election”

    An interesting suggestion was made – why not make elections a two-stage process i.e. with a second vote? This happens in France although that might not be a promising exemplar in view of what is happening there currently. Another interesting comment was that no one asked people why they don’t/didn’t vote. One speaker spoke of a friend who proudly said ‘I never vote’. Voting should be an obligation and indeed it was noted (again) that it was compulsory in Australia.

    One comment was to the effect we should not underestimate the awareness of the young especially in relation to climate change. Many want climate change immediately.

    There were the familiar comments about the media during the course of the debate. Serious matters reduced to a sound bite and various debate programmes never really tackling fundamental issues. One thought the IFS had too inflated a reputation consisting one said of ‘bean counters and neo liberals’.

    As if to round off the days two debates was the question ‘should prisoners have the vote?’ This had caused a rift with the European Court since in many countries they do but the coalition government were adamant not to allow it. David Cameron, the former prime minister said the thought of it ‘made him sick.’

    Two interesting debates with the prisons crisis a product of a dysfunctional government unable to decide on a difficult topic. Would any democratic system solve the problem of politicians unequal to the task? A question perhaps for a future debate.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned or relevant:

    Against democracy, Jason Brennan, 20106, pub: Princeton University Press

    Adventures in Democracy, Erica Benner, 2024, pub: Allen Lane

    How Westminster Works … and why it doesn’t, Ian Dunt, 2023, pub: Weidenfeld & Nicolson

    Politics on the Edge, Rory Stewart, 2023, pub: Jonathan Cape

    *It might not have been his maiden speech but a debate on electing the speaker.

  • Abolishing the House of Lords

    Seminar by the Sortition Foundation to create a ‘House of Citizens’

    June 2024

    We attended a Zoom seminar run by the Sortition Foundation in which they proposed the abolition of the House of Lords and replacing it with something they call a ‘House of Citizens’. They are calling it the ‘858 Project‘ after the year Henry II created juries.

    Trust in the HoL is low among the public at large. The average age is 71, it is mostly white and 71% are men. The majority are ex-politicians and most vote with their party. We are the only country, apart from Iran, where religious people (bishops) have seats in the Lords as of right. Watching a debate is to witness a slow and ponderous process as one after another elderly person totters to their feet to deliver a homily about some arcane subject few outside would be interested in. They are paid a handsome daily attendance fee and there was a scandal some years ago where it was revealed that many signed in and immediately left thus qualifying for their (tax free) attendance allowance but contributed nothing.

    However, Ian Dunt in his recently published book How Westminster Works and Why it Doesn’t puts forward a different view and claims that on the whole, the HoL does good work by correcting and carefully considering shoddy and ill-considered legislation sent up from the Commons. Despite appearances and of course the presence of a number of charlatans and dodgy characters, there is a significant number of members who have solid experience to offer, considerably more than is present in the lower house. Despite whipping, there is a higher degree of independence and willingness not to tow the party line.

    Since we do need a second chamber, how it should be formed needs careful thought. Sortition’s idea of 300 citizens who would serve for a year and paid what an MP is paid might not be the answer. Even informed by experts, their effectiveness might be questionable. For a start, anyone who watches programmes on television with audience participation will note that their ability to ask fundamental questions is generally limited. Vox pops are frequently embarrassing with participants able to say more than they like or dislike various politicians. The assumption that there is this vast pool of wisdom ‘out there’ whereas the HoL and the Commons is populated by fools and knaves is neither fair nor accurate. There are many hard-working and intelligent parliamentarians who work selflessly for the country and their constituents. Unfortunately, they are not usually the ones who regularly turn up to be interviewed on College Green.

    How long will it be before the established parties begin to get their people elected to the House of Citizens? How many will stay the course once the shine has gone off and the need to plough through reports and research becomes part of their duties? And is a year enough? Ministers complain that the frequent moves mean by the time they get to grips with their department, they are moved on often after only a year or so. By the time these citizens have learned the ropes their time will be up. How many people with appropriate skills will be able (or their employers allow) a year to take part in this?

    So an interesting seminar and Sortition are going out to consultation. Saying that the HoL is non-functioning is not altogether true. Booting out the bishops and hereditary peers would be a good first step. There is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater however. We need a second chamber composed of people with experience and dedication. I am not convinced that a House of Citizens is the answer although all praise to Sortition for starting this debate and trying to force it into the open.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Hugh Grant and our media

    April 2024

    Many of our Democracy Café debates often come back to the role of the media in shaping ideas, informing or concealing information from its readers, bias and generally influencing what we know and believe of the world around us.  The important titles are courted by government politicians and during Tony Blair’s time as prime minister for example, Rupert Murdoch slipped in and out of the back door of 10 Downing Street 28 times.  No notes or minutes of these meetings have been released. 

    The settlement by Hugh Grant of his phone hacking case is therefore of wider importance than just what was published about him and the means of getting the information by journalists.  

    The Daily Mail has enormous influence and again, Paul Dacre when editor was regularly courted, not to say fawned over, in the hope of favourable coverage.  They do not just report the news but seek to control the narrative and to shape policy.  Since the owners are for the most part foreign based, we have a disturbing situation where a handful of foreign oligarchs exert huge influence over policy.  We might imagine that the public votes in a government to carry out our wishes but the reality is that this small handful of men set the tone and decide what we read and what we should know about. 

    Hugh Grant was one of a large number of celebrities, sports people and royalty, who were subject to a wide range of tactics to get private information, who they were seeing, their medical problems and other matters in their private lives. Tactics included breaking into their homes, tapping their phones, blagging their medical records and bank accounts, and buying information from police officers.  Most of this activity was illegal but since the police themselves were compromised, no action was ever taken.  

    As an aside, you might wonder how a person’s medical records can be obtained without their consent.  One way was to employ a recently struck-off doctor say, who knew the language and jargon, who could phone a surgery to pretend to be an A&E surgeon and was treating X and therefore needed to know their medical history.  

    An important aspect of this is the scale of it.  One individual was paying the Metropolitan Police around £150,000 pa for information.  There have been 1,600 claims so far against NGN, publishers of the Sun and the now defunct News of the World.  A staggering £1bn has been paid to settle claims.  For reasons that are not at all clear, the Murdochs are desperate to prevent this ever coming to court.  Some may think that if all this surveillance and hacking had been to track down drug dealers, arms traders and people traffickers then the end might justify the means.  It wasn’t.  The people targeted were pop stars, actors, sportsmen and politicians.  

    Hugh Grant had to agree to end his action because of the legal process where a payment is made into court to settle the matter and if the judge awards damages less than this then the person complaining – even though they have won their case – will be responsible for both side’s costs. 

    This activity of paying off those whose lives were penetrated in this way simply to sell more papers is hugely significant for our legal process and our democracy.  Here we have a group of individuals who committed crimes over more than a decade, and who corrupted the police and the political process, who are allowed, in effect, to buy their way out of any kind of reckoning.  “Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done” a famous judge opined.  What we have is a flagrant avoidance of justice, simply a series of large payoffs to keep it all under wraps.   

    Yet there is very little outrage from politicians about this.  Imagine if a professional burglar went around Salisbury stealing from people’s homes.  When caught, he was able – from the fruits of his criminal activities – to pay into court a sum likely to equal the fine he might receive from the magistrates.  The CPS drops the case because they decide on the balance of probabilities that, even if they win the case and get a prosecution, they will end up paying both side’s costs.  There will be a non-disclosure agreement so the burglar walks away to do the same thing again and again.  People would be outraged if this were to happen (it cannot of course because a burglar cannot avail himself of this procedure).  

    The Fourth Estate as it’s sometimes known, is a key part of our political process.  It works by finding out what is happening and informing its readers accordingly by reportage and commentary.  If however, they become a power in their own right, able to control the narrative, and, by engaging in a variety of illegal activities, to find out the private details of anyone they wish, this becomes damaging to our society.  Who is there to report on them? If the politicians themselves are frightened to discuss this and to propose actions to control it, then this becomes a serious problem for all of us.  Effectively, voting in someone at a general election ostensibly to represent our interests becomes a nonsense: they dare not if it risks offending the beliefs or prejudices of our media proprietors. 

    An example is the prison system.  The system is in crisis.  Rotten and infested gaols; people locked up for 23 hours a day; overcrowding; rampant drug abuse and almost non-existent rehabilitation are just some of the problems.  Yet attempts by ministers to reform the system hampered – no, not hampered, stopped – by a handful of editors who believe that prisons are holiday camps, full of hardened criminals and murderers and vigorously attack any proposals to bring the system into the twentieth century let alone the twenty first.  So instead of a reasoned debate on our prison system and how we might learn from the Dutch for example who are closing and selling off many of theirs, we have paralysis (indeed, how many of their readers even know of the Dutch experience?).  Prison reform is a debate we do not have.  It is unlikely to appear in the general election debates both parties being obsessed with ‘law and order’ and terrified (of the media?) describing them as ‘soft on crime’.  

    Some have a cosy belief in the BBC but this organisation has been systematically attacked, its funding cut and right wing board members appointed to control its reporting.  Although there are some brave journalists, it has been seriously and deliberately weakened.  Members of the various Tufton Street organisations for example, appear regularly on our screens, in radio interviews and as panellists on political shows. One such organisation, the so-called ‘Institute’ of Economic Affairs, is a front organisation for mostly American right wing organisations yet never is one of their people asked ‘who funds you?’ They are allowed to pose as some kind of respectable ‘institute’ without the BBC interviewers ever asking this fundamental question (who funds them is never revealed).

    It may seem a long way from Hugh Grant to prisons.   But they both reflect in their different ways, how a handful of overseas media barons can manipulate the law to their own benefit, control the political process and who used a variety of illegal activities to set about any politician who dared to threaten their hegemony.  The claim now is that times have changed.  They no longer use illegal means to blag, burgle, bribe or steal to get their stories they say.  Then why spend north of £1bn to prevent it ever coming to court?  

    In all fairness to the tabloids, it has to be noted that these publications are read by millions and are piled up in supermarkets and on newsstands. Perhaps ‘piled up’ is an exaggeration, just a handful of copies these days. The public has known of these intrusions but continues to buy and read the results. The proprietors might fairly say ‘we are providing what the public wants to read’. If the public is not repelled by what we do, why should we be concerned?

    What we read and what we see on our screens, substantially shapes what we know of the world.  In Israel for example, the average Israeli knows very little of the destruction in Gaza.  In Russia, few Russians know of the enormous death toll of their men on the front line in Ukraine.  Perhaps in the UK we should be a little more concerned about how we, and our famed legal process, are so easily manipulated by a handful of overseas individuals? Shouldn’t we be a lot more concerned about the integrity and honesty of the media world and their owners?

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: May

    This meeting took place via Zoom the day after the results were known of the Hartlepool by-election and of some of the local election results as well. The Hartlepool election was a significant win for the Conservatives in what had been long regarded as a safe Labour seat. They won by a significant margin and with a big swing to the party. (We were reminded in the Sunday papers that the captain of HMS Amethyst in the ‘Yangtze Incident’ was the first to be MP when the constituency was formed).

    This prompted the winning topic of discussion: Why do people vote Tory? The government – and Boris Johnson personally – had for weeks been mired in a variety of sleaze allegations the most recent of which was the huge cost of redecorating the No 10 flat using money allegedly from a Conservative party donor. This had resulted in a number of enquiries being set up to establish the facts. Previously, there had been the Greensill lobbying saga involving the previous prime minister, David Cameron, and before that a series of allegations of contracts being given to friends, acquaintances or supporters of the party and its ministers, the so-called ‘chumocracy’. Despite this, and other shortcomings including one of the worst per capita Covid-19 death rates, the Conservatives romped home to a comfortable victory and made significant gains in the English local elections as well.

    One participant kicked off with a series of ideas about why this was the case. They thought:

    • politics was no longer about facts but a matter of style. There was a link to the game of ‘cavalier and roundheads‘
    • politics was more about show business and by inference, Boris Johnson was brilliant at this
    • there was a high degree of ignorance about how politics worked
    • the first past the post voting system made the system as a whole dysfunctional
    • politics was now the province of ‘mountebanks and snake oil salesmen‘

    To which someone added:

    • The election had to be seen in context, similar to war time, people opt for safety first. Later, it was suggested it was a kind of ‘Falkland’s moment’ not forgetting that until the time of that war, Mrs Thatcher was really struggling to make headway.
    • there was a high degree of pragmatism as the government had aimed to give them what they wanted eg the freeport with its promise of lots of jobs for the area. An interview in the town revealed that the vaccine success was a major factor (and could have mentioned that in a Brexit supporting town, the poor performance in the EU with their vaccination programme was also a factor).

    It was quickly pointed out that the Conservatives were not being that true to their core beliefs at present. They were a party of small government, low public spending, low regulation and the pre-eminence of the free market. The pandemic meant they were spending heavily, printing money and engaged in considerable government activity, the very opposite of the austerity years.

    It was also pointed out that voting Conservative was a ‘respectable’ thing to do. Some thought voting Conservative was risk averse and that once the pandemic had faded from view, the problems of Brexit will resurface. On the other hand, statements by various ministers that the sleaze stories had not made an impact (not ‘cut through’) with the public were described as shameful. Sleaze did not seem to matter because the public were not interested. Whatever happened to integrity?

    It was not long before Labour’s performance was brought up and Sir Keir Starmer was thought disappointing although it was pointed out he had been unable to campaign in person because of the pandemic. He is seen as dull. What Labour stood for was also very unclear.

    Back to Hartlepool and it was noted that the area had changed significantly over the years. It used to be a solid working class town whereas now it was trendy and gentrified with a social mix that had changed considerably. Had Labour recognised this change both here and elsewhere? The election had focused on the pandemic and Boris Johnson is seen as successful in having led a successful vaccination programme many believed. The easing of lockdown also brought a feelgood factor into play.

    The Conservatives will be emboldened by these election results. A worry was that a range of restrictive legislation will be quickly enacted. Restrictions on Judicial Review, the risk of being arrested and acquiring a criminal record for campaigning, and immunity for some wrongdoings by military personnel, together with harsher immigration and refugee regimes were all likely to proceed at pace. A voter ID system will further entrench their hold. It was pointed out that many of these policies are very popular among the public. Reductions in overseas aid for example received overwhelming support.

    Part of our discussion focused on the notion of a change from a ‘we society’ to a ‘me society’. People were less and less interested in collective solutions and more on what they could do for themselves. To an extent this struck at the heart of the Labour party project.

    Another factor was short-termism. Attention spans were short and by the time facts became known, we had all moved on. It makes changing policy week by week that much easier. Whatever happened to the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ for example which was a key policy less than a decade ago? An enquiry into what happened with Covid will not report until people have long forgotten what took place. An article by Vince Cable on this topic was recommended. It was a piece about short-termism and its relation to actions on climate change.

    Bearing in mind the strange times and the dominance of Covid and the vaccination programme, will a return to ‘normal’ politics see people changing their minds? Maybe, but it was noted that people are very slow to change their minds. Will concerns about Brexit begin to take over from the pandemic in a few months?

    I am not sure we ended up getting to the bottom of these events. The Conservatives have done well to sell themselves with snappy slogans such as ‘levelling up,’ ‘take back control’ and ‘Get Brexit done’ which have served them well. Thinking of a Labour or LibDem equivalent is hard. The successful vaccination programme and easing of lockdown has also served them well. Hartlepool was a keen Brexit town and Boris Johnson has delivered on that front. Labour’s choice of a pro-Remain candidate seemed ill-judged. But whether this will last is another matter. The Jersey fishing dispute – which happened a day or two before the election – is perhaps a taste of what is to come.

    A recommended website which was mentioned in discussions is: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ Another site with Covid facts is https://covidfaq.co

    Peter Curbishley

  • Trusting the people

    On several occasions on this site we have talked about Citizens’ Assemblies or Citizens’ Juries where a carefully and randomly selected group of people come together to discuss a topic of local interest. They have been used more and more around the world to try and find solutions to those tricky decisions that can so divide communities. People have great faith in democracy the assumption being that electing people who believe in certain things will result in good government, local or national. A quick look around us should have put paid to that belief.

    Shortly, we shall be having local elections. We have been trying to persuade the various local parties to include CAs in their manifestos with some success. A letter by Dickie Bellringer in today’s Salisbury Journal (29 April 2021) discusses progress so far:

    “There is one political party holding out against People Power in the upcoming local elections – the Conservatives. Before last week’s online candidates’ hustings , organised by the Salisbury Transition City, two Parties – Labour and the LibDems – had already committed to the idea of Citizens’ Assemblies in their manifestos.

    “LibDem candidate Victoria Charleston confirmed that commitment during the debate. The idea is in the Green Party’s national manifesto and the Green candidate Rick Page nailed his Party’s flag to the local Citizens’ Assembly mast.

    “Independent candidate Annie Riddle said we would needed to develop more grass roots democracy including CAs. We don’t know yet what the other Independents think. And Labour’s Clare Moody and Green’s Sarah Prinsloo made the important point, in answer to a question about how to educate people sufficiently to take part in CAs, that participants received information from expert witnesses so that they can make informed decisions.

    “At Salisbury Democracy Alliance we have kept the flame flickering for Citizens’ Assemblies over the past four years despite a cold wind of indifference from the Conservatives – apart from a glimmer of hope when the former City Council leader Jeremy Nettle warmed to the idea.

    “There was, however, silence from the Conservatives on the issue at the hustings and there is nothing in their manifesto. So, if the Conservatives don’t change their minds and if you don’t want to live under what Conservative peer Lord Hailsham called ‘elective dictatorship‘ don’t vote Conservative!”

    Dickie Bellringer is a member of SDA

    Peter Curbishley

  • What does -‘Independent’ mean?

    Increasingly frustrated by poor decisions being taken by local politicians in Salisbury, several people are standing as independents in the forthcoming May elections. Here, SDA member Dickie Bellringer cautions getting too carried away with the idea that independents will automatically solve problems in a letter to the Salisbury Journal two weeks ago.

    “AS a member of Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) and the Labour Party, I welcome independents who want to stand in local elections.  However, it should be pointed out that the description ‘independent’ is not necessarily the same as the description ‘apolitical’.  All independence means for sure is that the candidate is not a member of a political party. It may mean that they are also apolitical in the sense of having no interest in politics but this is not guaranteed.

    “In other words, independents may be just as political as members of political parties – we just don’t know what those politics are. And, by the way, Labour does not have a whip on the city council.  Further, simply standing for election, whether as a member of a political party or not, does not mean you are partaking in a democratic process tout court.

    “It could be argued that what we have would be better described as representative government in which the wishes of the voting public are kept as far away from the policy decision-making process as possible.  Which is why SDA is campaigning for Citizens’ Assemblies in which members of the public are randomly selected to deliberate and advise elected representatives on important local issues.

    “To date two political parties – Labour and the Lib Dems – are known to have included Citizens’ Assemblies in their manifestos as part of their plans for more open local government.

    “Let’s inject some real democracy into our community!”

    Dickie Bellringer

  • Annual meeting

    The officers held an annual meeting today (31 March 2021) to review progress and plan the future. Overall, the chair said, we have made good progress and the idea of both Democracy Cafés and Citizens’ Assemblies were both gaining ground. Dickie had set up a second Democracy Café in Bemerton Heath and this was slowly gathering members. There were now some 300 assemblies which have taken place around the world. Unfortunately, the CA idea had not been enthusiastically received either by John Glen MP nor the leader of Wiltshire Council Cllr Philip Whitehead. They both felt that they already represent everyone so it is not necessary.

    Account

    The bank account was in funds with little activity at present. As TSB had closed in Salisbury there was the question of where to bank in future.

    Officers

    The Committee was Mark Potts, Dickie Bellringer, Mike Hodgson, Jill Cheatle, Lesley Curbishley and Peter Curbishley. Officers were elected as follows:

    • Mark Potts, Chair,
    • Andrew Hemmings, Treasurer
    • Peter Curbishley, Secretary and website
    • Dickie Bellringer, Membership secretary

    Elections

    Elections are to be held in May and there have been attempts to interest the various parties to adopt policies to encourage Citizens’ Assemblies. Good progress has been made:

    • Labour’s manifesto for Wiltshire has included the policy of ‘trialling the use of a Citizen’s Assembly’.
    • The Labour group on the city council has, in its Statement of Intent, included ‘… supports the use of Citizens’ Assemblies’
    • The LibDems have a policy of encouraging and supporting CAs and has an immediate priority of ‘initiating planning for Citizens’ Assemblies’. Further details can be found from this link.

    Updates

    • A Zoom meeting was held on PR hosted by the LibDems and the local representative of Make Votes Matter will make contact with DB.
    • OECD had published a report Catching the Deliberative Wave which discusses the 300 different models and experiences around the world
    • The People in the Park event has been postponed until September 18th. We have been invited to attend and to speak. We will plan a leaflet or factsheet nearer the time.
    • The Hampshire Equality Trust are considering a Democracy Café which will not be exactly like normal one but will focus on equality issues.
    • A Democracy Café was held with RSA which split into two groups. There will be another meeting in Devon on 11 May.
    • On 18 May there is to be a Zoom meeting with the polymath, Prof Raymond Tallis. A link will be provided in due course. Early registration is advised.
    • The talks to schools are on hold as they will be concentrating on restarting the education programme and catching up on lost time.
    • Dickie spoke of the reading group he runs under the aegis of the Library.
    • The Talkshop event, cancelled at the outbreak of the pandemic, is still on hold. It was agreed that we would not consider restarting the project until we had resumed a face-to-face Democracy Café at the Playhouse. When they re-open we did not know at present.

    Readers would be welcome to join our next Democracy Café which takes place on Saturday 10 April at 10:00 am. Leave a message here to let us know and we will send you the link.