Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: immigration

  • October Democracy Café

    Probably the 100th Café to be held

    We think this meeting was the 100th Café to be held and is a testament to the format that it has survived several different venues and came through the Covid crisis unscathed. Sadly, numbers were down for this meeting – the lowest for some while – but that did not inhibit the discussion.

    We are grateful to Salisbury Library for allowing us to use their venue.

    The first topic of the morning was the vexed question of immigration which has filled the airwaves in one form or another for months now. It featured strongly in the recent party conferences. The question was Surveys show that immigration is of prime concern at the moment despite other matters being more important: discuss. The first comment was to expand on the topic to say that Reform is largely centred on immigration and kindred matters and the other parties are keen to jump on the band wagon. Matters such as the NHS, education and roads for example are more important but do not receive the same attention. Another said immigrants had become the whipping boy for problems in the country and the concern was the degree of traction it was getting. A general election tomorrow would probably see a Reform government elected.

    Who’s to blame for this? Was it the likes of Robert Jenrick or the Labour party? Or was it the failure of politicians to stand up for immigrants and to point out that the NHS simply could not function without them? Why are they so defensive?

    One spoke of his early life experience going to Wales because his father was a key worker in the nascent plastics industry. They were given houses in Barry (of Gavin and Stacey fame) which was much resented by the locals. Life was quite uncomfortable such that many wanted to return to England. It is easy to understand the resentment however with English ‘immigrants’ arriving and taking the newly built houses (actually prefabs).

    One spoke of her discomfort at the display of St George’s flags. They were looking after a property tenanted by Egyptian medics. The neighbour next door displayed one of these flags and there was some unpleasantness. It was quite provocative.

    It was similar in some respects to Brexit someone suggested: a simple solution to a complex problem. Why were there no ‘grown ups’ in the room spelling out the [real] problems? Was it a case of deflection? Another thought was that voters tend to vote against something not for: voters were given some ‘ugly’ but simple things to vote against it was claimed. If the economy was doing well, perhaps there would be no need to demonise immigrants? A recent Question Time programme was mentioned where the audience appeared to turn against Reform which was encouraging.

    Much of the public debate centred on ‘illegal’ immigration but it is not illegal to enter the country to seek refuge. It was more properly ‘irregular’ immigration. It was demonising and dehumanising. There was a comparison with the ’30s in Germany and the campaigns against the Jews who were alleged to be to blame for many of the country’s ills and the loss of the Great War.

    There was some discussion about the role of the rich in our society triggered by an assertion that Nigel Farage receives massive coverage despite his party only having a tiny number of MPs. Having a simple message was part of the answer it was suggested. He also defended the position of the rich which was popular with our newspaper owners. In this connection, the recent events concerning the PPE scandal and the award against Baroness Mone in the PPE scandal was discussed. None had gone to prison it was noted. Millions had been spent on the court case but the award was against the company, Medpro, which is now in receivership and whether any of the £122m award will ever be seen is questionable. By contrast, benefit cheats do go to prison.

    Were political parties frightened of the rich? Promises to do something rarely came to anything. The distraction idea surfaced again, with suggestions, along the lines of Juvenal’s bread and circuses, that governments were more interested in distracting the voters rather than tackling root problems. Where the fundamental beliefs that used to determine the parties someone asked? Sir Keir Starmer’s lack of charisma and vision was mentioned.

    One curiosity was mentioned and that was how people spoke disparagingly about immigrants and others not from these shores but if they were in the presence of such a person would say ‘I don’t mean you’. It was a kind of ‘othering’ and how the word was detached from individuals. So people were grateful for help and treatment in a hospital from a foreign medic, but would still sound off about immigrants as though they were some kind of different species. It was noted however, that assaults and racial abuse on medical staff had increased dramatically.

    There was discussion about the use of the St George’s flag and how they were visible all across Somerset someone claimed. Some of the complaints about immigrants were not just about housing and ‘taking our jobs’ but suggesting it was to protect our daughters and the risk of rape. Dangerous lies were being told. There is an interesting post on the local Amnesty site on the immigrant/refugee situation.

    If there were some themes to emerge one was the pusillanimity of our politicians who were seemingly too afraid to praise the contribution of immigrants to our country. Second was the success of simple arguments peddled to complex problems and thirdly, finding scapegoats for problems no matter how relevant they were. Which sort of linked to the second topic …

    The second half of our debate tackled the notion ‘Did it matter which political party was in charge?‘ This it was explained was based on the assertion that a range of outside forces meant the room for manoeuvre by governments was extremely small.

    Parties keep a close eye on the polls and spend time with focus groups as they want to be re-elected. They have few principles that can survive this and the need to placate the media is another factor. There was also the question of representing the views of the electorate which politicians had to be mindful of. ‘It’s what my constituents want’ is a frequent cry from some politicians. They always claim to be ‘listening’. One anecdote was of a politician invited onto Desert Island Discs, who organised a focus group to give him advice on what records to choose [the politician was named]’. Tony Blair relied heavily of focus groups.

    We were reminded of the term ‘Butskellism’ which emerged in the ’50s and was a combination of two leading politicians Rab Butler (Conservative) and Hugh Gaitskell (Labour) because many key aspects of their policies were similar and centrist in nature. Both parties pursued broadly similar policies in fact.

    Politicians were in a difficult position it was noted. If they stuck to their principles they risked losing the whip and were of limited use to their constituents. Isabel Hardman in her book Why we get the wrong politicians (Atlantic Books, 2019) described the lonely and stressful world that some lived and how badly they were treated as backbenchers. It was suggested that this was less of a problem in Europe where they do not have whipping systems.

    Back to the question and the role of lobbying was mentioned. There was a considerable number of lobbyists in the Commons and they played a key role in shaping policy and representing the interests of their mostly, powerful backers. Many were centred on Tufton Street which has become infamous for their behind the scenes activities. They were sometimes referred to as ‘junk tanks’. Often their funding was opaque and they were funded by fossil fuel interests.

    There have always been lobbyists it was noted and they do sometimes have a purpose in introducing outside views and expertise into the political arena. There was discussion we have had before about the narrow nature and backgrounds of politicians in parliament. Public school, university, a think tank then into parliament. Many lacked real world experience. Shuffling between ministries was mentioned as discussed by Rory Stewart in his book Politics on the Edge: no sooner had a minister got to grips with a department, they were moved. The narrow pool from which ministers are chosen was also noted. Most were MPs (the occasional person from the Lords) and if you were appointing the boss of a major corporation, there is no way such a method would be used.

    There were comparisons with other countries where often circular arrangements were employed in their debating chambers to avoid the confrontational approach. In Belgium, ministers resigned their seats once appointed. It was noted that we seemed unable to learn from other countries. The UK system was not fit for purpose it was suggested, designed for managing the Empire not for the present day.

    But do we, the electors, have some responsibility? We demand low taxes in the belief we are better off the lower they are. The current government was in a bind having won power partly because of its low tax promises. We want the services, the NHS to be fixed and pot holes to be filled etc. but we do not want to pay higher taxes for them. Or rather, we want others to pay more but not us. It was noted that money spent on defence might be better used elsewhere.

    Two interesting debates, linked in some ways around responsible government, politicians to show more courage and to be honest and how increasingly, simple solutions and scapegoats employed to tackle complex problems.

    The next meeting, number 101, is on November 8th.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café, May

    May 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Two interesting debates and several remarked how enjoyable they were.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

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

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

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

  • Democracy Café

    December meeting debated two topics of current interest

    December 2023

    Two topics won through at this meeting: one about how we might fortify the United Nations and the second what are we to do with migrants? Both are in the news at present. The UN has featured in the Gaza situation and the issue of migrants is front and centre with the news concerning the boat crossings and Rwanda.

    Viewing the current state of the world with the terrible events in Gaza following the attack by Hamas on 7 October, the war in Ukraine and other wars taking place in sub Sahara for example, it was natural to ask whatever happened to the post-war hope of a United Nations able to ‘police’ the world?

    The problem it was pointed out, was that the victors of WWII were not keen on providing the necessary powers to the UN for it to carry out a major peace-keeping role. It was clear the major powers were reluctant to give up their power to allow the UN to step in. In particular, the US was a dominant force and many countries were perhaps unduly deferent to it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example, agreed in 1948, was notable for the reluctance of France and the UK in particular to agree to its universality due to their terrible activities and violations in their colonies, Kenya for the UK and Algeria (France).

    The veto of the principal powers: UK, US, China, France and the then USSR, was discussed. They were able to use this veto to maintain their power and initially at least, prevent countries from joining the UN.

    The discussion moved on to look at reform including issues around the veto. Was it right for this small group of countries – who held their position due to their victory in WWII – should keep this power? How could the UN be reformed? There is a process of reform which takes place and the institution has changed considerably over the years [although most of the sites do not appear to refer to the question of reforming the veto powers]. It seems to illustrate the principle that those with power are nearly always reluctant to give it up. It was suggested that reform should come from outside since the organisation was a ‘closed’ system. It was also noted that the world’s biggest arms sellers were the 5 permanent members. So while they were meeting to discuss how to achieve peace and resolve conflicts, they were busy selling arms to the warring parties.

    Should all countries have the same weight? At present it was one vote per country and the inference in the question was the bigger the country, the more votes they should have. However, it was suggested that the smaller less powerful countries should perhaps have more than one vote to ‘even things up’. The problems of voting power and it consequences were provided by the COP system where any one participant could frustrate the will of the majority leading to feeble results and inaction on the climate.

    The focus on the Security Council and the antics of some countries there, drew attention away from the many positive things the several UN agencies have achieved around the world. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has many disease reduction or eradication achievements to its name e.g. TB; yaws, malaria and smallpox. Also on the positive side, it was noted that the Secretary General, António Guterres, has come out of the Middle East conflict well.

    A more fundamental question was posed: what would the world look like if we didn’t have a United Nations? Would it be a Hobbesian world (nasty, brutish and short)? To an extent the question was left hanging but it did focus our minds briefly on the many benefits of the organisation as against the all too visible failings. If we were to start again, would the idea of assembling 190 or so nation states be thought a good idea today? Will the UN ever be in a position to curb the power of a Putin or the Iranian mullahs someone asked?

    We moved on to discuss the issue of power and whether we should have ‘a people’s UN’ to give voice to those who have been overlooked – the aborigines in Australia were mentioned. Should we adopt a citizen’s jury approach where the views of a wide range of people could be taken account of?

    Does the UN Association still exist it was asked? It does.

    The second half debate was on the tricky subject of migrants, a topic of considerable salience currently with the debate over deportations to Rwanda in full flood at present. Next week is the vote to try and set aside some parts of the Human Rights Act to enable them to take place following the Supreme Court’s decision a few weeks ago.

    It would be fair to say the proposer was not an enthusiast for allowing migrants to stay here, claiming that they pose a security risk and are from alien cultures.

    The first speaker said they completely disagreed. Immigrants add considerably to our society and to the cultural mix. They played an essential part in our economy and filled many vacancies for jobs British people seemed unwilling to do. It was pointed out that without them, parts of our economy would grind to a halt: hospitals would would be forced to offer maternity and A&E; many food products would disappear off the shelves and the London transport system would not be able to function. It was also pointed out that our birth rate was dropping and we needed an influx of young people to do the jobs we wanted doing. Immigration was needed to keep the economy dynamic.

    Many people coming here to claim asylum were escaping from terrible regimes. The government’s plan was to deny the right to seek asylum to anyone arriving here illegally – essentially by boat. It was noted however that there were no boat crossings prior to 2016. They started because all legitimate routes had been closed down meaning that immigrants were forced onto the boats as the only way left. An enormous amount of attention was paid to this issue but much less on the tens of thousands awaiting decisions from the Home Office.

    It was noted that the problem was much worse for other countries which had huge immigrant populations for example Turkey and Jordan.

    We quickly got onto why has this become such a political issue consuming huge amounts of political time and the cause of two recent ministerial resignations. One factor was the foreign own media which presented a regular series of negative stories about immigrants accusing them of a range of antisocial activities. It has to said though that they are supplying a market. On that subject was this week’s edition of Question Time on the BBC. It was in front of a strongly Conservative audience being hosted in Petersfield in Hampshire. The Conservative MP did not get a totally sympathetic audience and there were cheers for comments of a sympathetic nature as far as immigrants were concerned. ‘Very heartening’ someone said.

    It was suggested that immigration was a ‘political lens’ for looking at various problems. There has been significant political failure by politicians failing to look at root causes not just with immigration but climate change as well. In the context of Rwanda, the government has created its own problems.

    The way government treats refugees is very instructive – Tony Benn

    A startling comment was made about Rwanda namely it was a contract of exchange. It has been claimed that for each refugee we send to Rwanda, one will come back on a one-for-one basis. [I have looked into this startling claim and it has been scrutinised by Full Fact. It is not totally true. A ‘portion’ of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees may be sent here but the number is not known. A statement given to parliament said ‘it would be a small number’. Small is relative of course but it is surprising in all the fire and fury of discussions about this topic that this aspect of the deal has not been discussed more.]

    The sheer cost of the Rwanda deal was commented on at an estimated £169,000 per person. Millions have so far been spent with more to come (or is it go?) without a single refugee having gone.

    Then there was the cost of housing migrants here while their cases were reviewed. It was claimed that the government was using hotels in marginal seats for political purposes. According to the Daily Mail, the government is stopping using hotels in ‘battleground’ constituencies (in Mail speak).

    It has been suggested that the Bibby Stockholm be moved from Portland and moored in the Thames opposite the House of Commons for the accommodation of MPs thus saving £4m in second home claims.

    Other points included asking how do we encourage a better debate on this subject and get away from what we see in the media today? It was suggested that sorting the problems in the host countries was much the best way to stop the numbers leaving. It was also noted – in the context of medical staff working in the NHS – that we were ‘stealing’ these people from their home countries thus denuding their health services of valuable skills.

    Danny Kruger, the MP for Devizes, was mentioned in critical terms particularly his comments on migrants and refugees.

    We were left with the intriguing question, if we get a new government, will they reverse some of these decisions?

    We wish all our readers a Happy Christmas and we look forward to seeing you at our next meeting on 14 January 2024.

    Peter Curbishley

    Ken Loach’s film The Old Oak was recommended.

  • Democracy Café: July

    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

  • Democracy Cafe, February

    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.