Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: media

  • Democracy Café

    November 2024

    Post amended 23 November

    A lively and well attended session on the Saturday following the wonderful/disastrous (please delete as appropriate) election of Donald Trump to be the next president of the USA. You may not be surprised to know that eight of the 10 topics people proposed were, in some way or another, connected to this event. The one actually chosen was Why did the Democrats lose the election?

    It was suggested that many – a bit like the UK election – didn’t like either candidate, so ‘held their noses’ and voted for Trump partly because he fitted their views. It was suggested that Donald Trump focused on the economy (mostly) whereas Kamala Harris by contrast spent time on things like women’s issues and seldom discussed the economy. It was noted that in fact the economy was doing quite well with 2.2% growth and inflation at 3% but the Democrats failed to get the message across.

    The elephant in the room someone said was the middle east and Gaza in particular. Democrats were put off by Harris’s attitude and silence and many Moslem’s did not vote.

    Another factor it was noted was the late entry by Harris and the lack of a primary. She had little time to establish herself. She was a poor candidate someone thought. Would there have been a different result if the Democrats had had a better candidate it was suggested? I was asked, after the meeting, to include this link to a Guardian article from someone who worked for the Democrat team over the pond. It is an interesting perspective.

    A different view concerned people’s lack of understanding of economics. The discussion moved to the UK at this point and it was noted that it is not taught in schools below A level. It is seen as a specialist subject and is a small part of the curriculum even where it is taught. Bill Clinton’s ‘it’s the economy stupid’ was quoted to express how important the subject was to people. In this connection, it was said that whereas the economy might be performing well but for many Americans, life was a struggle. Someone who’s son was in Texas said they don’t feel well off.

    Back to the USA and the Democrats had a credibility problem it was said. Her focus on gender identity issues; women’s rights combined with Jo Biden’s very visible decline contributed to their loss of credibility. Someone did ask: ‘did Harris achieved anything?’ (as VP) which was left unanswered. But then it was noted that vice presidents seldom did achieve much – it was the nature of the post. We were reminded that if Trump should be unable to carry on as president for some reason, JD Vance will assume power … We swiftly moved on.

    At this point it was noted that the word ‘populist’ has not been used. It was a pity we didn’t discuss this further.

    A different perspective emerged when someone reported on some comments made by Bony Greer on the last edition of BBC’s Question Time. She is reported to have said the US was a completely different country sitting as it was between two oceans. It was populated almost entirely by immigrants yet most saw themselves as ‘post immigrants’. Immigration was a hot topic in the election and a weakness for the Democrats. Rather like the boat people in the UK, immigrants coming across the border from Mexico were not popular. Trump had tuned into these feelings. It was noted that home produced goods will be more expensive than imports and how will Americans cope with that? Wages were not keeping pace with inflation.

    America had prospered after the war and had many manufacturers of cars, domestic goods, clothes and much else. Many of these jobs had gone overseas and had left vast swathes of middle America with few jobs. Detroit was an example. Although the country might be prosperous, large areas weren’t and there was much poverty. As someone noted ‘it was easy to be a liberal when you’re better off’.

    It was easy to be a liberal if you are better off

    It seemed to suggest America was becoming more isolationist. The proposal to impose tariffs on import with China likely to attract 60% was perhaps evidence of this. On the other hand it was noted that America has a history of involvement around the world. It had intervened in many South American countries fomenting coups and other activities.

    In the second half we felt sufficient time had been given to the American election and decided on the topic of the Intimidation of media in the UK. The proposer mentioned the Electronic Intifada site and the arrest on terrorist charges of one of its journalists. Craig Murray was also mentioned who was sacked from his diplomatic post after exposing human rights abuses by the Karimov regime. The contention was that journalists were being arrested for carrying out honest journalism. [Amendment 23 November. It was clear that few had heard of the arrest mentioned at the start of this paragraph which in a way, reinforces the point that it is not just mis and disinformation but the denial of information by the media. In December’s Byline Times, Peter Oborne has written a short piece which is relevant and of interest].

    IMG_0001Download

    SLAPPs were mentioned as another pressure to limit press freedom. [There is no single definition of what is a SLAPP – Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation – but they consist of a range of legal measures to make exposing wrongdoing extremely expensive and act to prevent publication of such wrongdoings because the costs are too great. It is generally agreed that SLAPPs act against the public interest and free speech]. It was noted that London is regarded as the ‘libel capital of the world’ and venue of choice for those wishing to silence criticism.

    We were urged to read publications such as Declassified UK which publishes stories the mainstream media is reluctant to. There was also the D Notice system and that we are not allowed to know that such a notice is in existence. The current conflict in the Middle East was mentioned and how journalists were muzzled, although it has to be noted that they are not allowed into Gaza. In this context, Haaretz was mentioned, which despite being based in Israel itself, was a surprising source of information which does not see the light of day in British media.

    The debate hovered around independent views in the context of the media and someone wondered if there was much demand for this? In the context of the US it was suggested that, to quote, ‘they couldn’t give a monkey’s’ (for independent views). People read material which reflected their opinions. Byline Times was mentioned (and recommended) by a few as providing some kind of spotlight on media activity. Others suggested Tortoise Media and Middle East Eye. This suggested the importance of critical thinking – a topic we have discussed in previous DCs – and the ability to analyse critically what we are being told. The distinction (in the media) between fact and opinion was important it was stressed and indeed, some media did make this distinction clear.

    An ex Open University tutor stressed the importance language and the meaning in words. Students were encouraged to carefully appraise what they were reading to establish its reliability. We were invited to look up Harry Frankfurt, the author of several books on the subject of ‘bullshit’ which he has carefully analysed (these Americans, whatever will they think of next?). You may wish to follow this link which is a sea of text I’m afraid but nevertheless, does give you a good insight into this topic.

    Facts someone said, were all very well, but they did depend on your perceptions. I think the point being made here was that fact was difficult to discern and it did depend on the recipient’s interpretation of them hence, could anything be a fact? What a pity Wittgenstein could not come to our discussions and help us out. That, come to think of it, is a fact. Someone noted the idea of ‘evidence based medicine’.

    Back to the original topic and problems of free speech. The Southport riots saw many people arrested and imprisoned as a result of the violence. The problem was free speech and the distinction between ‘inciting’ and ‘challenging’. Who decides? The first amendment in the US guaranteed free speech (an issue which may be tested if Donald Trump’s threats are to be believed) which we do not have in the UK. It was noted that ‘one person’s rioter is another person’s freedom fighter’ (Gerald Seymour, 1976). There was a link between ‘fact’ and ‘values’ a comment which seemed to echo the issue of perception.

    No platforming a slippery slope towards totalitarianism

    Concern was expressed about the notion of ‘hate speech’. It led to things like no platforming in universities where those who’s views are deemed unacceptable are not allowed to speak. This was a slippery road that led to totalitarianism it was suggested.

    The internet and the world wide web were seen as hugely beneficial when they first appeared around three decades ago. They have a huge influence over our lives but no one voted for them. We are now on the verge of an AI revolution but again, no one has voted for it.

    Comment

    Two really interesting debates and although we have oft debated the media in these meetings, we somehow broke new ground this time. Perhaps the war in the Middle East and Gaza has exposed the weaknesses of the mainstream channels. The alternative sources mentioned above together with al Jazeera and – somewhat surprisingly, Haaretz – provide more insight into the terrible events taking place there. The threat side of things is something we have not touched on before and it will be interesting to see if some of the restrictive legislation passed by the last government will be repealed by the new. Perhaps it would be inadvisable to hold one’s breath.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on 14th December at 10:00 in the Salisbury Library. People seemed to like the table less format so we will repeat that. It’s only the scribe who loses out …

  • Democracy Café: September

    The power of the media: influence and control

    The group (17 strong this week) met on September 14th as usual in the Library with 2 topics chosen by vote for discussion.

    The first of these was  ”Should the power of the media be in the hands of the people who currently control it?” The media has been a fairly constant topic in our discussions, both national and local.

    Much of the debate centred around trying to understand how influenced people are by the media, both the press and social media. The newspaper market is small and elderly, but dominates politics. It was suggested that papers used to be driven by their readers, but that now the owners choose what is important, and this can be dangerous. Defined as “framing”, this means the reader receiving a partial view, which can be resistant to persuasion. (It was said that positive ideas need 5 times more effort than negative to have an effect).

    Politicians are afraid of the media, but, as one member said, they should “grow a backbone.”

    It was also pointed out that a factor in news reporting is the prevalence of SLAPPS (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), by which the judiciary can interfere with the publishing of unwelcome information about a person or organization, simply because of the cost of pursuing a case, if charged with defamation. The practice of wealthy litigants paying a sum into court means plaintiffs run the risk of having to pay both sides costs – which runs into millions – if they loose. The Murdochs have paid over £1bn to keep phone hacking out of the news using methods such as this. It’s called ‘British justice’.

    But those under 40 don’t tend to read papers. Social media gives access to your preferences and this leads to confirmation bias. For many, social media is where they are getting nearly all their news. A possible remedy would be to make the algorithms available to the public. (There may also be a need for opportunities to be created to re-educate older people about social media)

    Another suggestion was that The Guardian model of the newspaper being owned by a Trust could be a better option than ownership? Someone else observed that podcasts are a better source of information.

    Likewise with social media sites – open source sites such as Bluesky or Signal don’t use the algorithms that X or TikTok do.

    The recent riots have been a useful indicator of the issues. Certain parts of the Press could be accused of adding fuel to the fire, while ostensibly standing aside. The people on the streets were prosecuted, but not those who incited them. The Government’s subsequent prosecutions did not include some who were implicated in the background.

    In conclusion, we were left wondering “why do people believe what they believe?” Whether we are nearer an answer remains to be seen.

    The second discussion concerned whether the Government should stop selling arms to Israel. Some attendees felt (quite strongly) that there was no justification at all for selling arms, believing that claims of genocide were true. Others were concerned about the possible loss of influence it would involve.

    Questions were asked about the extent of British involvement – we are low on the list of suppliers, but arms sales generally are big business (8-10% of our exports), and it is important in our area, even if more through agencies than actual manufacture. The Foreign Office has an open licence policy, but the new government has withdrawn 30 licences out of about 350 over concerns about international humanitarian law.

    Concern was expressed about proportionality. It was pointed out that Israel’s targeting ability was greater than events would suggest which may have a bearing on what we should sell. They are a powerful military, the most powerful in the region.

    The comparison with our sales to Ukraine was made. The racial angle of the distinction was noted.

    International bodies have agreed that the regime is one of apartheid. This seems to be part of a change in attitude over the course of the war. It was questioned whether younger people who don’t get news from the newspapers (see above; the difficulty of journalists getting to the war zones was also noted) might have a different understanding of the situation. Generally the fear was that (partly due to the change in attitude in the US to its historic policing role) a sense of paralysis has set in. The situation was described as the economic colonization of Israel by the US and the political colonization of the US by Israel.

    A view was expressed that Israel may have no wish to agree a peace deal since off the coast of Gaza is a vast oil and gas field. Were a Palestinian state to have access to this resource, it would alter the politics of the region immensely.

    Clearly not an issue that is going to be resolved soon, but the debate was thoughtful and informative. As so often happens with our debates, the two topics were related since our view of the conflict in Gaza has been powerfully influenced by media coverage and the lack of independent coverage from Gaza itself.

    Andrew Hemming

    – For those interested in further details of arms sales generally, please go the the Campaign Against the Arms Trade site.

    – Glasgow University has a keen interest in media matters and publishes research of interest. Scroll to articles published by the late Greg Philo in particular. See also Bad News (Routledge & Kegan Paul pub)

  • Media: freedom of or freedom from?

    August 2024

    Last month, a story appeared in the i that a deal had been struck between the Labour party and the Murdochs to the effect that if they regained power, they would soft pedal on media reform and not launch Leveson II. The Murdochs in return offered to go easy on the Labour party during the election campaign. Of course, the days when newspapers could claim ‘it was the Sun wot won it’ are gone such has been the decline in readership, so although the Murdoch tabloids at least did go easy on Labour, the effect would have been small such was the distaste for the Conservatives.

    Nevertheless, it does reveal how media groups and their owners feel able to call the shots as far as our political process is concerned. Newsgroup denied the story of course but it reappears in the September issue of the Byline Times along with a series of other articles mainly around the media’s role in the recent riots. Another demand by the Murdochs is for the abolition of the much hated BBC. Cameron and Osborne obliged to a degree by making life as difficult as possible for the Corporation: cutting their funding, making them pay for the World Service previously funded by the Foreign Office, putting their people on the board and a host of other actions. The Right Wing press carried on a sustained campaign against the Licence Fee and the BBC generally and even Channel 4 – no stranger to threats to its own existence by the previous government – devoted over half a recent news programme to the contested claims by a Strictly Come Dancing participant. Strangely, Krishnan Guru-Murthy did not find time to mention the alleged bullying and sexual harassment going on along the corridor in his own newsroom.

    The press and the media generally like to claim that we have a free press and that society is the better for it. It is based on the assumption that politicians are venal, dishonest characters, constantly on the look out for their own interests and it is only the stalwart activities of intrepid newshounds and journalists who uncover this venality and incompetence to keep us informed. Were that so. The increasing reality is that it is media owners who are the venal ones and have been carrying on a monstrous programme of illegal activities, not to uncover untoward goings on by our political masters, but to serve up tittle-tattle about the private lives of sports people, actors and others in the public eye.

    What Leveson showed was the sheer scale of this illegality with homes broken into, phones hacked, medical records accessed and bank accounts blagged. The police, and in particular the Metropolitan Police, were willing parties to this illegality accepting bribes from media people to give access to their information. There was even a ‘going rate’ for this and the corruption led all the way up to the senior ranks. Huge sums – reportedly in excess of £1 billion – have been paid to keep this out of the public eye by paying into court sufficient sums to make it too risky for claimants to pursue their cases. They then have to sign non-disclosure agreements. Our judiciary seem only too happy for this perversion of justice to continue.

    It can hardly have escaped anyone’s notice – except for the odd cave dweller that is – that the media have been carrying on a relentless programme of demonising Muslims and in recent years, boat people. There may indeed be arguments here about resources and there are indeed problems with disbursal of immigrants to places which are already struggling but with insufficient funding. But the never-ending attacks and casting people arriving here as criminals and likely terrorists have played a part in shaping the political weather. They have fostered the claims that immigrants are the reason our other services are underfunded. Boat people became one of the main focuses of the election and played a significant part in the election of Reform party MPs including Nigel Farage.

    Worse, was the climate created added to social media disinformation must have been a key factor in the riots following the Southport murders. But any kind of recognition of this by the media players is for the birds. As Mic Wright puts it in the Byline Times, ‘The Daily Mail’s front page is where irony goes to die’. Suddenly, he goes on ‘years of headlines stoking fear about and hatred towards immigrants the terrifying ‘other’ has been swept from its collective memory’.

    Elon Musk has attracted a high degree of opprobrium but the groundwork, the relentless articles and headlines over many years demonising immigrants by the tabloids is not something which gets much of an airing not least by themselves. No turning the spotlight on their own actions.

    More importantly, politicians do not dare to call them out either. Such is their (the media’s) power to monster anyone who stands up to them or who calls out their activities means, in effect, politicians have to tread very carefully indeed. It is not an exaggeration to say there is a climate of fear.

    In our Democracy Café debates, we often lament the media both the nationals, the Salisbury Journal and TV. The tabloids are frequently mentioned but the Daily Telegraph – a once fine paper – comes in for comment as well. Entire stories – the Paradise Papers for example – are missing from its pages. Highly selective reporting and naked bias where factual reporting is needed has become routine. The result of this activity is a less than well informed populace. This matters in terms of how choices are made and hence voting and the working of our democracy.

    We need to rethink our attitudes to the media and although social media is in the spotlight at the moment, the role of print media and their online versions, in creating a climate distrust and enmity towards foreigners of all kinds is a significant factor in shaping the political climate. Politicians have become their creatures: Tony Blair rushing half way round the world to cosy up to Murdoch, Sir Keir Starmer doing a deal with him to shelve the second stage of Leveson and David Cameron and George Osborne doing their best to make life difficult for the BBC, are all examples of media barons calling the shots.

    Perhaps we need to think more about our freedom from the press not just their refrain of freedom of the press.

    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

  • ‘Politics on the edge’

    A memoir of Rory Stewart’s time as an MP and minister

    December 2023

    Politics on the Edge: a memoir from within* is the title of a book by Rory Stewart who was an MP and a minister during the time of David Cameron and Theresa May’s premierships. He stood against Boris Johnson in the leadership election and left politics soon after. 

    It is a well written book and unlike many political memoirs which can descend into self-justification, it is an honest view of the political system, parliament and life as a minister. He does not shy away from his own failings and it is sufficiently revealing to make you realise he was at times a trifle naïve in his views and ways of doing things. He does describe however, a system of government which has many grievous failings and which fundamentally is incapable of providing the leadership which we desperately need as a nation. 

    Early on in the book he describes the process of becoming an MP which can involve years of applying for seats, sitting on local councils or just being a member of the party doing ordinary stuff like delivering leaflets door to door. You have to be liked by the local selection committee which essentially means agreeing with their points of view. There is little interest he writes in whether the candidate has ability in formulating policy, management skills or understanding great issues of state, more how he or she seems to fit in with the local party and understanding the needs of the – mostly elderly – members of the local party. It is a matter we have discussed in our Democracy Cafés, since a local MP once elected, can find themselves as a minister, or even secretary of state, of some department or other yet be possessed of next to no relevant experience of being in charge of a large organisation. Not only that, but they are unlikely to have any relevant knowledge of the department itself and further, may only be there for a year or at most two after which they are either sacked or moved on somewhere else. Since many MPs now go from University to a think tank or into the party apparatus and never doing a ‘real’ job, it is unsurprising that chronic failure is the norm and the only wonder is that it isn’t worse than it is.

    Life as a minister is if anything worse. The civil service would like a minister just to be the spokesman for the department and to speak in parliament when necessary. With echoes of Yes Minister, there is considerable resistance to a minister who want to make changes to the established policies. The chapters on his time as ‘prisons minister’ are particularly enlightening not to say shocking. The system is in crisis. An ever mounting prison population, cells built in Victorian times for one man, now with two, rampant infestation and diminished staff numbers after the Cameron/Osborne cuts means it is a system which is brutalising its inhabitants and failing to rehabilitate those leaving at the end of their sentences. His attempts to effect change are largely unsuccessful.

    On the subject of prisons he discusses the problems of a minister trying to change how something is done. The civil service doctrine is that ministers are about policy formation and getting funds from the Treasury: they should not concern themselves about delivery i.e. the how. But in many areas of our political life the how is the crucial issue. Whether you are talking about schools, health, transport or indeed the prison estate, how policy is actually carried out is extremely important. Having a wonderful set of policies and a chunk of Treasury cash is useless if the system is inefficient, morale is low, or management weak or almost non-existent. The system is almost designed to prevent a minister altering it. 

    Another topic we have frequently discussed is the role of the media. Attempts to get their interest in serious topics and to discuss change are usually frustrated by a focus on trivia, personalities and catchy headlines. He often refers sneeringly I feel to the Guardian which does cover items in depth from time to time, but as a Conservative I suspect he is swept up with criticisms of the party as a whole. He has little time for the Telegraph either referring to one debate where the journalist chose to talk about what people were wearing. 

    His challenge for the leadership essentially as a ‘stop Boris’ candidate is interesting on many levels. It does reveal his naivety as I say, thinking that people would be interested in policy and how things could be changed. He did not seem to understand that the hundred thousand or so Home Counties members who were doing the choosing are not interested in prison reform for example many believing they are holiday camps already. Neither were they interested in the effects of Brexit, only wanting it to be ‘done’ safe in the belief that trade deals with the rest of the world would follow easily.  We discovered this week that there is no chance of a trade deal with the USA [and it is interesting that the papers who sold people this lie made little or no mention of this serious failure which will have damaging effects on our economy]. 

    Johnson with his collection of misleading statements, false promises and downright lies was popular and won the vote easily. We now know the consequences. He and the other candidates, all promised lower taxes, a perennial favourite ploy of politicians. It seems to be the ultimate fantasy and in the various programmes during the leadership race, it was a favourite question of the TV hosts ‘are you going to put up taxes?’ To answer ‘yes’ was an immediate death sentence for a candidate: indeed there would be little point in standing in the first place. The combination of the fantasy belief of being better off with lower taxes egged on by the print media and infantile TV hosts means any kind of serious discussion of this topic is out of bounds. To debate how much tax and who should pay what is never discussed. The billions that disappear to tax havens is also a no-go topic. Since this is at least £30bn a year and probably double that since HMRC has given up on a number of scams, it is a major issue that never sees the light of day. It could possibly be that the people at the top of our media empires have curious tax arrangements themselves and don’t want that particular light to be switched on. So much easier to pillory a benefit scrounger who could never afford to mount a libel action. 

    There seems to be a disconnect between the services we are getting – or not getting like almost a complete absence now of NHS dentists – and low taxes seems to be beyond the understanding of many. The unsafe schools with Raac concrete roofs will not now be repaired until after the election sometime in 2026. Could this be a cynical ploy to land the Labour government (one assumes) with a multi-billion bill while going into the election with the promise of tax cuts? Surely not. 

    As the sleeve note says ‘Stewart learned first-hand how profoundly hollow and inadequate our democracy and government had become. Cronyism, ignorance and sheer incompetence ran rampant.’ 

    It is a book worth reading along with others on our political system today. Both illuminating and depressing the worry is that there seems no sign of a movement for change. At the next election we will have the same dysfunctional set of wannabe MPs, telling us what they are going to do but without raising any taxes to do it (correction: the non-dom tax proposal by Labour which will raise next to nothing). Our local MPs will be re-elected with few problems. The broken system will trundle on as it is today with a different set of characters at the wheel, except locally.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Jonathan Cape 2023

  • Democracy Café, April

    April 2023

    Despite it being Easter weekend, we had a good attendance at this meeting in the Library and we were pleased to welcome two new participants. We had two interesting debates and we could well have gone beyond our allotted time.

    The first was Is representative government truly democratic? We started with the famous President Lincoln quote of 1863 after the battle of Gettysburg: ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth’. The problem is the combination of representation and democracy, two concepts which do not necessarily fit together. Apparently, it was Robespierre, who met an untimely end, who combined these two ideas. We were also reminded that Plato’s idea of representation was to limit it to those who were capable of reason.

    Brexit was an example of representative democracy it was pointed out and the result was it did tie the hands of the government to this decision (for good or ill). This immediately brought up the point that in our electoral system: MPs are representatives of their constituencies, not delegates. But who, it was asked, is being represented? The assumption that it was the ordinary elector is unrealistic. It was the wealthy and corporate interests who really held sway [the debate took place in the week when a Conservative MP was caught in a sting by Times’ reporters offering to sell his services to a fictitious gambling company for a fee of £10,000. This came a fortnight after two ex-ministers were caught in a similar sting].

    It was further suggested that the premise was wrong: MPs are selected not elected. The ‘elective dictatorship’ of Lord Hailsham was mentioned. Some have been groomed for some years for senior positions in their parties. This linked to the comment that historically, MPs were older whereas nowadays they had little of no real work experience outside the political milieu. They left university and spent their years in the Westminster environment before becoming an MP.

    The general tone of the discussion was a sense of dissatisfaction with our politicians but it was pointed out that a lot of good work was done in parliament – evident if you read Hansard – but this was almost never reported. We only read of the conflicts and scandals.

    We moved on to voting and the Australian rule that everyone had to vote. The counter view was that if people don’t want to vote why should they be forced? It was a dilemma. Belgium was mentioned in connection with MPs becoming part of the executive so who then do they represent, their constituents or the government? In that country, if the equivalent of an MP becomes a minister, they resign their seat and and there is a by-election. If they are sacked one assumes they leave the government altogether … [now there’s an idea]. Later, the question of voter apathy was mentioned.

    Do people vote for the individual or their policies? Some said the former; some the latter. It was suggested that parliament is a reflection of our views, the collective zeitgeist so to speak. We had a diversion into what Andrew Bridgen MP said in parliament and this link gives the background to that. It concerned claims – since retracted – about the risks and effectiveness of Covid vaccines. The attempt to introduce equal pay for women by Barbara Castle was mentioned where attempts to introduce it were frustrated by what was thought to be the will of the (male?) public. It was suggested that women do now have equal pay. Legislation introduced by Theresa May requiring companies with over 200 employees shows however, that women definitely do not receive equal pay for equal work.

    What we know is mediated by the media – a familiar point in these meetings. The necessity for good information was stressed and the need to hold the media to account: the issue of social media was mentioned which is largely unregulated. Inevitably, all information was filtered and imperfect it was noted. Information was about power and the process of infantilization, i.e. keeping us (the public) away from the real decisions by deflecting us towards things that don’t matter was suggested. Different countries had differing approaches and the current unrest in France demonstrated that country’s approach to political change which was often violent. The ‘British don’t go on marches, instead we go on shuffles’.

    At several times there was the suggestion that decisions should be made at the lowest level in the political process and in that connection, Flatpack Democracy in Frome was mentioned. A post from 2017 reports on the talk given to the Compass group gives more details.

    But back to the question and that the melding of democracy and representation was imperfect and sometimes muddled. It was sort of assumed that they were much the same and as we have debated, who represents us, how they are selected (or elected) and who they actually represent is by no means clear and whether it gives us ‘democracy’ is perhaps to be doubted. The need for a constitution was suggested but this point was not developed.

    The fact that Switzerland holds regular referenda was mentioned.

    Finally, a Channel 4 programme about a hotel in a village being occupied by asylum seekers was mentioned as a kind of example which reflected some of the points we discussed. A hotel had been block-booked by the Home Office to house a significant number of refugees and asylum seekers. There had been no prior consultation. The village was split: some were hostile some were sympathetic. It shows the problem of democracy in that how do you represent such profoundly different views? Whether it’s representation, a referendum or any other form, there are those who are fierce in their antipathy and those who are not. It wasn’t about what system therefore, it was about people and their attitudes.

    Which segues nicely into our second debate which was What are the benefits of Brexit? Well, it has to be said that there were few put forward. The news this week was of long queues at Dover because, it was thought, to be the result of the need to stamp all passports now we have left the EU although this was denied by the government.

    One argument was the failure of some banks in Europe in particular Credit Suisse although it was pointed out that Switzerland was not in the EU and some American banks had failed as well. The Swiss bank failed because of mismanagement and it had little to do with the EU. The nonsense of Greece being treated the same fiscally as Germany was mentioned which led to a crisis in that country.

    “Now we left the EU we can no longer go on blaming them for everything, now it’s us”.

    One profound point was made and that was we can no longer blame the EU for our troubles. We had got into the habit of blaming the EU so now we have left, that excuse is no longer available. Perhaps it was an opportunity for the country to grow up. Governments have always tried to deflect bad news elsewhere to detract from their own failings.

    A big benefit for Brexit was said to be sovereignty and the slogan ‘take back control’ was a key rallying cry during the run up to the Referendum. The argument was that we were in hock to ‘unelected European judges’ rather ignoring the fact that European judges are elected and UK ones aren’t. It was quickly pointed out that our decision to leave demonstrated we did have sovereignty. The judicial system is not part of the EU.

    Walter Lipman’s quote about the bewildered herd was mentioned again – see the January Café. In that connection the speaker went on to refer to the purchase by JP Morgan of 25 of the most influential newspapers in the US in 1917 in order to influence the decision to get the country to enter the European war then raging. The point being how the media, or more particularly the owners of media, can influence debate, attitudes and decisions in a country.

    A lot of subsequent comments focused on the benefits of EU membership and the EU generally. For example, Europe has been riven by wars, certainly since the fifteenth century, including two major world wars and one lasting for almost a hundred years. Yet since the last war, Europe has seen the longest period of peace in a millennia. [Ukraine was not mentioned but that is not a war between two or more European states].

    Historically, France had a system of internal tariffs introduced by the ‘July Monarchy’ in 1830 as people moved from region to region. When these were abolished, everyone prospered. Several noted the ability to move around the continent once free movement was introduced (back to the queues at Dover). Free movement and free trade benefited the ordinary people it was suggested.

    It seems that some people are beginning to change their minds. The government (even if they wanted to) would find changing theirs extremely difficult. Will we ever be able to have an honest discussion someone asked and perhaps be able to admit we were wrong?

    A possible benefit, following the shortages of salads imported from Europe, was an increased interest in self-sufficiency.

    And whatever happened to the £350m that we will save by no longer being members of the EU? This had to remain an open question.

    There was a brief discussion about the role of the City of London.

    Two interesting debates and actually linked in many ways. The need for informed decisions was crucial for good government. When a poorly informed populace elected MPs, some of whom had been selected for them, a media which was partisan, an unregulated social media and a government which was heavily influenced by commercial and corporate interests, it was perhaps a wonder we weren’t in a bigger pickle than we are.

    Peter Curbishley

    An interesting take on democracy and the Brexit debate is Peter Geoghan’s book Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics, 2020, Head of Zeus Ltd , which is well worth reading.

  • Democracy Café: August 2021

    The two chosen topics were: Do humans have the will to tackle climate change? and, What impact does concentrated ownership have on local newspapers?

    Two of the problems highlighted early on were, firstly, the sheer scale of climate change such that it seemed too big for us to process and the other brought in the issue of short termism in our political system.  But it was suggested that part of the problem was the framing of the topic. It was often portrayed in a binary way – either we will save humanity or there will be catastrophe, whereas climate change can be mitigated and the damage limited.

    An allegory that proved to be popular suggested that there were three monsters with government in the centre flanked by business and the media, all three wallowing in the mire of money.

    On the other hand, it was also thought that you needed to tackle the problem from both ways, from the individual and from the power dynamics of the three-headed monster.  The participants’ attention was drawn to Drawdown which analyses problems associated with climate change and the solutions – only two of which out of the top 20 were things that we could do as individuals.

    It was suggested that we needed to engage more people in the issue and one way was through deliberative democracy and, in particular, Citizens’ Juries, which is something that Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for for many years.   One topic that could benefit from such an approach was the ill-fated People Friendly Streets.

    Another way of engaging people is through and online tool called Pol.is which enables open ended feedback from large numbers of people and is used very successfully in Taiwan.

    The second question revolved around the fate of local newspapers and the impact of their ownership by a small number of giant corporations.  The Salisbury Journal, for example, is owned by Newsquest – the second biggest newspaper conglomerate in the UK, which itself is owned by the giant USA-based Gannett.

    It was suggested that if you looked at public information as a market square, then before the internet papers like the Journal would have occupied the entire square. But since the advent of the internet and the reduction of journalistic standards created by the business model, that dominance has been eroded to the extent that the Journal occupies just one small stall and the rest of the space is taken up with various, often overlapping groups on social media.

    One of the major problems associated with this, it was pointed out, was the lack of independent, trusted provision of credible, unbiased information and facts, of the sort once provided by local newspapers but now under threat by their diminished status and capability.

    One solution to this could be the creation of groups like Salisbury-based The See Through News Newspaper Review Project. It was pointed out, however, that a deeper problem was the philosophical and cultural undermining of the concept of truth itself, particularly with the rise and dominance of post-modernist thinking. Nevertheless, work like the project was vital as part of the fight back to truth – along with deliberative democracy and Citizens’ Juries.

    Dickie Bellringer

  • Democracy Café – April

    The chosen topic this month was ‘have we become inured to corruption in the UK?’ The question was posed following a fairly long stream of events over the past year or so but with little in the way of reaction and no resignations in prospect. The planning row with Robert Jenrick; the same minister awarding funds from the Towns Fund to his fairly prosperous constituency in a secret process; contracts awarded to a range of individuals without due process, some of whom are Conservative party funders; Boris Johnson and the Jennifer Arcuri influence case, and most recently, the Greensill saga and David Cameron’s attempts at influencing the Chancellor and other Treasury ministers to award it funds before the firm’s collapse. A lengthy but incomplete list. The question though, was why no fuss? Why no resignations, nor indeed any shame? Has sleaze actually become the new norm?

    It was suggested that it probably started back in the days of the Blair government when the practice of employing large numbers of outside consultants got under way. They were brought in to advise on some quite ludicrous tasks such how to communicate with other departments.

    Was it the system itself which engendered corruption? The example of affordable housing allocations was given in which council planning officers meet developers to agree on what percentage of a development should be for affordable housing. This was done in private meetings. There was also an imbalance of power since the developers could afford a range of high quality advice whereas LPAs, following cuts, could not. The issue here was not corruption but a lack of democratic accountability. ‘Democracy dies in darkness’ someone noted.

    Expectations of our politicians is lower now. There was a general discussion around whether there has always been a degree of corruption but the media in previous times had not published it for a variety of reasons. The argument went both ways on this. The example of Peter Oborne at the Daily Telegraph was quoted who exposed HSBC’s bank for the wealthy in Geneva to enable them to hide funds from the taxman. This was spiked because HSBC was a major advertiser and Oborne resigned. Not many other journalists could afford to do this however. There have been a series of articles in the media about the ‘chumocracy’ the word itself having entered the language. It had been quite widely reported including in the Sunday Times. The extent of it was much greater now however. The sums involved ran into millions.

    Was it because it didn’t affect the local population much? A worry was that a common response was ‘they [politicians] are all the same’. This meant people did not feel a change would not have any effect – just a different set of politicians with their noses in the trough. Another problem was that some of it involved esoteric financial matters. Whereas people understood someone in their community who was a scrounger, the complex financial shenanigans of an organisation like Greensill Capital was less well understood.

    On the positive side, it was noted that young people did seem to be more interested these days.

    Was it because that politicians were drawn from a narrow pool? This was a reference to the public school sense of entitlement and simply not recognising that there was anything wrong with the behaviour. Once upon a time, it would lead to resignation – now it didn’t. Profumo was mentioned and in particular, that he did not expect to be ‘outed’ in the media because of the old boy network and was genuinely surprised when it went public and became a major scandal.

    The media came up again and someone said they found watching or listening to the interviews quite difficult these days because obvious questions were not asked. Andrew Marr was mentioned as someone who was too soft on interviewees.

    The theme of the effect of corruption on our democracy surfaced several times. There was real sense of crisis and how impossible it was to achieve change. Were we indeed heading for a fascist state? The opposition parties were weak and spent too much time in internal arguments it was said. There was some sign of life however, with Labour pressing for answers with the Greensill saga but there was a need for a progressive alliance to be formed to challenge the status quo. This was the theme of a Compass paper. The loss of so many One Nation Tories from the party was lamented. Too many sensible voices had been lost and recent events in Northern Ireland were almost certainly a direct result.

    The environment and the role of the public and democracy was discussed with the example of the proposed coal mine in Cumbria. This arose from a comment about the government’s desire to build its way out of our economic troubles. There were two sides to this argument it was noted: on the one hand, people didn’t really have much power since the planning system meant decisions were made on planning grounds only and relating to the various planning acts. Appeals went to the Secretary of State. On the other, local people wanted the mine because of the promise of economic prosperity – jobs etc. They seemed little concerned with the environment.

    The increase in populist governing was discussed. It was the case that MPs voted according to their consciences and their own judgement in the Burkean sense. Now they tended to see themselves as delegates and followed what they thought to be the popular will. Brexit was a case in point. The death penalty was an example where, left to MPs, it would never be re-introduced but if they followed the popular will, it could be voted back in. It was pointed out however that there was a narrow overall majority against its re-introduction.

    We then went on to discuss the second topic – do we have a free press? One answer straight away was that we had a reasonably free press but not an unbiased one. Another question was what facts? It was as much about the selection of which facts or stories to report as much as the facts or reporting itself. There was concern at great swathes of the media were owned by a handful of oligarchs who were free to push their agendas. It was noted however that newspapers were commercial enterprises and needed to sell their papers to be viable. If their views did not match those of their readers, then they would not sell. The views expressed in the tabloids especially, represented what many people thought and believed therefore.

    Examples included a front page story of someone given a £2m house in Kensington which was, it was claimed, biased. Another example was a photograph of an apparent nose to nose confrontation between a policeman and a protester. It was later revealed that the space between them had been cropped. The Battle for Orgreave was shown as the miners charging the police. It was later revealed that the footage had been reversed and the police had charged first. To this day however, the story of aggressive miners lives on. This reversal of footage was likely to have been a simple mistake however. These came up in the context of a biased media.

    The print media is in steady decline and it was social media in its various forms where many, especially younger – people obtained their news nowadays.

    A major point was the importance of distinguishing between opinion and facts ‘comment is free, facts are sacred’ as the Guardian puts it. Several newspapers make this clear distinction but others mix the two.

    ‘Balance’ was mentioned and in connection with the BBC in particular. The problem had been for a long time, climate scientists were put against climate denialists in debates who, although were for the most part not from the scientific community, made the discussion seem much more balanced than it actually was. The BBC no longer invites denialists onto these discussions following many protests.

    The two discussions were closely linked since what we believe and what we know is heavily influenced by the media. Bias or simply not reporting inconvenient news will distort our view of the world. However, the media is a collection of mostly commercial enterprises who have to sell their product to a sceptical public. To an extent therefore they are a window into what the majority believe and think. If that public is relaxed about corrupt goings on in Westminster, then that will be reflected in the coverage. Despite considerable media and political interest in the level of immigration, very little has been said about the potential for large numbers of Hong Kong Chinese to settle here.

    An interesting debate around two topics which were in the event closely related.

    We were delighted to welcome two new members to today’s discussion both of whom are hoping to set up democracy café events in their home area.

    Book mentioned: How Democracies Die, 2018, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Viking

    Peter Curbishley

  • Will our politics change?

    A debate is starting about whether there will be a change in the way politics is done in Britain as a result of the Covid-19 crisis. Will it be a ‘never again’ moment and force some fundamental improvements? I don’t think it will and in this blog I will argue why change will not happen except at the margin.

    It is true that major events such as war or a outbreak of a serious disease does bring about change. I am writing this in English not in some form of French. That change came about because of plague which killed off a lot of the French speaking people at the top of our society and allowed in rough English speaking yocals into positions of power. The war brought about a significant improvement in housing provision.

    The drivers of change

    For change to happen, there has to be a groundswell of opinion – however ill-formed – for things to be done differently in future. People have to feel angry, affronted, or resentful at a political process and its leaders which contributed to the crisis. They argue vehemently for change. They may riot or march or do something physical to express their anger. There has to be anger in the air.

    Another thing which might contribute to this anger is a flow of information which explains what has gone wrong. There also have to be polemics which set out how change for the better can take place. There is little sign of this happening either.

    Ultimately, this anger has to find a voice. Almost certainly via a political party: someone has to set our a vision for a better world and a better run world. A world in which there is more equality of opportunity and where the benefits of our prosperity are spread more evenly. This has to be articulated into cogent arguments, and then simple phrases produced which encapsulate these ideas into ‘soundbites’.

    Will it happen?

    I don’t think this will happen for several reasons. Firstly, the nature and control of our media. That our print media is largely right wing and owned by foreign based oligarchs is well known. They are in a position to control the narrative and stifle unwelcome challenges to their hegemony. Readers of these titles will, for example, be largely unaware of the Paradise Papers and other major stories about the scale of tax avoidance carried out by the elite in our society. By contrast, they can run endless stories about scroungers and benefit cheats – who do exist of course – but are tiny in scale by comparison with the billions funnelled out of the country by the top 1%.

    The broadcast media have been little better. The nightly No 10 press conference is a case in point. Various journalists are given the opportunity to question the minister and the advisers. It is of course difficult to do this properly across a video link. But their questions are over-long and, instead of asking one insightful question, they ask two and sometimes three. The minister artfully – and I suspect they are trained to do this – repeats the question at length, says how important it is, waffles around it and fails to answer the point. The journalist is then invited to respond and bafflingly, then proceeds to ask another, different, question which is also unanswered. The result is that egregious failures of policy and delays in responses to the crisis largely go unchallenged.

    Such investigations which do take place – such as the BBC’s Panorama for example – have minimal viewing figures and are quickly slapped down by ministerial threats and newspaper allegations of bias.

    Another crucial point is that this argument has largely been about facts, numbers and statistics. But none of the journalists or any of the ministers have science or mathematical backgrounds. It is like watching two people who cannot even open the bonnet of a car, arguing about how they might change a clutch. As soon as a statistic becomes uncomfortable, it disappears. So the death toll in comparison with other countries is no longer presented for example.

    Finally, because of the pandemic, parliament is not properly sitting. In one sense that seems to be working for Keir Starmer who is operating in simulacrum of a court room, which suits his background. Early exchanges has enabled him to expose the emptiness of the prime minister. But the theatre has gone which means the exchanges are rather dull and forensic. Consequently, they do not get much airtime. The media wants conflict, anger, shouting and general excitement, not reasoned rational debate.

    Why have we come to this?

    The fundamental issues which have led us to our lack of preparedness and made us the worst in Europe are the neoliberal policies which have informed our politics for a generation. These are a set of beliefs which have dictated policy across a range of areas. Simply put, these are a belief in small government; that low taxes are best to enable people to spend their money how they wish; low regulation because this stifles innovation; that the private sector is superior to the public because they are inherently more efficient, and the best way to allocate resources is through competition. These are deep rooted and show little sign of disappearing.

    Recent events have forced the conservatives to do the opposite. Government is bigger and more intrusive, regulations have increased, money has poured into the private sector to find a cure, competition has fallen away in favour of ministerial patronage and taxes will inevitably have to rise. There are reported to be great tensions in the party as a consequence of this. The right wing, free market and Brexit wing are quiet at present because during a national emergency people ‘rally to the flag’. This will end soon but importantly, it will be an internal conservative party argument which will not affect the state of our politics nationally.

    These neoliberal beliefs have led to increased privatisation being introduced into the health service and the market led ideas introduced by Ken Clarke when he was health minister. Austerity was the cover which enabled Osborne to reduce funding for the service and the Lansley reforms also did more damage (what philosophy was behind those is a mystery, perhaps even to Lansley himself).

    All told, the public sector, including local authorities, were seen as inefficient, cumbersome and of little value. They could be cut with impunity because nobody cared. They were helped by near silence from them as well. How often, even today, when the issue of what LAs are doing and the role they play in tackling the pandemic, do you see a local authority person interviewed? Rarely. They almost never appear on programmes like Question Time. Despite their size and significance, they can be cut, lampooned and denigrated to politicians’ heart content.

    There is no groundswell of anger of people looking for fundamental change. Such anger as there is is about whether people can go out or not or how many people they can meet. The Labour party has to tread carefully because if they criticise the government too hard, they will be called disloyal. So far, there has been no sign of arguments about fundamental change from their people.

    This is why I suggest there will be no fundamental changes. Sure the medics will get a pay rise – even the current crop of boneheads would risk denying them that. But inequality will continue to get worse. The super rich will continue to avoid their taxes. The six or seven posh schools will continue to provide a disproportionate supply of politicians, journalists, media folk, judges et al. Privatisation of the NHS and other areas of public life will continue however corrupt or incompetent the suppliers are. Power will still reside in Westminster and any kind of regionalisation will not happen.

    Covid-19 will not change the fundamental flaws in our society.

    Peter Curbishley

  • August meeting

    Over 20 people attended a lively discussion at the August 2019 meeting of the Democracy Café in the Playhouse. Many familiar faces and some welcome new ones. We are delighted to see new people coming to these cafés which keeps us from becoming stale.

    The topic chosen by vote for discussion was ‘has the Right commandeered the language of Brexit? How can we reframe the debate? This topic was put forward by someone who is reading George Lakeoff’s book one of which is ‘Don’t think of an elephant! know your values and frame the debate.’ Chelsea Green Publishing. Framing is crucial since it is difficult to change the course of any discussion if the agenda has been framed in a certain way. See a blog post from the Salisbury Compass site.

    Recent examples were given. One was the notion that low taxes make us better off. A second is that when we leave the EU we shall be ‘free’. The right in our society have, it was claimed, commandered social media and have successfully promoted a number of soundbites. Some of the language is quite subtle, for example the change from ‘social security’ to ‘welfare’. The former was based on the notion that we all pay into a system which is there for us in time of need, whereas the second implies simple payouts. This language change was crucial in the post 2018 crash austerity period when there was a concerted attempt to cut ‘welfare’ and to (successfully) demonise those in receipt of payments as ‘scroungers and skivers’

    In this context, it was noted that the £850bn (not £500bn as was said) bailout to the banks was not called ‘welfare’. It was given the name ‘quantitative easing’.

    The importance of education and understanding what we read in the press was important. A book on how to read a newspaper is RW Jepson’s Clear Thinking: An Elementary Course of Preparation for Citizenship 1936. [1948 version]

    As well as language – as in words – was the fact of presentation and how the politician puts it across. The example of Blair with his easy charm and broad smile was widely believed. Similarly with Boris Johnson with his blond hair and optimistic statements. These attributes were as important as the words used.

    On the media, the fact that substantial parts are foreign owned is a factor it was claimed. The Daily Mail; Daily Telegraph; The Times and the Sun are among those papers owned overseas.

    A big part of the debate was the fact that the Right seemed to be most successful in their use of the soundbite. They were able to encapsulate their ideas into short phrases which resonated with people. In the Brexit debate for example ‘freedom to make our own laws,’ ‘taking back control’ and ‘not being ruled by unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ are all examples of pithy and highly effective soundbites. Similar soundbites were mentioned during the post Reagan/Thatcher era in politics to sell the idea of free markets and small government. The question was raised: why has the Left failed to come up with its own short statements of what it stood for? ‘For the many, not the few’ was the only one anyone could think of. The tendency for longwinded explanations and factual rebuttals do not work. Back to Lakeoff and his argument that facts do not persuade, going for emotional appeal does. Which raised the question, how do you counter lies without lying yourself? People promoting Brexit had been much more successful in pressing emotional triggers, immigration for example.

    This led to a discussion on the need for a debate which focused on nurture rather than competition.

    Walter Lippmann’s ‘bewildered herd’ or ‘bewildered masses’ was mentioned and did rather sum up our debate quite well:

    Bewildered herd is the masses that are tamed through propaganda and mass media in order that the machinery of democracy is kept properly oiled.

    The bewildered masses must be subdued, tamed and injected with the popular opinion of the upper class of politicians, leaders of corporations and others belonging to the elite class of intellectuals and wealthy in order to govern a nation and circumvent any defect in democracy.

    The single function of the bewildered masses is to be spectators, not participants, in the democratic nation.

    Urban Dictionary

    Finally, the Full Facts website was mentioned and asked for it to be linked to this discussion.

    Part two was a discussion around ‘is liberalism dead?’ The debate started with someone who had heard a radio programme in which it was revealed that among the 18 – 34 age group, 20% would not vote. However, this did imply that 80% would which is higher than the current level of voter participation in most elections. Perhaps too many choices was a problem it was suggested. Climate change had generated considerable interest and activity among the younger generation and Extinction Rebellion was mentioned.

    Was activism stronger in the ’60s say? It certainly seemed to be a time of protest and there was arguably a sense of utopianism. The NUS was strong. Now this seemed to be gone, perhaps a victim of the Brexit saga and people feeling drained. It was also noted that life was easier for young people then with no student fees to pay.

    It was noted that social liberalism was quite strong, the acceptance of seat belts and crash helmets wa instanced so maybe there was a need for a more nuanced approach.

    There did seem to be a desire for strong leaders to solve their problems. So it was not a question of being anti-liberalism, more a case of looking for competent leadership. The idea a ‘nuture’ surfaced again rather than looking always for a dominant figure. Dictators start with benign intentions but always end up by being totalitarian. Some said we should worry about any dictator claiming ‘I will save the world.’

    The idea was put forward of ‘freedom under licence’ ie within the law. But this raised the question of which freedoms and who decides? It also gives the impression of freedoms being granted by the powerful rather than being more fundamental. It is surprising that no one mentioned the UN Declaration or the Human Rights Act in this connection.

    The debate got onto the political system and capture by the corporate elites. Millions spent on lobbying and the revolving door corruption was mentioned.

    Two interesting debates without any clear conclusions but a lot of useful points made.

    Peter Curbishley