Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: labour

  • What could possibly go wrong?

    What could possibly go wrong?

    December 2025

    In the complex political world in which we live, it seems that the standard response to any new proposal or initiative is “What could possibly go wrong?” Even allowing for the British love of sarcasm, this is quite a worrying trend. The implication, of course, is that any venture is doomed to fail and with it the probable demise of the lead actors. Although we know that politicians (and civil servants) are held in low esteem, does this mean that we think they are, ipso facto, incompetent, or do we think that whatever they are planning is pointless? Either view is alarming.

    How did we get to this state? Clearly, for any venture, the chances of error are very high. But they are made much more damaging if the original policy is mooted as a solution to a recognizable problem. One has only to think of any recent Budget, with the furore resulting from some tax change which might have unexpected consequences. Politicians tend to react to this kind of treatment by preparing the ground beforehand issuing various hints and leaks, with the inevitable risk of that playing out badly too. The recent IHT changes came about because the government wanted to clamp down on rich landowners purporting to be farmers so that the land could be kept in the family, but it ended up appearing to be an attack on the farming community.

    There is no doubt that a Labour government has a particular

    problem in that the right wing press will present its actions in the worst possible light. But that is all the more reason for giving an honest presentation of what the policy is, how it is intended to work and the possible snags. Apart from helping to block attacks from opponents, this would mean taking the public into ones confidence, surely an astute move (and also resulting in a better informed electorate).

    If it does all go wrong, the best response must be to own up and try to explain  what happened, instead of looking for someone to throw under the bus. Politicians would no doubt say that the public would be enraged, but they probably are anyway. If MPs want to be respected, they are going to have to level with the voters. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

    Andrew Hemming

  • 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.

  • 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 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