Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: news

  • Democracy Café

    December 2024

    The question ‘Why don’t socially progressive politics get more traction in the UK?’ with an added thought that could the UK turn into a fascist state? won the vote today. In explaining the topic it was asked why people and the planet don’t matter more than profit? Isn’t what matters is the whole of society not just a select few? Wealth concentration seems just to benefit a minority. The notion of ‘trickle down’ has not worked: inequality has increased year by year.

    One reason is that the wealthy have the ear of government. They are able to stir up fears of progressive policies. Remember the fuss around minimum pay? There was a dangerous combination of power and vested interests. An example might be farmers who have protested a lot recently concerning government plans to widen the scope of the capital gains tax. They own 40% of the land yet contribute only 0.6% to the national income.

    Labour won a big majority in the recent general election yet how progressive are they in fact? The plain fact is that the Tories keep winning and have been in existence for 2 centuries. Labour had to water down their policies to enable them to win it was claimed. They had ‘caged themselves in’ it was said. Politicians played to the media. It was politicians who dominated the airwaves. Rory Stewart’s book was mentioned and his unsuccessful attempts to improve policy making.

    Was it another example of media power. A handful of wealthy owned much of the print and online outlets and sites. Oligarchs were not known to be fans of progressive policies and their publications echoed that. It was claimed that the civil service were ‘not keeping up with the times’ and that ministers could not rely on the successful implementation of policies. A remark very similar to those made by the Prime Minister recently in his ‘managed decline’ speech. However, it was easy to blame the service someone said but were we clear about its value?

    An anomaly was the court system which was clearly falling apart. People are waiting years for justice and cases are abandoned because of the lapse of time. The courts are there to protect the establishment yet they are failing. The judges are a powerful component of the elite yet they have not been able to improve matters.

    Was tax an issue? People clearly want the NHS to be fixed, to get dental care and the potholes to be filled in but they do not want to pay higher taxes. Any politician saying ‘I will do these things but I’m going to put 2p on your income tax’ is unlikely to get voted in. The problem was that people who were already poor would resent paying more. The question was how to tackle the wealth issue and the idea of a maximum income. An aspect of this topic was that the wealthy do not use buses for example and therefore have little interest in their provision or efficiency. (Mrs Thatcher famously never used a bus). Cutting public spending was popular and the president of Argentina Javier Milei was quoted as being an enthusiastic cutter of public spending. (Argentina does have massive economic problems and one of the highest inflation rates in the world. Strange to think as an aside that the country was once tipped to become one of the wealthiest in the world. The name derives from the Spanish word for silver which was found in abundance by the colonists). Back to the plot …

    ‘The message of the rich is always in the ascendant’

    We talk of ‘trickle down’ it was noted but what about ‘trickle up’? It was about the distribution of wealth. Currently, considerable wealth was in very few hands and much of it was invested or went overseas rather than spent. If wealth was better distributed then more of it would be spent thus increasing the size of the economy. Perhaps, sardonically, it was noted that ‘trickle down’ obeys the law of gravity whereas ‘trickle up’ requires a revolution. Well, maybe not so sardonic. The message of the rich is always in ascendant. The same speaker spoke favourably of Marxism.

    The tax point was taken up and the fact that economics was not taught in schools – a point discussed at previous meetings. We needed a more literate society in these matters. There was a need for both economics and politics to be taught. The problem with the latter is that politicians were fearful of ‘lefty’ teachers indoctrinating children – a ghastly thought.

    Scandinavia was mentioned as a society which was more egalitarian and where there was high levels of tax to pay for welfare. Finland was the country with the happiest citizens.

    We got onto neoliberalism and the history of the project. It started in the University of Chicago with the ‘Chicago Boys’ and their first ‘experiment’ was Chile where a revolution was instigated by the CIA to oust President Allende and install President Pinochet. It was all about a small state, low taxes and free market ideas. The UK was next under Mrs Thatcher and it spread thence to the USA. The UK was little more than a vassal state to the US it was claimed yet it was something which seldom appeared in the media.

    There was a brief diversion discussing Syria (Assad had been deposed this week and it was the main feature of news programmes).

    Finally, the protests in Westminster by farmers protesting about CGT. It was noted that despite blocking chunks of the capital with tractors and disrupting traffic, no one was arrested. Contrast with climate protestors some of whom are in prison. Yet no outrage in the media about the disruption. Odd that. Who’s interests are being protected someone asked?

    A concluding remark was to say that complex problems are reduced to binary issues. Then to demonise one part (immigrants for example or the ‘workshy’). We were left with the original question – where is the compelling narrative from progressive politics? This perhaps was a clue to the problem. Society is complex and the problems are complex also. Solutions had to be nuanced and were unlikely to be simple let alone able to fit the binary narrative. This made ‘selling’ them to the electorate challenging.

    The second half debate was on prisons and the question was ‘Why do we go on locking up more and more people and for longer?’ Prisons, and prison overcrowding, are much in the news presently and the new government was forced to release many prisoners early to find space. Is sending people to prison a deterrent? Someone who visits prisons said research has shown that it doesn’t work. By this we meant that the recidivism rate was extremely high. Many came out with crime skills enhanced rather than reduced by better behaviour.

    Politicians like Ken Clark and Rory Stewart were mentioned along with David Gauke and Lord Timpson all of whom in different ways have realised that the system is ‘broken’ and we cannot go on simply stuffing more and more people into already overcrowded gaols. Attempts to reform the system have quickly failed because of various prime minister’s fears of public reactions. This was summarised by the phrase ‘tough on crime’ and all politicians are nervous that any reform will dent their reputation for toughness. The public are fearful someone said (of criminals I assume they meant) and this was driving a lot of media hostility.

    There were good ideas and Lord Timspon, the Minister of State for prisons, was a hopeful appointment. His firm appointed many ex-offenders in their shops we were reminded.

    The current 2024 Reith lectures were mentioned as they discussed aspects of this problem and in particular the issue of evil. It was argued that therapy could change people. People have to want to see changes it was said (quoting Lord Timpson). Some US states – including some Republican ones – were adopting these principles. If the prevailing view however, was ‘lock ’em up’ then change was unlikely: actually, not ‘unlikely’, it won’t happen. If you dehumanise people in prisons (and many were infested and there were two prisoners in each cell in many cases), it was no surprise they came out worse.

    We were fortunate to hear from someone who works with sex offenders coming out of prison. Most had made up their minds not to reoffend. Their work was to help them stay away from reoffending by offering them help and support. They would like some of the experiences fed back to influence policy. It was noted (and almost passed unnoticed) that this work was being done by volunteers. The inference being (I am suggesting) that this should be an organised programme of activity, not something that depends on a small charity which has to scramble for funds to survive. We were reminded that many in prison had emotional problems, were abused as children and literacy rates were low.

    Perhaps we should try the Socratic method it was suggested. Ask the prisoners: is it doing you any good?

    The discussion moved to causes. In a sense, imprisoning people is the end of the line of society breakdown. If inequality is rising and people are living in poverty there is a tendency to criminalise social conditions. We need to explore the underlying causes not endlessly talk about symptoms. If you reduced the ‘input stream’ as it was expressed, you reduced the ‘outputs’ of criminality.

    There was a problem however. The discussion was focused on rational argument. The assumption being that by establishing facts and finding out what worked, policy could be changed for the better. As already noted, some ministers have tried this and come unstuck, as in sacked. Prison policy was fixed on emotional reactions and, as someone said, vengeance.

    It was noted that when John Glen first became MP, he was asked about voting for prisoners in their final year or two of their sentence, say. He did not agree with this. David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, said ‘it made him sick’. It was subject to a long-standing row with the EU.

    Finally, religion made its entrance and Old Testament beliefs. There was the doctrine of original sin although this was a late addition to the Christian faith. The Quakers were in the forefront of prison reform and the Methodists were active in the anti-slavery movement.

    These were two good debates and it was interesting that a key element in both was the issue of how the media treated the various topics. Whether it was around how society is run or the reform of the prison system, if people are bombarded by negative attitudes, if argument is reduced to simplistic notions and the owners of newspapers and social media sites can exert such power, change will be difficult to achieve.

    [Added 6 January 2025] On the question of tax, the following link was suggested https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on Saturday 11th January 2025. Seasons greetings to all our readers!

    Latest posts:

  • 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)

  • Democracy Café: August

    August 2024

    The well attended café took place a week or so after the riots erupted in Southport following the murder of three little girls and the attempted murder of eight others. This sparked off disturbances all around England with a massive police presence to try and keep control. Those events were the focus of the two topics we discussed.

    The first was is multi-culturalism going to be possible in the UK? A feature of the riots was attacks on hotels housing refugees and asylum seekers and a rumour that the boy arrested for the murders was a Muslim and had arrived in the UK by boat, neither of which was true. Some were quick to point out that they were in fact more optimistic now especially following the turn out of large numbers of people to defend mosques and to protect their communities from violence generally. It was noted there was a long history of attacks on ‘other’ groups. The demonisation of vulnerable groups seen to be to blame for society’s shortfalls has a long history.

    The debate turned to culture and it was noted the disturbances took place in England. It was suggested that this might be because the English are uncertain about their cultural identity. The other nations were much clearer on this point: the Scots, Welsh and Irish have a range of cultural memes with which to identify. Even Morris dancers were thought to be a bit of a ‘joke’ by some it was suggested.

    “The English are uncertain of their cultural identity”

    It was suggested that the recent disturbances have had a kind of benefit in bringing the ‘cancer’ of racism into the open. The seemingly respectable views of people like Nigel Farage were seen for what they were having only a veneer of respectability. Culture was also a shifting concept as times changed. It was noted for example that 60% of those born in London were the offspring of parents born outside the UK – a change in culture was inevitable therefore.

    Several pointed out that there was a danger of seeing this as an exclusively English problem. Yugoslavia was a multi ethnic state then disintegrated into separate groups following the death of Marshal Tito. There were problems of this nature in Germany. It was noted that the many ethnic groups living in Southampton congregated in specific areas according to their origins.

    The beliefs were quite strong and we heard an anecdote about a chance encounter in the street in Salisbury where a man, having recovered from a stumble, suddenly said ‘the country was too small’ in a discussion about the riots and ‘we cannot have any more coming in’. He was asked if he could trace his lineage back to 1066 whereupon he decided to leave (the conversation, not the country). David Olusoga’s comments on R4 saying that the riots and attacks were racist and were not an expression of legitimate concerns.

    The role of politicians – in particular Conservative ones such as Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Danny Kruger and Rishi Sunak – in stirring up popular resentment towards refugees and the boat people should not be forgotten. Their negative approach to asylum seekers was disgraceful someone thought and a reluctance to accept our obligations in this regard not acceptable. The idea that those in power needed to keep people divided was suggested as an underlying motivation. Was the social contract broken? There was hope the new government will be different. Immigration was always mentioned in terms of being a ‘problem’ and something to be minimised but Britain was an ageing population with a below replacement birth rate. We needed these people.

    Britain had and ageing population and needed immigrants

    The problem of the underperformance of white working class boys was introduced. They performed poorly in education terms and it was their resentments which might have been an element in recent events. Many of them thought it unmasculine to study for exams and this was a factor. Reports of several generations where no one has worked was mentioned. In the second discussion (below) but it is more relevant here, was the subject of agency. Many people lacked a sense of doing something worthwhile which was perhaps linked to the education point. Some of the mis- and disinformation which the social media people promoted depended on the notion that we know something you don’t. More critical thinking might be an answer to this.

    Of course it was not all bad news and the performance of Team GB in the Olympics was mentioned as a positive. A local school, Manor Fields, was a good example of multi-culturism in action.

    The second discussion was in a sense an extension of this topic and focused on social media in particular. A feature of the riots has been the role of X and Telegram in particular in spreading false stories about what happened in Southport. Elon Musk himself has also entered the fray with some inflammatory statements. The questions for debate were should media power be taken away from irresponsible people? and should [the government] be able to legally shut down websites?

    We were reminded straight away that when the internet was introduced all those years ago, it was seen in positive terms and it enable information and news to be posted straight away and without the sanction or censorship of governments or press agencies. As time has gone by however that freedom has been eroded.

    What is the primary purpose of internet companies? Answer: make money and to do that they had to keep you engaged. This was done by using algorithms to supply you with information related to your search interest. This process was the first step to radicalisation. The website Mastodon – which did not do this – was mentioned.

    We were reminded that after the 2011 riots, there was concern then expressed by the role of the web but the government was reluctant to take action. Will it be the same this time?

    The essential question was asked: why do people want to spread disinformation. What was their motivation? In relation to Elon Musk, his role of being both owner and contributor was seen as ‘crossing a line’ however, it should be noted that the press barons have been doing just that for some considerable time. Many advertisers stopped advertising on X in the light of some of the material finding its way onto it and a fall in revenue might affect its future commercial prospects.

    A key point was the power of the written word: if people see something in print they give it great credence. A counter argument was the power of the spoken word as well and Hitler was mentioned who had honed his speaking abilities acting for a government agency and was able to move large audiences with his oratorical skill. It was pointed out that it was easier to promote disinformation via social media which could be done in an instant, whereas a book for example took a great deal of time and things like references had to be provided.

    Someone thought that greater democratisation of the internet brought with it greater responsibility. It was a complex area and states wanted the companies to moderate their content and hence police them for not doing this adequately. It was also pointed out that ‘moderation’ went both ways: some companies were fixing algorithms to block out mentions of the conflict in Gaza – as well as child porn. The idea of unfettered access to events as they happened without the role of intermediaries and censorship was not being fulfilled.

    The News Agents podcasts were mentioned positively (@thenewsagents) as well as Channel3News the latter which was claimed to have played a key role in the spread of disinformation. It was a convincing and professionally produced site.

    It was not clear whether we were really tackling the question about banning these sites. We were reminded that attempts to ban people or ideas was not always successful or even wise. When the BBC invited Nick Griffin onto Question Time there was a huge furore and press anger. But, exposing his views to public view and criticism effectively ended his influence overnight.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next meeting is on 14 September.

    Guardian piece about children being taught about social media

  • Hugh Grant and our media

    April 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café, April

    April 2024

    UPDATE: 16 April. The Humanists are planning a rally on 29th April concerning assisted dying, the second topic discussed last Saturday.

    A good attendance for two interesting and lively debates. Looking at my notes, I think this will be a long post if I am to cover all the interesting points made. The first topic was Is democracy inherently unstable? The question was posed following recent events in countries which are nominally democracies but where autocrats have been voted in, Poland was given as an instance. There was also a rise in populism and the far right. Other factors included people feeling entitled (to hold power was the sense I think) and the rise of social media.

    The first fundamental point to be made was that empires were ‘stable’. Those who had power ensured they kept it and that meant change was restricted. Democracy allowed differing views which inevitably led to instability – was this a bad thing? Democracy was a good thing it was noted if people who got in were those we agreed with. What about when fascists and populists won power? People weren’t so keen on democracy then. One speaker was pessimistic about the future which he thought more Hobbesian citing the events in America by Trump and his supporters on Capitol hill. The point was made that Arab countries had ‘stable government’ but the Arab Spring showed that it masked deep problems i.e. stability did not necessarily deliver good government.

    Another argument was that nations went through cycles so sometimes things worked and sometimes they did not work so well.

    An interesting point about psychology was made concerning choice. A survey (it was claimed) showed that 30% were comfortable with a single system and the presence of too much choice (of candidates and policies) was too much to take in. People became confused.

    Another key point was that when economies are improving and the overall wellbeing of the nation is getting better, democracy is accepted. Once the ‘good times’ are over – a situation we are arguably in today – then people become dissatisfied with the political system. The period of prosperity was largely dependent on the developed world’s extraction from the less developed world of raw materials and resources. They will probably be unhappy with any system in these present day circumstances.

    It was suggested democracy was under threat internationally and that freedom has been reduced globally speaking. The lack of strong democratic input was why the Salisbury Democracy Alliance was promoting citizen’s juries precisely to improve both the quality of decision making and getting more people involved in how decisions are made.

    There was a shift in the argument with the assertion that people wanted to come to the UK because of our democratic institutions. This assertion did not meet universal agreement and most felt people came for the opportunities, jobs and so forth. They had little concern for democracy (they would not be able to vote in any event).

    The tone of the discussion changed at this point and we began to discuss the process itself and the MPs who are running it. Was it the democratic process which was important or the quality of decisions said one? Someone with US experience spoke of the rigidity of a constitution which is extremely difficult to change as times and circumstances change. The UK does not have a constitution and relies on decent behaviour by decent men – the ‘good chaps’ theory of government. The influence of public schools was mentioned – a subject of Simon Kuper’s book Chums which discusses the undue and malign influence of a narrow coterie of Eton and Oxford men

    Although it was true that we can ‘get the scoundrels out’ as Rush Limbaugh almost said it was noted that, although we have a choice at election, once a government is formed, that was it as far as the public having a say over affairs was concerned. Quintin Hogg’s ‘elective dictatorship’ was mentioned which was another reason SDA was keen on citizen’s assemblies. The curtailment of protest and dissent was great concern. Recent acts of parliament were designed to make protest harder and police now had enhanced powers to arrest protestors for a wide variety of infringements. Access to judicial review has also been curtailed.

    The recent issue of legal advice to government concerning arms sales to Israel was mentioned. Why was this not published?

    A positive note was struck concerning the select committee system which was working well. It was an opportunity for MPs to interrogate policy decisions and, now that the whips no longer appointed committee members, they had become assertive in questioning the executive. Members left their politics at the door and there was secret voting. In this vein it was noted that most MPs went in to politics with the best of intentions but quickly became lobby fodder as described in Isabel Hardman’s book Why we Get the Wrong Politicians. Was there a perception problem in fact? that is, a belief that politicians can’t be trusted which was not in fact fair nor accurate.

    Why are so many angry at the current situation someone asked? We are more critical of those in authority now perhaps spurred on by mainstream and social media. Deference of yesteryear has now gone. The threats and personal abuse MPs now endure was unacceptable we all felt. Polarised views and division was generating this anger it was thought.

    An interesting debate where we explored the system of democracy and how it works in practice. The point that however perfect a system might be, it ultimately depended on the honesty, competence and integrity of those who occupied it. A conclusion reached was that instability per se was not necessarily a bad thing if stability meant oppression or the stifling of opposing views. One said that democracy has to be unstable if freedom of expression is to be allowed.

    The second debate was around assisted dying: Should MPs be allowed to decide if assisted dying is the right thing for the country? This concerned the bill being promoted by Esther Rantzen. The introducer – who is a hospital chaplain – was worried that orders might be signed for the wrong reason. Her particular concern was those people with disabilities. Concern was expressed about giving MPs the choice citing their stewardship of prisons as an example.

    It was first pointed out that we had to distinguish between euthanasia and assisted dying – they were quite different. A second point quickly made was that this was not a minority issue since all of us will die – with taxes being the two certainties of life. The importance of having power of attorney organised was stressed. Another key point was that it is no longer illegal to takes one’s own life. Choosing your own death was in a sense a natural progression. The key issue was involving someone else in that decision.

    Several mentioned the DNR, (do not resuscitate) notices in people’s homes and which used to be on hospital beds. It was claimed that medical staff ignore these as they are not allowed to withhold medical assistance. Doctors are under an obligation to prolong life.

    Since we were talking about MPs deciding this, it was noted that MPs have already decided since it was the law at present. We were in effect talking about changing the law.

    Someone of mature years, shall I say, came up with the quote of the day – “If I wake in the morning, I think, it’s another day”. We should accept life as it is he said.

    But back to the basic question of whether MPs should decide issues of an ethical nature such as this. An echo of our first discussion, MPs have to be involved since it is they who change the law. As we have noted, the law had to be changed to allow this to happen.

    One worry was that could be have another Brexit? Could we see the same level of lack of information and disinformation that we saw in the debate about leaving the EU? Most thought not. Essentially, there was no push for a particular answer and the issues were already being widely aired, the opposite of the Brexit debate.

    It was pointed out in MP’s favour that they had wide access to expertise and the House of Commons Library which should help both to be informed and come to a reasonable conclusion. It was also noted that other laws which had a moral component – one thinks of homosexuality, the death penalty and same sex marriages – had been changed. In MP’s favour, we were reminded that they were often ahead of public opinion, the death penalty was mentioned.

    Another aspect was that we were living longer now and in effect, the medical profession had ”hijacked’ old age’. Medical intervention meant people lived on sometimes with poor quality of life whereas in times gone by they would have met their maker. Death was now a medical decision it was said.

    Taking the decision away from the professionals was a concern however and the problem of the ‘slippery slope’ that is, elderly people in hospital feeling unwanted and a burden. They would feel under a kind of obligation to end their lives because of these feelings. On the other hand it was noted that both Switzerland and the Netherlands had forms of assisted dying yet there did not seem to be a string of scandals or the ‘bumping off of relatives’ as it was expressed.

    There was a feeling, expressed by several during the debate, that people should have the choice. Those suffering from motor neuron disease was given as an example.

    A surprising omission in the debate was that religion and religious views did not get an airing.

    These were two fascinating debates and both turned in different ways on our trust of the political class. This loss of trust is clearly a problem since major aspects of our lives depend on the decisions they make. The way members of parliament are chosen, as discussed in Rory Stewart’s book Politics on the Edge for example was depressing. How MPs are treated once elected is also unsatisfactory as described in Isabel Hardman’s book. Should you wish to get further depressed then Ian Dunt’s book How Westminster Works and Why it Doesn’t might finish you off completely. All three books point to a thoroughly dysfunctional system of selection, appointment and treatment of a group of people who are crucial to the decision making of our country. Whichever party gets to form a government, if the system itself is creaking, good results cannot be expected. Allowing such people to decide on life or death is clearly a worry for many.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Isabel Hardman, Why we Get the Wrong Politicians, 2019, Atlantic Books

    Ian Dunt, How Westminster Works … and Why it Doesn’t, 2023, Weidenfeld & Nicolson

    Simon Kuper, Chums, How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK, 2023, Profile Books

  • Potholes and democracy

    Democracy depends on an informed public

    April 2024

    It is widely believed that democracy is a desirable state of affairs for the running of a country. Churchill’s famous quote is often wheeled out suggesting that, despite its flaws, there isn’t any superior method of doing things. That may be true but democracy depends on those with the vote being sufficiently aware of life around them such that their vote is a meaningful expression of their informed beliefs. Listening or watching ‘vox pops’ one sometimes has to wonder.

    Readers of Private Eye and watchers of Newsnight (and possibly other outlets) will be aware of the scandal that is the freeport in Teesside. The story is complex and involves many factors including huge potential losses for public authorities and the taxpayer; procurement rules being waved; windfall profits of £60m; environmental risks being loaded onto public authorities; appointments made without advertising them first and appointments of friends and relatives to lucrative contracts; tax evasion schemes and a pall of secrecy over what is going on so that finding out details is extremely difficult.

    The scheme known as Teesworks, is rapidly becoming a major scandal. An independent report was damning but despite the considerable evidence produced by Private Eye and others said there was ‘no evidence of corruption’.

    There is an election in Tees Side and when reporters canvassed opinions in Darlington, no one raised it as an issue. Instead it was potholes, potholes and more potholes. It is something of a problem with our complex society that major issues such as the continuing and long running scandal of the post office, can rumble on for many years with little interest or anger from the public. Labour are proposing to try and close the tax gap – estimated by HMRC at £36bn – but is more likely to be double or treble that. One wishes them well and I suppose hope does spring eternal. But there is little anger from the public about this huge activity. These sums disappear and result in long waiting lists, lack of care for the elderly, rotting schools and … yes, potholes. I very much doubt that someone stopped in the street by some media outlet and asked what they would like to see changed, would say ‘close the tax gap’ or ‘what about Teesworks’ despite their massive potential benefit to the nation’s purse.

    I suspect that politicians know this and realise that whingeing on about the tax gap or the various goings on in the City will have little traction with the public. Teesworks is just too complex to understand without a lot of study. A hole in the road on the other hand is simple, visible, seen everywhere and generates an obvious statement that ‘they should do something about it’. It can be argued that potholes act as a kind of metaphor for the state the country is in and there is something in that argument.

    Is the problem solvable? I am not sure that it is. It’s a commonplace to say that politics has become trivialised and is largely about personalities. The recent scandal of an MP sending personal details via WhatsApp generates huge interest and many column inches for example. But massive corruption, tax evasion and other goings on are difficult to uncover, hard to explain and carry great risks under our draconian libel laws and Slapp actions which mean wealthy individuals can use the courts to silence critics. News outlets find it harder to justify the extensive work needed to bring these damaging activities to public notice.

    The nation faces some momentous decisions about its future. Climate, poor investment, continuing poor productivity, and an economy weakened by Brexit are just some of the major issues facing us. Massive issues around care of the elderly, the mental health of our young people are two other problems – expensive problems – in need of attention. Are they receiving the attention they deserve? Do sufficient people know enough about these and other problems to make a difference to the political narrative? I wonder.

    Or are we trapped into the endlessly repeated cycle of promises about lowering taxation with no mention of the billions lost overseas. Is the population fixated on potholes to the exclusion of all else? And even if we do fixate ourselves on potholes, is there a true realisation of why we have them? Do people understand that over two decades have gone by since houses were revalued for Community Charge purposes and hence local authorities have less to spend on their sacred potholes? Have they forgotten that local authorities lost huge sums of central support grant following the 2008 banking crash – around 40% over the decade?

    Democracy, to work properly, does need an electorate with some grasp of the key issues and events which have led to our present position. It does need some thinking beyond just ‘what about the potholes?’

    P Curbishley