In the complex political world in which we live, it seems that the standard response to any new proposal or initiative is “What could possibly go wrong?” Even allowing for the British love of sarcasm, this is quite a worrying trend. The implication, of course, is that any venture is doomed to fail and with it the probable demise of the lead actors. Although we know that politicians (and civil servants) are held in low esteem, does this mean that we think they are, ipso facto, incompetent, or do we think that whatever they are planning is pointless? Either view is alarming.
How did we get to this state? Clearly, for any venture, the chances of error are very high. But they are made much more damaging if the original policy is mooted as a solution to a recognizable problem. One has only to think of any recent Budget, with the furore resulting from some tax change which might have unexpected consequences. Politicians tend to react to this kind of treatment by preparing the ground beforehand issuing various hints and leaks, with the inevitable risk of that playing out badly too. The recent IHT changes came about because the government wanted to clamp down on rich landowners purporting to be farmers so that the land could be kept in the family, but it ended up appearing to be an attack on the farming community.
There is no doubt that a Labour government has a particular
problem in that the right wing press will present its actions in the worst possible light. But that is all the more reason for giving an honest presentation of what the policy is, how it is intended to work and the possible snags. Apart from helping to block attacks from opponents, this would mean taking the public into ones confidence, surely an astute move (and also resulting in a better informed electorate).
If it does all go wrong, the best response must be to own up and try to explain what happened, instead of looking for someone to throw under the bus. Politicians would no doubt say that the public would be enraged, but they probably are anyway. If MPs want to be respected, they are going to have to level with the voters. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
We think this meeting was the 100th Café to be held and is a testament to the format that it has survived several different venues and came through the Covid crisis unscathed. Sadly, numbers were down for this meeting – the lowest for some while – but that did not inhibit the discussion.
We are grateful to Salisbury Library for allowing us to use their venue.
The first topic of the morning was the vexed question of immigration which has filled the airwaves in one form or another for months now. It featured strongly in the recent party conferences. The question was Surveys show thatimmigration is of prime concern at the moment despite other matters being more important: discuss. The first comment was to expand on the topic to say that Reform is largely centred on immigration and kindred matters and the other parties are keen to jump on the band wagon. Matters such as the NHS, education and roads for example are more important but do not receive the same attention. Another said immigrants had become the whipping boy for problems in the country and the concern was the degree of traction it was getting. A general election tomorrow would probably see a Reform government elected.
Who’s to blame for this? Was it the likes of Robert Jenrick or the Labour party? Or was it the failure of politicians to stand up for immigrants and to point out that the NHS simply could not function without them? Why are they so defensive?
One spoke of his early life experience going to Wales because his father was a key worker in the nascent plastics industry. They were given houses in Barry (of Gavin and Stacey fame) which was much resented by the locals. Life was quite uncomfortable such that many wanted to return to England. It is easy to understand the resentment however with English ‘immigrants’ arriving and taking the newly built houses (actually prefabs).
One spoke of her discomfort at the display of St George’s flags. They were looking after a property tenanted by Egyptian medics. The neighbour next door displayed one of these flags and there was some unpleasantness. It was quite provocative.
It was similar in some respects to Brexit someone suggested: a simple solution to a complex problem. Why were there no ‘grown ups’ in the room spelling out the [real] problems? Was it a case of deflection? Another thought was that voters tend to vote against something not for: voters were given some ‘ugly’ but simple things to vote against it was claimed. If the economy was doing well, perhaps there would be no need to demonise immigrants? A recent Question Time programme was mentioned where the audience appeared to turn against Reform which was encouraging.
Much of the public debate centred on ‘illegal’ immigration but it is not illegal to enter the country to seek refuge. It was more properly ‘irregular’ immigration. It was demonising and dehumanising. There was a comparison with the ’30s in Germany and the campaigns against the Jews who were alleged to be to blame for many of the country’s ills and the loss of the Great War.
There was some discussion about the role of the rich in our society triggered by an assertion that Nigel Farage receives massive coverage despite his party only having a tiny number of MPs. Having a simple message was part of the answer it was suggested. He also defended the position of the rich which was popular with our newspaper owners. In this connection, the recent events concerning the PPE scandal and the award against Baroness Mone in the PPE scandal was discussed. None had gone to prison it was noted. Millions had been spent on the court case but the award was against the company, Medpro, which is now in receivership and whether any of the £122m award will ever be seen is questionable. By contrast, benefit cheats do go to prison.
Were political parties frightened of the rich? Promises to do something rarely came to anything. The distraction idea surfaced again, with suggestions, along the lines of Juvenal’s bread and circuses, that governments were more interested in distracting the voters rather than tackling root problems. Where the fundamental beliefs that used to determine the parties someone asked? Sir Keir Starmer’s lack of charisma and vision was mentioned.
One curiosity was mentioned and that was how people spoke disparagingly about immigrants and others not from these shores but if they were in the presence of such a person would say ‘I don’t mean you’. It was a kind of ‘othering’ and how the word was detached from individuals. So people were grateful for help and treatment in a hospital from a foreign medic, but would still sound off about immigrants as though they were some kind of different species. It was noted however, that assaults and racial abuse on medical staff had increased dramatically.
There was discussion about the use of the St George’s flag and how they were visible all across Somerset someone claimed. Some of the complaints about immigrants were not just about housing and ‘taking our jobs’ but suggesting it was to protect our daughters and the risk of rape. Dangerous lies were being told. There is an interesting post on the local Amnesty site on the immigrant/refugee situation.
If there were some themes to emerge one was the pusillanimity of our politicians who were seemingly too afraid to praise the contribution of immigrants to our country. Second was the success of simple arguments peddled to complex problems and thirdly, finding scapegoats for problems no matter how relevant they were. Which sort of linked to the second topic …
The second half of our debate tackled the notion ‘Did it matter which political party was in charge?‘ This it was explained was based on the assertion that a range of outside forces meant the room for manoeuvre by governments was extremely small.
Parties keep a close eye on the polls and spend time with focus groups as they want to be re-elected. They have few principles that can survive this and the need to placate the media is another factor. There was also the question of representing the views of the electorate which politicians had to be mindful of. ‘It’s what my constituents want’ is a frequent cry from some politicians. They always claim to be ‘listening’. One anecdote was of a politician invited onto Desert Island Discs, who organised a focus group to give him advice on what records to choose [the politician was named]’. Tony Blair relied heavily of focus groups.
We were reminded of the term ‘Butskellism’ which emerged in the ’50s and was a combination of two leading politicians Rab Butler (Conservative) and Hugh Gaitskell (Labour) because many key aspects of their policies were similar and centrist in nature. Both parties pursued broadly similar policies in fact.
Politicians were in a difficult position it was noted. If they stuck to their principles they risked losing the whip and were of limited use to their constituents. Isabel Hardman in her book Why we get the wrong politicians (Atlantic Books, 2019) described the lonely and stressful world that some lived and how badly they were treated as backbenchers. It was suggested that this was less of a problem in Europe where they do not have whipping systems.
Back to the question and the role of lobbying was mentioned. There was a considerable number of lobbyists in the Commons and they played a key role in shaping policy and representing the interests of their mostly, powerful backers. Many were centred on Tufton Street which has become infamous for their behind the scenes activities. They were sometimes referred to as ‘junk tanks’. Often their funding was opaque and they were funded by fossil fuel interests.
There have always been lobbyists it was noted and they do sometimes have a purpose in introducing outside views and expertise into the political arena. There was discussion we have had before about the narrow nature and backgrounds of politicians in parliament. Public school, university, a think tank then into parliament. Many lacked real world experience. Shuffling between ministries was mentioned as discussed by Rory Stewart in his book Politics on the Edge: no sooner had a minister got to grips with a department, they were moved. The narrow pool from which ministers are chosen was also noted. Most were MPs (the occasional person from the Lords) and if you were appointing the boss of a major corporation, there is no way such a method would be used.
There were comparisons with other countries where often circular arrangements were employed in their debating chambers to avoid the confrontational approach. In Belgium, ministers resigned their seats once appointed. It was noted that we seemed unable to learn from other countries. The UK system was not fit for purpose it was suggested, designed for managing the Empire not for the present day.
But do we, the electors, have some responsibility? We demand low taxes in the belief we are better off the lower they are. The current government was in a bind having won power partly because of its low tax promises. We want the services, the NHS to be fixed and pot holes to be filled etc. but we do not want to pay higher taxes for them. Or rather, we want others to pay more but not us. It was noted that money spent on defence might be better used elsewhere.
Two interesting debates, linked in some ways around responsible government, politicians to show more courage and to be honest and how increasingly, simple solutions and scapegoats employed to tackle complex problems.
The next meeting of the café takes place this morning, Saturday, 11 October, starting at 10 am in Salisbury Library. It finishes at noon. All are welcome and write-ups of previous cafés can be found on this site and on the list of previous posts at the bottom of this post. It is free to attend but a small contribution of a few groats would be appreciated.
You can come with a topic for discussion or just come and join in – it’s up to you. If you do have a topic, try and express it as a question or in a few sentences. We vote on the suggestions and usually the top 2 get debated.
A colleague came into my office years ago and after a long discussion about a project not going well said “we must grab the nettle by the horns”. Well the first nettle we grasped at this Café was the vexed one of terrorism and we debated the question ‘Is terrorism ever justified?’ With the war in Gaza still raging and Hamas (a proscribed terrorist organisation) still in existence, if weakened, it is clearly a debate of some moment. What is a terrorist? The Oxford dictionary says: ‘a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods for coercing a government or community.’ There is nothing benign in this definition and the idea that it can be used as a means of persuasion was clearly not in the mind of the lexicographer.
It was suggested the word emerged during the Iraq war (which is not in fact the case – it seems to date to the French Revolution and the period called ‘The Terror’). The distinction between violence against individuals in contrast to violence against a state was one of the first points made. It was important to distinguish between them it was said.
The word is more nuanced it was noted. Echoing the last point, there was a distinction between violence against property and and violence against people. This is a matter of some significance concerning the banning of Palestine Action following its latest action of spraying paint over RAF aircraft at Brize Norton. (This very weekend, over 500 were arrested for allegedly supporting PA at a rally in London). It was interesting that Just Stop Oil were heavily policed but never proscribed despite similar tactics used by PA. The contrast with the farmers was noted who blocked many streets in and around London as part of their protests. There is no record of a single farmer being arrested.
The suffragettes were mentioned who used violent and aggressive means to force the government to accept female enfranchisement. It followed many decades of peaceful protests by the suffragists which were largely unsuccessful. The word suffragette was coined by the Daily Mail as a term of disparagement. Misogyny has a long history in that paper clearly.
Historically, the words ‘Freedom Fighter’ was often used for such activities but in recent times, terrorist seems to have taken over.
The frightening effect of protests by supporters of Palestine on Jewish communities was claimed.
The lack of democratic credentials was pointed out. It is perhaps difficult to see how a democratic process could be organised to support a terrorist organisation however. Neither the UVF or the IRA had any kind of formal democratic process in their formation. Later in the discussion it was said that terrorism exists when/where democracy has failed. This observation cropped up several times.
The debate shifted a gear by asking can a state be a terrorist organisation with its own activities against its own citizens? Russia was mentioned. President Bush called a range of states an ‘Axis of Evil’ (Iraq, Iran and North Korea) for supporting terrorist activity beyond its boundaries. Governments can introduce laws which aren’t democratic. A state can demonise a cause they don’t like by calling it ‘terrorist’ a technique now widely applied around the world. In any event, who gets to decide on these definitions?
We were reminded of the activities of the US in South America where nation after nation was threatened and its leaders murdered or overthrown if there was any sign of them becoming socialist or communist. In Chile, the murder of president Allende and his replacement by General Pinochet was given as an example of the role of the CIA.
Do our definitions change if there is a war? During the Second World War, the French mounted a ‘resistance’ against the Germans. Would we call their activities terrorism? We didn’t because we approved of their resistance and the SOE supported them with their activities. Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the then Soviet Union, the US supported the mujahidin. Subsequently, with the occupation by the US they were fighting the same people whom they had armed and trained. Who or what is a terrorist seems to shift according to whether we approve of them or not.
It was suggested that any country which has a secret service is by definition a terrorist state. An interesting proposition. Perhaps a country which invades another can similarly be described. This led to a discussion of ‘justified’ and how that could be defined and also ‘proportionality’. This latter being discussed in relation to Israel’s actions in Gaza. A key issue someone thought was when violence was used against civilians, the problem of Russian’s bombing Ukraine an example. Nelson Mandela was mentioned who was involved in the bombing of unmanned government buildings and was declared a ‘terrorist’ by President Reagan. One man’s terrorist …
We were reminded that the UN allows the use of force against an invading nation.
The discussion moved on to whether we should negotiate with terrorists. Northern Ireland was mentioned and the covert negotiations with the IRA. An interesting point was made: if there was some ‘right’ in the terrorist’s position then perhaps negotiations might be justifiable. There was an obvious danger of course, namely if anyone with a cause imagines that violence is a passport for negotiations then the results can only be imagined. Was there some kind of ‘sliding scale’ of justification for political violence? it was asked. At this point the book How to Blow up a Pipelinewas mentioned which argued for aggressive approaches to climate change. Hamas was mentioned and it was claimed that they seek the extinction of Israel and are called terrorists. Israel seeks the destruction of Hamas and Palestine but are not called terrorists. [The BBC says Hamas is opposed to the existence of Israel which may or may not mean the same thing].
We struggled with the word ‘justified’. Can the killing of civilians ever be justified? In Gaza it is the disproportionate nature and scale of the IDF attacks which many are concerned about.
Definition came up several times. When a group is defined as a ‘terrorist’ organisation then governments stop negotiating with them. Understanding the underlying causes also disappears from view.
Finally, this week was the 80th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Was that an act of terror by one nation on another? We did not explore that unfortunately …
A difficult topic suffused as it is with meanings, politics and perspectives but an interesting discussion nevertheless and one worth exploring.
The next topic was almost as controversial as the first namely, should the City Hall invite Katie Hopkins (pictured) to a gig at the hall? It appeared that some in the audience had not heard of her which is a kind of comment in itself. She came to fame on the BBC’s Apprentice programme and has since carved out a career for herself as a media person with a range of outspoken views. She deplores fat people and seems to have particular animus for women who stay at home after having a baby (having looked up a range of her quotes I discovered). The argument was essentially about the cancel culture which has gripped the universities. Some of her gigs have been cancelled it was claimed largely on public order grounds apparently.
Did the booking and the purchase of tickets mean her views were endorsed by the hall and the
audience? Some of the arguments hinged on KH being classed as right wing. It was a pity that more did not know of her comments because although they are, some might argue objectionable, few seem to be particularly right wing. The view that she was led to a question about whether a left wing comedian (Stewart Lee was mentioned) should be cancelled?
It was argued that the City Hall was simply doing it for commercial reasons. One article was mentioned which caused much anger and many complaints was in the Sun where she referred to migrants as cockroaches. Objecting to her presence could be argued on acceptability grounds. It was divisive and these comments go against the values of our society. It was strongly felt by some that the City Hall should not be making money by inviting people whose act was built on causing offence.
The counter argument was should we be concerned at offending people. Shami Chakrabarti has claimed that in the interests of free speech, we do not have a right not to be offended. Stand-up is sometimes outrageous, so where do you draw the line? The popular and award winning series on the BBC The Hour has been pulled and back issues are no longer available. It appears because it had low ratings rather than for any political or acceptability reasons (why back issues are not available is a puzzle though).
In connection with a Tommy Robinson video, said to be professional, persuasive and manipulative, it was suggested that the educational system needs to catch up. There was a need for critical awareness to be introduced into Civics classes to help students grasp meanings and impacts. The Super Searchers Programme has been launched to enhance information literacy. However, it is run by Google – draw your own conclusions. An article in this month’s Byline Times discussed the topic of information with the familiar misinformation and disinformation, which we have discussed in several cafés, but added a third, malinformation which is using correct information for malign purposes.
A point was made concerning humour and its use to mask prejudice. An article by George Monbiot in he Guardian discussed this aspect of humour by individuals like Rod Liddle who has a column in the Spectator. The article suggests that humour can be used as a form of ‘plausible deniability’ and as a cover for outrageous views such as getting rid of disabled people by starving them to death. Rod Liddle suggested bombing Glastonbury for some reason. Monbiot makes the point about Right v. Left: if a humourist suggested bombing the Conservative party conference there would be outrage. Suggestions of bombing Glasto are, well, humour. Can’t you take a joke?
It was noted however that Bernard Manning made a career out of being outrageous and was hugely popular.
An interesting idea was put forward about comedy: it is acceptable punching upwards at the powerful, less so punching ‘down’ to the powerless. Where that puts Bernard Manning’s many jokes about mother-in-laws is for you to decide.
This was an example where debate could not settle a basic difference of view. For those who dislike unpleasant or divisive views being aired – whether or not wrapped up in humour – the likes of Katie Hopkins should not be promoted certainly not for profit. For others, however unpleasant, such people should be heard because the risk to free speech is a higher cause and one where we just have to put up with unpleasantness in its cause.
Peter Curbishley
The next meeting is on Saturday 13th September starting at 10:00 for 2 hours. We are grateful for the Library allowing us to use their space.
A smaller group than usual assembled at the Library for this month’s Café, but the discussion was still diverse and considered. The first topic chosen was “What are the costs and benefits of AI?”
One member noted that he had written an article back in 2016 on the subject and, rereading it, had found it surprisingly relevant. A review of the piece had some good recommendations. Most members were of the view that AI had great benefits in terms of saving time on processing but were concerned about regulation. A dissenting member observed that it was too late for such concerns, as AI had developed way beyond the ability of humans to control it – into the level of “general intelligence”.
Apocalyptic visions aside, the debate was generally about the possible effects of using the power of AI to increase productivity but remove jobs. Some found ChatGPT useful, particularly for scientific research; but mistakes can occur, and there were concerns about whether AI could overcome this.
At a more philosophical level, it was felt that AI would remove free will, or at least lead a trend away from individualism. The implications for art were considered.
On regulation, it was questioned whether AI could regulate itself; the more advanced view was that AI would be concerned with its own survival and would evade regulatory interference. This led on to a discussion of machine consciousness and thus human consciousness and how far we understand either. Complex questions, but a stimulating debate.
The second topic for discussion was “Should we increase defence spending to 3% of the total?”
The consensus was that more spending on weaponry was pointless but the defence of the realm was still important. The reason for the proposed increase was questioned, particularly the demand from the US that Europe as a whole should take on more of the burden. Some agreed that we have had defence on the cheap. There was also some debate about the UK’s role, bearing in mind that we have not always been able to demonstrate that we are a major power nor have much influence in the major conflicts. Our role as a seller of arms was also questioned. It was generally felt that the Strategic Defence Review was not a useful contribution to the debate.
Andrew Hemming
NEWS
For those of you who came to one or more of the People’s Assemblies, we are pleased to report that we will be able to present the results at a meeting of an Area Board early in July. This could be a big step forward for the SDA.
Have you thought about joining us? We are working to bring a better way of doing politics in the area and we need supporters. It is free.
UPDATE: there is an interview with Mark Potts on That’s TV and the link is here (6 June)
The third of the assemblies was held on Sunday 1st and 42 took part to discuss the suggestions put forward by the previous two. There was earnest debate on all the tables and there were some who were passionate about their topic or what was important to them. We ended up with our top five and these will go forward to contribute to the national debate. We hope some of those who volunteered to go to London will be able to do so to carry the message forward.
It occurred to me as the afternoon wore on listening to the debates on each of the tables, that where else is there for this kind of debate? Our election process – national or local – will consist of the parties telling you of their plans for the country or the area. You don’t get to debate them unless you are a member of one of the parties and even then, policy is often imposed from on high. If you go to a hustings, as I did last year, the candidates have their say and one or two from the audience get to ask a question, but there is no debate in any meaningful sense of the term. It’s all very ‘top down’ with non party members – the vast majority – being passive recipients of the supposed wisdom of our political masters.
Yet in the three assemblies, there were six hours of vigorous debate by a wide range of people. A few came more than once but the majority were first timers. Things didn’t quite go to plan as the last event was meant to be a game of two halves: each group to select their top five and then in the second half, to decide on the final five having heard what the other’s thought. Well, we more or less decided on the top five after the first session so the debate switched to suggesting which one or two topics were the most important.
What are the top five you are eager to discover:
1. Housing
Provide more good quality and low energy consuming homes, which are genuinely affordable and some of which will be in public ownership. Ensure that developers provide such homes, fully meeting their planning obligations and including the provision of appropriate and agreed infra-structure. [this is a combination of the various individual suggestions into one piece of text].
2. Transport
Produce and implement a traffic plan for the city with youth advocacy, that includes low emission zones, car free zones, people friendly routes, promotes active travel, considers 15-minute communities and free or cheap bus travel, especially for under 21s.
3. A Community Hub
Create a community hub for young people and families including 3G sports pitches and activities including life skills.
4. An Environmental Centre
Create an environmental centre which provides Salisbury’s residents with information on sustainable homes, travel and living. A permanent, free home will allow Ecohub to provide a better information and advice service to local residents.
Residents and the environment would benefit from this service as sustainable homes and transport save money while reducing greenhouse gases.
5. A College for Performing Arts in Salisbury.
Power
One of the topics which arose in several debates and in discussions afterwards, was the matter of where the power lies and who is in a position to deliver on any of these. If we take housing for example, why do we not have more affordable homes? Why are new houses going up around Salisbury and elsewhere, the majority of which do not have solar panels and are not built to zero emission standards? Why are we building on flood plains? Why are developers able to promise affordable homes at the planning application stage then amazingly, discover that once on site they cannot afford to actually provide them? These were all things discussed during our three sessions. It is likely that most involved at the local level – officers and councillors – are well aware of these problems yet are largely powerless to do anything about them. It’s about where power lies.
The government has decided that we need houses – lots of them. They have also stated that one of the major problems is the planning system (full disclosure: I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, now retired). Reform the system they claim and Hey Presto! masses of houses will appear to solve the problem. There are one or two snags though. Firstly, the developers already have 2 or more years of land with planning permissions in the bag but are not building on them. Some people have alleged it is because land is an appreciating asset so it can sit on the balance sheet steadily getting more valuable. It is also alleged that the big builders decide among themselves where to build so as not to depress prices by all building in the same vicinity. To build houses you need services: boring things like drains, a supply of fresh water, electricity, roads and somewhere to send the err, foul water. If local planning committees point some of these issues out, and maybe turn down the application for this or other reasons, the developer can appeal knowing they will get a favourable hearing. The Minister might also call it in and decide for himself.
So you can ‘reform’ (=weaken) the system and you will get more houses but they will be poorly insulated, packed in together, and without solar panels. Oh and you can kiss goodbye to any affordable homes.
But back to the assemblies which demonstrated that this is a matter of great concern to people. They are unhappy at seeing huge estates appearing with no doctor’s surgery, sometimes no shop or community space – just rows of lookalike houses. They think it ludicrous that houses should be built on land susceptible to flooding. One of the issues today with our febrile political system is the wide dissatisfaction people have with it. They feel marginalised. They feel not listened to. They say things like ‘they’re all the same’ which is not true but widely believed.
So maybe this exercise is a small contribution to allowing people more say in their affairs. It has revealed a thirst by people to have their say, not just tick a box at an election and then be forgotten.
What next?
We will be contributing to the national event and locally, we want to follow through with the City and Wiltshire Councils. One of our goals is a citizen’s assembly a place where policy matters of moment can be discussed involving experts and local people. We want to move away from the process where people are invited to comment on policies more or less agreed anyway, a kind of tokenism.
Peter Curbishley
The next Democracy Café is on Saturday 14 June starting at 10:00 in the Central Library.
It’s the Democracy Café meeting this Saturday, 10 May starting at 10:00 as usual and finishing at noon. It’s in Salisbury Library and we are grateful to the Library for allowing us to use the space for these meetings. If you want to get a flavour of the debates see reports elsewhere on this site. You can come with a topic you would like to hear debated or just see what comes up – your choice.
The elections last week, and the rise of Reform, is making waves at present. Is this a protest against the two-party system? Do any of the parties have answers to the Nation’s problems? Wiltshire Council is no longer Conservative dominated – surely a seismic change. Lots to debate!
Two topics discussed of current political interest
April 2025
The Café took place days following Donald Trump’s announcement of a range of tariffs which has caused ructions in world markets and threaten to destroy the way the international economic system has worked since WWII.
But the winning topic was of a domestic nature and concerned a government bill which aim to introduce a system of reports which in their wording: ‘[…] is to prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council’s Imposition guidelines, reinforce equal access to pre-sentence reports and support consistency in application across all demographic groups‘. The worry was that there is not currently a ‘level playing field’ and that certain groups – ethnic minorities, people from religious minorities, and women – suffer differentially in the justice system.
This had become politically sensitive with some politicians claiming that white people would suffer from this treatment if it became law. It would create a two tier system they maintained and white people would accordingly suffer. It was argued that courts needed to take everyone’s circumstances into account in relation to sentencing. The book The Devil You Know was mentioned in this connection, written by a psychiatrist who interviewed people who committed serious crimes to try and understand their stories and motivations. She gave this year’s Reith Lecture series.
Objectors said that it risked introducing a two-tier system and one politician said it was ‘blatant bias against Christians’ and ‘straight white men’. It was noted however that there was already a two-tier system with a disproportionate number of black men in prison. It was also noted that since the ending of legal aid, there were many who could not obtain justice at all. Another change which has taken place in recent years was victim statements. These were introduced to remind the courts that there were people who had suffered greatly from a criminal act.
A case was mentioned of someone who had entered the country illegally, held for 7 years without charge [I could not find a reference to this]. How can the legal system justify this?
It was argued that the legal system has arisen from a power structure which was essentially Christian in nature. Not everyone agreed with this: many of our laws were based on common law going back centuries. We were also reminded that early Christians were extremely violent in the promotion of their beliefs.
Digression
At this point we digressed from the topic in hand and the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt was mentioned. She was the lady arrested and eventually found guilty by the court in Bournemouth for breaching the Public Spaces Protection Order by standing outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth holding a sign saying ‘Here to talk if you want to’. She was fined £20,000 and given a conditional discharge. These are the bald facts of the case as widely reported. It was suggested however, that this was an attack on the freedom of expression. It was also suggested that Tossici-Bolt was on the other hand a ‘front’ for American evangelicals. The US funded organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) did indeed help fund the case but I could find no evidence that she acted for them. Readers would need to refer to their website to understand the nature and activities of this organisation. [They also have an extensive Wikipedia entry].
It was questioned whether she had been warned before her arrest? She had indeed been asked to move by the police but refused. She had also been offered a fixed penalty notice but she declined it, hence her arrest. The Americans had commented on the case as an example of the lack of free speech in the UK. She is free to speak and campaign but to do it outside the PSPO.
There was discussion about the extent of Christian influence on our laws. It was noted that historically, people believed they would go to hell (in the literal sense) if they lied in court for example. Christianity has strongly influenced our culture and beliefs it was argued and it was noted that in the US, God and religious beliefs were a powerful influence. It has driven their views on abortion for example [see the reference to ADF above who funded the overturning of Roe v, Wade] The benign nature of early Christianity was questioned however as they were extremely violent in promoting their beliefs in the early centuries.
We were reminded of Lord Acton’s quote ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.
On the struggle for power, Magna Carta was mentioned which concerned a very narrow group of people namely the King, the Barons and some property owners. The word ‘woman’ only appears once in the document. This prompted the comment concerning the present day and the farmer’s protests (being property owners I think was the link though not all farmers own their land). Despite causing disruption in London concerning their protest about the capital gains tax changes introduced last year, none had been arrested. This was contrasted with the arrest of women in a Quaker meeting house in Westminster who were planning a protest.
But back to the question and it was said surely, it is better to be informed about people (during the judicial process) than simply to continue with the policy of locking people up? Someone who had been a social worker said he was often asked to produce reports by the courts but he did not think this was for everyone. We have too many in prison and this contrasted with the Nordic countries and the Netherlands who were reducing their prison populations. However, the role of the media and its allegations towards any politician advocating such ideas was that they were guilty of being ‘soft on crime’.
Overall, there was probably agreement that it was better for courts to be informed about defendants and their circumstances rather than just rely on punishment.
For our second debate, we looked at the proposition: was what has happened in the US [Trump and the tariffs etc] a blessing in disguise? We had a somewhat Hollywood view of America and some of the realities of life there did not always reach our screens. The health service for example: we have seen several TV series showing heroic doctors – Dr Kildare and ER for example – whereas around 20 million Americans had no access to health care. Someone who had lived in America said that she had received excellent service in the US whereas she has been waiting months for treatment here. Someone else who had worked in the US said he knew of someone involved in a motorcycle accident which damaged his leg, but who did not have Medicaid, was taken to a hospital where they simply amputated it, no attempt was made, it was suggested, to save it which might have happened if he did have medical insurance.
The economic effects of Trump’s actions were mentioned and how there had been some ‘bragging’ about the economic effects especially from those who had profited from the stock market gyrations. One suggested it was a ‘clever business deal’.
Brexit was mentioned and the idea that we could stand on our own since leaving and this looked a little fragile now in view of Trump’s actions and tariffs. We should form closer links with Canada and the EU. We should also be supporting the UN and the ideas of accountability and the rule of law. Gordon Brown had suggested using the IMF and the World Bank in the process of building a new world order. The problem however is that both institutions are American controlled. Removing the dollar as a reserve currency was another suggestion which is something China and a clutch of other countries like Brazil and South Africa is trying to do. It was noted that Iraq, then the largest oil producer, wanted to tie its production to the Euro and this might have been part of the motive for the Iraq war. Since the stated reasons for the war (Iraq’s alleged programme to produce weapons of mass destruction and links to AL Qaeda were both wrong) this theory is not altogether outlandish.
How feasible was detaching ourselves from the US it was asked? The US has cut aid to WHO and its own US aid programmes but other countries had not stepped forward to fix the breach. We were closely linked militarily with bases around the country. We had very close links between the intelligence services particularly the NSA and GCHQ. We also made components for American aircraft such as the F35. Detaching ourselves from these relationships would be both difficult and unwise. We were reminded of the Five Eyes programme.
History goes in cycles it was noted. The US has a constitution (which the UK hasn’t) and Trump was facing many legal challenges. The Washington Post was mentioned but we were reminded that it had been acquired by Jeff Bezos who had prevented it from endorsing the Democrats at the election. We must be aware of US firms seeking investments in key areas such as Palantir. They were looking to acquire NHS data and the worry was the government would sell this off cheaply for short-term gain and to the detriment of the long-term health of the country. Allowing such firms to have access to the NHS’s data is a huge risk. The other concern was tax and major US firms like Amazon make massive profits in the UK yet managed (quite legally) to pay next to no tax since the transactions take place in a tax haven.
How will it all end? Even if Congress decides to stand up to him, the results could be violent since many Americans feel he speaks for them. We were reminded of the massive gun ownership in the States. Attention was drawn to the film Civil War which was a kind of imagined scenario of what an insurrection could look like in the States.
It was noted that two US Supreme Court justices were reported to be quite angry over recent events and ignoring established government protocols. It has centred around the Court’s demand that Kilmar Abrego Garcia be retrieved from El Salvador. It showed that Trump can be resisted.
The gradual decline in international law prompted the thought of what happened in the 1930’s in Germany where the Nazis gradually built their power by denigrating the law and gradually reducing rights along the path to power. Was there a risk of similar things happening in the UK?
Did we debate the question? Not really. Perhaps we are too close to it and the events too raw for notion that it might be for the long term benefit of the UK to forge closer links with like minded nations. We were warned that the idea of forming a closer link with China had serious risks.
Books mentioned:
The Devil You Know, 2022, Dr Gwen Adshead, Faber & Faber Ltd
The Darkening Age: Christian Destruction of the Classical World, 2017, Catherine Nixey, Macmillan
Next meeting on May 10th. The next People’s Assembly takes place on June 1st at the Football Club starting at 2pm. Booking is done by contacting mapotts53@gmail.com. It is free but a small contribution can be made if you wish. [UPDATE: 15 April] We’ve just held our second on 13th and a write up is now posted. There is a report of the first here.
⭐
Rating: 1 out of 5.
Have you thought of joining us? We are trying to improve the standard of democracy and governance in the area and would welcome anyone with similar interests to join us.
Write – up soon. The last Democracy Café was this morning Saturday, 12 April starting at 10:00 as usual and finishing at noon. In Salisbury Library, upstairs (there is a lift). Lots to discuss with the momentous events following Trump’s election and the imposition of tariffs which have shaken the world order. What should our relations with the US be now? Are they ‘friends’ anymore? There will be many attending on Saturday or reading this who have links over the pond: I can think of many in my family circle who are living/working in the US. Should we impose tariffs?
And what about Europe and the dreaded ‘B’ word no one dare mention not least in the Labour party. Should we be thinking of a closer … no, no, don’t go there – too terrifying a thought.
You see summaries of previous cafes on this site and the last one here.
Local elections are coming up and although they are ‘local’, many will use them to express a view of the government. What should the issues be?
Which brings me neatly to the second People’sAssembly taking place on Sunday 13April (yes the day after – we are gluttons for punishment) at the St Gregory’s Hall in St G’s Avenue (off the Wilton Road, by snaky bridge). Attendance is looking good but there may still be places so contact mappots53@gmail.com if you would like to come. Starts at 2pm and finishes after 4. Free with a parting collection. See a report on the first Assembly. There was also a report in the Salisbury Journal.
The room in the Library was full for our café on 8th February and we discussed two quite unrelated topics. But first, it is timely to thank Salisbury Library for giving us this space. Libraries have had a tough time in recent years with one report saying 180 have closed since 2016. We much appreciate them for enabling us to meet there.
There were a large number of topics suggested (around 16) and the one which won the most votes was How do we get growth, and do we want it? This of course arose following speeches by Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer who have nailed the Labour party’s flag to the growth mast as the solution to the country’s many ills. ‘To believe in growth on a planet with finite resources is either a madman or an economist’ thus spake David Attenborough. The third runway idea seemed to ignore environmental issues which appeared at one time to be an important element of Labour’s policy. But how to change the narrative was the question. The assumption that growth was the answer to problems is almost assumed wisdom without it ever being questioned.
The idea of a third runway at Heathrow was unlikely to be successful it was thought: interestingly, the reasons didn’t need to be spelled out. Kate Raworth’s book Doughnut Economics was mentioned which included a critique on the very topic we are discussing.
Tax should be reframed as a social good
Tax (as ever) was mentioned and the observation that people want services but the moment raising taxes to pay for them is mentioned it was political death. There was no sense of pride in paying tax as a contribution to the public realm. Tax was always presented negatively as a cost not a contribution. It should be reframed as a social good (this was the first time a remark was applauded in the history of the Café!). The results of not doing things (as in not spending on schools, hospitals etc I think was meant) never seemed to be discussed. ‘Living Danishley’ was mentioned – an economy with higher taxes but also higher welfare where there did seem to be higher levels of contentment. One hopes the people of Greenland agree.
It was pointed out that there were two aspects to growth: the short term focusing on GDP and the longer term which was concerned with matters such as productivity, improvements in which have defeated politicians for decades. We must not lose sight we were reminded of some of the benefits of growth, the reduction in poverty for example
A fundamental point which seems to escape most politicians, is what matters is that those with assets already tend to gain the most whilst those without assets tend to lose out. Almost Biblical in fact: “for he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.” Which seems apposite in Trumpworld. It was about the distribution of wealth. It was noted that just 62 people own half the world’s wealth. Since much of this wealth was in a tax haven somewhere, it was ‘dead money’. One of the consequences of not investing was the huge rise in child poverty. Estimates vary depending on definitions and whether relative or absolute poverty was meant, but what was clear was a huge rise in the numbers. It was not all right for many with poverty and poor housing common.
The point was made that GDP (Gross Domestic Product in case you weren’t paying attention in your economics class) didn’t measure everything. In fact it measures income and there are many aspects which make life worth living which are not measured. The Happiness Index being used in Bhutan was an interesting observation (and the link is well worth a look if this is new to you). Another point is that changes in GDP were incremental and often very small amounts of a percentage or fractions of a percent. Distribution (of wealth) was much more significant.
The book The Spirit Level was mentioned and one of its key findings that inequality hurts all people not just those at the bottom of the heap so to speak. It was noted that the welfare state introduced after the war had been ‘bypassed’ as it was expressed and politicians today don’t promote social responsibility. This was linked to the tax point above. The state was increasingly relying on charities to step in and do the things the state used to do.
‘Getting rich’ was the only philosophy
No Democracy Café is complete without mention of the media. It was suggested that one problem was the media’s desire to glamorise rich people so that wealth was regarded as a good thing in itself. Do we trust social media? ‘No’ was the answer (unfortunately, many do). However, it was pointed out that not all social media was the same and it did allow for a diversity of views. It devoted too much time to discredit reliable sources someone said. The failure by the government to enunciate a coherent philosophy didn’t help it was suggested leaving the idea that to get rich was the (only) way forward. Bad news makes the headlines someone observed. Large elements of our media were owned by foreign oligarchs who were able to control the narrative.
Overall, a general conclusion that growth by itself was of little value unless more was done to ensure it was distributed more fairly. Ignoring the environment to achieve it didn’t find favour either.
The second topic was What are the burning issues facing Salisbury and what are the solutions? Transport was quick out of the blocks followed by the numbers of empty shops. A big rise in foodbank use was mentioned and flooding.
On transport, the related issue of congestion was brought up. Charging people to enter the town centre was suggested. A suggestion to one of the Area Boards a few years ago that the City centre be pedestrianised was not met with enthusiasm to put it mildly. There was a strong car lobby in the City. Attempts to make Salisbury more people friendly didn’t always get far. The Cycling Opportunities Group for Salisbury (COGS) had suggested safe cycle routes for example which did not fully succeed.
Building houses on the flood plain was mentioned by several and was unsurprisingly, not seen as a good idea. As water levels rise … well you get the idea. At this point it was noted that several of the suggestions were beyond the powers of the City Council to do anything about. It was after all – absurdly – a parish council with very limited powers. It was also limited to the City boundary and did not include adjacent villages or places like Wilton. The Council may well object to housing on the flood plain but housebuilders had huge resources to be able to defy the council and the minister would overrule any objections [that very day, the Guardian reported ministers’ intentions to build thousands of houses on such areas]. Halt Harnham Housebuilding was mentioned. The drivers for change were not local.
On the topic of housing two matters were mentioned. Many older people lived in large properties and might like to downsize. It was not easy however and the costs of some supported housing were high and uncertain. Second homes were criticised although Salisbury is not such a centre for this. Some places in Cornwall and Wales were plagued by them.
What the vision was for Salisbury was questioned. What will the City look like (at some future time)?
What was there to keep young people in Salisbury? What reasons were there for them to stay here? Things like the LGBQ café had closed down for example. Someone asked ‘why should I come to Salisbury?’ With closed shops and an increase in cafés and hairdressers, it lacked excitement they thought. It was observed that in some Baltic states, multiple shop owners had to relocate on the periphery and only small retailers allowed in the centre. However, someone said that the most common question they get asked is ‘where is Marks and Spencers?’
It was suggested that part of the problem was that Trowbridge felt remote. The Plain was a definite barrier with poor communications. There was an argument for the county to be split into two, north and south (forgive me for adding a link to a piece on this subject).
The role of private contracts with the local hospital was mentioned. This was a concern and ‘backdoor’ privatisation of the NHS was a worry generally. Trying to find out the true story here is not easy with company take overs and such like. Twenty20 Capital is an ex Virgin organisation and we must be worried that a venture capital entity is taking over the local hospital. Will it follow the usual practice of these companies to strip the place bare and ‘do a water industry’?
There was some discussion on the College which now apparently did little in the way of further education. It was a result someone said of ‘Ofstedisation’ that is learning which was all about outcomes and outputs. Several issues discussed and we were reminded of the forthcoming People’s Assemblies in Salisbury that attendees might be interested in.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 