Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: politics

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    A good turnout for two debates as usual the first being a bit of a surprise. The New Statesman in its 2 – 8th February edition had made two serious allegations concerning the MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen, in a piece entitled: The Rotten State: How corruption and chumocracy are pulling the British Nation apart (subscription needed). The first debate centred on these allegations and what it meant for the future of the MP and the constituency in the forthcoming general election. 

    The two allegations were as follows: ’[…] the Future Fund, established in 2020 by the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, at a cost of £1.1bn to support British start-ups. The taxpayer has lost almost £300m on the Future Fund, which has given money to the businesses of centimillionaire wife, Ashata Murty, [and] the cabinet office minister John Glen […]’. Mr Glen has shares in a sub-Saharan African mining firm. The second allegation was that Mr Glen attended meetings (which he probably chaired as the City Minister) with the banks to arrange £71bn in loans as part of the Covid recovery. The article suggests that £17bn of this has gone missing according to the Public Accounts Committee. When attempts were made to provide details the journalist was told by the Treasury ‘we do not hold minutes of the meeting’. 

    The proposer of the topic has written to Mr Glen but his answers were somewhat vague. It was up to the Treasury to keep minutes he said. It was quickly noted that this was becoming part of a pattern with large numbers of WhatsApp messages being deleted both in Scotland and in England in connection with the Covid enquiry. It was simply not satisfactory for the business of the country to be run this way with politicians able to delete the records at will or, in the case of Mr Glen, for their to be no record in the first place.

    It was suggested that Covid was an event to enable a large sum of money to be transferred to a small number of people. It was not clear if everyone agreed with this point. The same speaker mentioned Walter Lippmann who spoke about how people were deliberately distracted from the main issue. 

    The fact that there was no mention of these allegations in the Salisbury Journal was a surprise it was suggested. They do not seem to have asked any questions of him or sought a response. Maybe we should all write to the Journal and ask ‘why not?!’ Did it matter who was the MP? someone said. Yes it did and we right to expect a certain standard of honesty and integrity from those who represented us. 

    One speaker said she always got a response when she wrote but many others said they did not. They only got a reply if it was a ‘standard’ one they said. One member had written to him about matters in the Maldives for example which Mr Glen has said he has a special interest in since there was a group of Maldivians who lived in the City. No reply has been received**. Another response was to say as a minister he was unable to interfere in another department. 

    Back to the Journal and it was asked how influential was it? Difficult to answer but it did have a much lower readership which was true of all newspapers it was noted. However, it did give Mr Glen a column each week in which he can tell us what he is doing and as such was a ‘mouthpiece’ for him. 

    There was a brief discussion about the need to improve local journalism and the Trust News Initiative was mentioned.

    The second debate centred on Palestine and ideas around creating a state. The war in Gaza was in full spate at present with a reported 27,000 dead and many thousands missing. The proposer noted that Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, had mooted the idea of a separate Palestinian state. But who would fix the boundaries especially as the Israelis wanted to take more land? Would not be better if the countries of the Middle East held centre stage rather than ‘outside’ countries such as the US?

    One speaker noted that Palestine had been offered statehood in 1948, again after the Yom Kippur war and also after Camp David talks. Each time they have refused. At elections they have voted for Hamas who murdered the opposition and who’s only motive is the extinction of the Jewish State. It was also noted the leadership lived in Qatar. While this may be true, it was noted that Hamas had also been supported by Mr Netanyahu partly to destabilise the Palestinian leadership. 

    This narrative overlooked the significant role played by the US in the region and the powerful influence they had on Middle Eastern politics. The real issue is the relationship between the US and Iran which was a key driver of the politics of the area.

    Several speakers referred to outside influences over history – one even went back to the Romans! Perhaps they might ask in the area ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?’ More recently, Britain took a keen interest because we wanted a secure route for Persian oil through the Suez Canal. Mention was also made of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the role of Lloyd George in seeking Jewish support to get the US into WWI. We played a role in the UN Mandate in what was then called Palestine. There was also the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between France and Britain concerning post-war and post Ottoman spheres of influence in the area. One comment was from someone who served with Army in the area in 1948 in an attempt to keep the peace. He referred to the 900 or so British soldiers who were murdered during this time. Wounds run deep. 

    Latterly, the Americans have held sway. A solution can only come it was said if there was a regional deal. To achieve this some of the Palestinian leadership needed to be released from Israeli gaols. 

    But the overriding series of comments centred on the role of outside influence of one kind or another. The selling of arms by several western countries particularly the US and Britain although Russian and China are involved, can only inflame the situation. The Abrahamic Accords in 2020 were mentioned and the commitment to recognise both sides diplomatically. They were called ‘Abrahamic’ because they recognised Abraham as a common link between the two religions.

    South Africa was mentioned who had launched the case against Israel in the International Criminal Court accusing them of genocide in Gaza which Israel has denied. Could they be mediators? The crucial point someone said was what was needed was a country which didn’t have history in the area. This would rule out USA, Britain, France and some others, all of whom have meddled or had a role in pursuing their interests over the interests of the people who live there. A related factor is possibly a sense of collective and almost atavistic guilt in some of the powers involved especially their bad treatment of Jews over the centuries: their expulsion from York in the twelfth century for example, their expulsion from Spain and so on, not to mention the Holocaust itself. 

    Northern Ireland was mentioned and the decades of the ‘Troubles’. It was eventually resolved by negotiation, pressure on the UK from the US, and a Canadian negotiator. These things can be resolved. In this connection, António Guterres*, the UN General Secretary was suggested as a possible mediator.

    As a final note, the practice of calling someone ‘anti-Semitic’ when they criticised Israel was deprecated. 

    For once, two unrelated debates as different as chalk and cheese (a good Wiltshire based expression). The next meeting is on Saturday 9th March, same place, same time.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Guterres is Portuguese.

    ** Correction 16 February: a reply has now been received and Mr Glen said he will raise the matter with the FCO.

    Books:

    The Palestine – Israel Conflict, 2015, Dan Cohen-Sherbok and Dawoud El-Alami, Oneworld.

    The Balfour Declaration. 2018, Bernard Regan, Verso.

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    The next meeting of the café is this Saturday, 10 February at 10:00 as usual in the Library (upstairs) and all are welcome. If you haven’t been before, have a look at the write-ups of previous cafés to get a feel of what we talk about. The meetings last 2 hours with a short break in the middle. We look forward to seeing you there.

    PC

  • Meeting report

    Notes following a committee meeting

    January 2024

    Members of the committee met on 30 January to review progress and discuss future plans. These are notes (not minutes) of that meeting for general interest. 

    We reviewed the Democracy Café which has been running successfully now for several years and is now in its new home in the Library. Attendance is a regular 20 or so with the occasional new member. We were pleased with the venue and how it was going and one decision was to nominate the facilitator ahead of the meeting itself.

    There was a report from a democracy group in Stroud (Glocs) who are investigating a permanent Citizens’ Jury system along side the council. They are trying to develop a ‘low cost’ solution and one idea is to do the sortition element themselves: this is the process of selecting a representative selection of people for the jury. We discussed this and there are problems in ensuring it is not self-selecting. There are also problems with data protection. Further investigation is to take place and we may consider observing their next meeting.

    We briefly discussed Citizens UK and we will investigate further and in particular about training courses. 

    Citizens’ Juries was then discussed with particular reference to SCC and WC. We need a topic to focus on and one problem is that so many projects are decided elsewhere with little local involvement. For example the Fisherton Street works – where we await the benefits to be revealed – are a government funded scheme. We still have to convince councillors and others of their merit. Too many of them seem to see them as a threat it was noted. WC has a citizen’s panel for the climate but how that worked and the degree of genuine influence was not known.

    We went on to discuss the idea of citizen’s involvement in the planning process and this followed correspondence with the director of planning at County Hall following an article on the subject in the Planner, the journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute. The response had not been entirely negative but the process was too far advanced for immediate involvement they noted. After our meeting, we made fresh contact and the following response was received by return:

    The timetable we have relates to our existing (emerging) Local Plan. We expect this Plan to be adopted in 2025. The next round of plan-making will be likely to begin a year or two later as we are required to update the Plan every five years. The timetable (Local Development Scheme) for the next plan is likely to be updated shortly after we have adopted the emerging Local Plan. That will be the right stage to consider different ways of engaging with local communities to inform the new Plan.

    This looks to be some way off i.e. sometime in 2026 or ’27. 

    We are due to have a presence in the People in the Park event on 18 May. We needed to agree a theme and the materials we need etc and a meeting will be convened to discuss this. 

    We had a brief report on web statistics. The number of visits to the site are steadily improving: 3,115 (2021); 2,715 (2022) and 3,628 (2023). The number of visitors has also improved: from 1,061 (2021) to 1,795 last year (2023). Note we are on Facebook. 

    We are always looking for new members who are interested in trying to improve the workings of our democracy and achieve better governance. If you think you might be interested get in touch. One way would be to come to a Democracy Café the next one of which is on Saturday 10 February starting at 10:00 upstairs in the Library. Or come to the People in the Park event on 18 May in Elizabeth Gardens. Or drop a line here. 

    PC

  • ‘How Westminster Works … and Why it Doesn’t

    A book on our political system by Ian Dunt

    January 2024

    Many of our Democracy Café debates concern parliament, Westminster and the political process generally with frequently a lament about why it’s so bad. We are now in election year and for the next n months, we are going to have speculation upon speculation about when it will be, and once the date is announced, we will have months spent on debating the various party’s promises and their manifestos. And promises there will be aplenty. How party A will fix the NHS and reduce waiting lists, how party B will solve the immigration and small boats crisis and party C will improve the nation’s productivity and get Britain growing again. The airwaves and our screens will be filled with endless interviews and silly stunts as politicians hug small children or are seen in various uniforms for a photo shoot before departing smartish. Oh and I nearly forgot, all of them will be reducing taxes.

    Read Ian Dunt’s book* and you will realise how pointless it all is. How oceans of time is wasted on all this election rubbish when the reality is that the political system is in a mess – arguably a terminal mess – and there is precious little any politician can do to fix it. Indeed, as our economy has deteriorated, the opportunity to fix it has narrowed considerably.  

    In his book, Dunt takes us remorselessly through our political system bit by depressing bit to show that almost none of it works or is capable of doing what is needed. The book starts with the disaster of the probation service and the ‘reforms’ carried out by Chris Grayling. He rushed into a privatisation without a trial to see if it could work. He ignored advice. He realised that the public would be worried that serious offenders were to be handled by the private sector so he divided the service into two parts – public and private. The public part became overloaded and the private part lost money.  It turned into a complete and expensive disaster and had to be undone. He should have been thrown out by his local electorate for his massive and unnecessary failure. But he was in a safe seat so first past the post saved him. 

    It starts with the selection of MPs. As Rory Stewart noted in his book, this is not done on the basis of management skill or experience, leadership ability or policy experience but rather on how a collection of local, and mostly elderly, party people think you’ll fit in, how likeable you are and your knowledge of the constituency. Having succeeded at that and arriving in parliament, you discover that you are almost a nonentity as an ordinary MP. Treated shoddily by the whips who even dictate what you’re maiden speech will be. As Isabel Hardman writes in her book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians, life as an MP can be lonely and stressful being either ignored or bullied. Away from home during the week and once back in their constituency, they have constituency business to attend to. For many, the only option is to be slavishly loyal, don’t ask awkward questions and hope to get on the ministerial gravy train. Much of the constituency business is nothing to do with the MP anyway and should be dealt with by a local councillor but they cannot refuse for fear of a backlash. 

    One of the surprises of the book is the House of Lords which he praises. Yes indeed, who would credit it. But he points out that the Lords has many highly experienced people able to inform policy making and legislation. Dunt points out that much legislation is shoved through parliament and MPs whipped to vote for it mostly without having read or understood what they’ve been told to do. The party system is not nearly as prevalent and there are many cross bench lords. It is the competence and expertise of the Lords which frequently proves crucial in ensuring legislation is capable of doing what a minister wants it to do. 

    He looks at the press which fails to deal with matters in depth and ministers who often have too cosy a relationship with people like the Murdochs and Paul Dacre. For example, Thatcher and Blair who even went half way round the world to fawn on Rupert Murdoch. The Leveson enquiry revealed how Murdoch came and went to No10 at will entering by the back door. 

    The Civil Service which has lost its way and has far too few people with statistical, organisational or project management experience. The churn of staff means the constant loss of experience as people are moved every two years or so. The churn of ministers is also criticised often moved after a year or two when it takes at least 18 months to get to grips with a ministry. The Treasury is vastly overrated and its pathological aversion to long-term investment a major cause of our problems. 

    So when we listen to one or other politician making claims about what they are going to do if they form a government, just remember that they will be attempting to run a machine that is a long way from being ‘well oiled’ and which has a high degree of dysfunctionality. That is quite apart from the parlous state of the economy and a decade of underinvestment in our social fabric. 

    Ah you might say, ‘Mrs Thatcher changed things’ and so she did. Remember though that the economy was in a vastly different place to where it is now. She was able to deliver some shocks to the economy and it did recover. An incoming government will not have that degree of leeway now. 

    The message of the book is that we have to undertake wholesale change to include how MPs are chosen and what their true role should be; reforming the civil service and the spad system which has grown up in the last few years; MPs to be properly resourced; changing the killing work schedule of ministers with their red boxes they have to plough through; curbing the Treasury’s powers and ending the silly budget process. 

    If I have a criticism of the book it is its relentless negativity. Despite the criticisms, there are the occasional MPs who achieve things and campaign successfully for a piece of legislation. Good laws do get onto the statute book, anti-slavery legislation for example. Although the civil service is very generalist, it does take someone who is non technical to ask the ‘idiot question’ sometimes to challenge the orthodoxy. Although the Treasury does have a lot to answer for it does challenge ministers who think the answer to all problems is to throw money at it. 

    It is nevertheless a good, if depressing read and a useful backdrop for the months of nonsense we will be subject to in this election year.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2023

  • Last meeting

    November 2023

    The November meeting of the Democracy Café was this morning, Saturday 11th as usual in the Library. Two lively discussions and we were pleased to welcome some returning friends and one new member. A write up will appear shortly.

    PC

  • Citizens’ Assemblies letter

    A second letter on Citizens’ Assemblies is published in the Salisbury Journal. We also write to the Area Board on this topic

    June 2023

    A second letter is published in today’s Salisbury Journal arguing for a CA to be held to consider the future of the City Hall (29 June 2023). There is also a letter arguing for greater involvement by local people and not for consultations to take place when in fact, decisions have already taken place.

    The first letter from Mark Potts:

    “Dickie Bellringer is right to suggest that the Salisbury City Council (SCC) administration should consider pushing Citizens’ Assemblies back up the agenda [in his letter to the Journal on] 22 June.

    “With the future of the City Hall to be decided, SCC needs to be putting pressure on Wiltshire Council (WC) to involve the people of Salisbury in determining its future through a Citizens’ Assembly.

    “Regarding the City Hall, Ian Blair-Pilling says that WC is focused on bring a long-term solution to Salisbury. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are fully involved in deciding the future of the City Hall and this is best done through a CA.

    “Too often decisions like this that impact on Salisbury have been taken without sufficient involvement of Salisbury citizens. Fully involved does not mean a consultation exercise whereby we are asked what we think about a decision once it has been made. It means something like a Citizens’ Assembly where a randomly selected representative group of Salisbury citizens hear the evidence and make informed recommendations based on the evidence.

    “Wiltshire Council can then say that they have truly listened to the people of Salisbury and made a decision based on their recommendations. This is what many other councils around the country have done on similar issues.

    “At a fraction of the cost of a parish poll, Citizens’ Assemblies give those who are not usually heard a chance to fully engage with the arguments and influence the future of our city.”

    Sentiments expressed in the above comments are repeated in a letter from Anne Trevett. Some extracts of which are:

    “The situation around [the] City Hall is complex and the current proposal by Wiltshire Council to develop a splendid new library and cultural centre is not without merit. It could be transformative for Salisbury as it has in places like Chester. But it is also high risk.

    […] “But there is a very real problem around the decision making process and its transparency. The present decision to explore a new building option has been taken by WC’s cabinet and if the discussion in the Salisbury Area Boards is any indication, does not have the full support of local councillors or the community.

    […] “Meantime, discussion of an alternative solution harnessing community energies in a way that has been shown to be hugely successful by numerous voluntary group in our City, from the Trussell Trust and Alabaré to more recently St John’s Place, are dismissed out of hand. Yet these organisation are Salisbury’s glory – example of social enterprise that have been seen as national exemplars of how to get things done.

    “Of course, the Council’s own solution will be to put up for “consultation” but only after months and years and massive expenditure on the plans. Not for the first time, I and many others are asking for our views to be considered in the drawing up of plans, not at the very end, at the point when decisions are already taken.”

    Both these letters express the concern about the manner of decision making.

    Mark Potts has also written to the Area Board in the following terms:

    “I am writing to you as Chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) to make the case for a Citizens’ Assembly/Jury (CA/J) as part of the process to determine the future of the City Hall in Salisbury.  If you look at social media and read the local newspaper you will know that there is a perception amongst many people in Salisbury that decisions about our city are made by Wiltshire representatives living some distance away from us.

    “Whether this is a justified perception or not, it is prevalent and needs to be addressed. There is a perception that Wiltshire Council (WC) adopts a DAD approach to decision making for Salisbury. DAD stands for Decide, Announce, Defend. In essence, WC decides what it wants to do, announces it and invites responses. Then it seeks to defend its position if there are counter views. The problem is that people do not feel that they were involved in the decision making process and it leaves people thinking that the consultation process is little more than a sham.  EDD by contrast, stands for Engage, Deliberate and Decide. Engagement has the advantage of involving people in the decision making process from the start giving people an opportunity to contribute ideas with some chance that they will be incorporated, or at least considered. This is precisely what a CA/J enables to happen.

    “Many people in Salisbury reference the People Friendly Streets scheme as a recent example of the failed DAD approach. Whilst the rationale behind it had many merits, the lack of involvement of Salisbury citizens in its’ implementation meant that it was doomed to failure. Lessons need to be learned from that. 

    “From previous conversations with councillors, I am aware that there are concerns about the cost of running a CA/J. We at SDA have explored the costs and we are confident that a CA/J could be run at a cost to the Council of around £20k. I can provide more details on this should it be required. When we consider that the recent parish poll cost double that amount, this does not seem a large amount of money to restore some faith in the democratic nature of decision making. 

    “I am sure you realise that the City Hall is a building which is much treasured by the people of Salisbury. Its future use is a topic that is being hotly debated. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are given the opportunity to engage with the evidence, deliberate on it and contribute ideas to determine what happens to the Hall going forward. Of course, the final decision rightly rests with the elected representatives, but I hope that you recognise that engaging citizens in the process through a CA/J will further legitimise the decisions that are made“. 

    PC

  • Letter to the Journal

    A letter was published in the Salisbury Journal on the subject of Citizens’ Assemblies

    June 2023

    Dickie Bellringer of this parish wrote to the Salisbury Journal who published his letter on June 22nd.

    “Ian Curr is right to suggest that citizens assemblies (CAs) ‘may prove the next step forward’ (June 8th). Indeed the current Labour, LibDem and Independent leadership all expressed support for the idea when they were candidates for the election. But then the realities of of a stretched public purse kicked in and CAs have slipped down the agenda, largely because of the cost.

    “As I said in may last letter however, Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) expects to be able to deliver a CA for less than £18,000, with the help of local partners and if we got a firm commitment from Salisbury City Council (SCC), then the SDA would commit to raising a significant proportion.

    “As of March 31 this year the SCC’s readily accessible reserves stood at £2.01 million presumbly less the cost of the parish polls. Those reserves are about £800,000 more than minimum required by the council’s Financial Regulations. No doubt it makes sense to have in reserve more than the bare minimum, especially in these uncertain economic times. Nevertheless, it seems that the council’s financial position is relatively healthy, which is a tribute to the efficiency of the administration and officers.

    “All I ask is that, with £12,000 already set aside in the budget for community engagement and SDA’s commitment to raise money itself, the SCC administration consider pushing CAs back up the agenda.”

    Dickie Bellringer

    (founding member of SDA)

  • Second Talkshop

    Second Talkshop held in May 2023

    The second Talkshop was held on Saturday 27 May in Brown Street with two hours spent on debating a variety of issues.  The event was run by dividing attendees into groups of around half a dozen who were given a variety of cards upon which were described successful projects that have been run elsewhere in the country or indeed the world.  The result was three ideas which could be applied in Salisbury.  If there was a common theme it was the need for improved involvement in decision making. 

    SDA has been promoting the idea of a citizens’ assembly for some time now so far without success.  The idea of an assembly is to invite a carefully selected and representative group of people – who are then sorted for demographic balance – to debate, with the help of experts, a problem or proposed policy with a view to arriving at an informed result or recommendation.  It has the advantage of involving local people in decision making and in subjecting a proposal or policy to some kind of rigorous analysis before it is put into effect.  It has been successfully applied in a number of locations usually with beneficial results. 

    Cost has been one of the arguments deployed against using the assembly technique and it was coincidental that a row erupted in the City Council concerning a parish poll it held in March this year and there is an article on the subject in the Salisbury Journal (Parish poll will cost city double projected figure, June 1, 2023). The poll is likely to cost £40,000 against an original budget of £18,000.  Very few people took part and it is unclear what value was derived from the exercise. 

    A citizens’ assembly by contrast would cost less than this (and SDA will engage in fundraising to lessen the burden on the Council) and is almost certain to achieve positive results.  One of the factors which emerged in the Talkshop, which all authorities have to recognise today, is the high degree of scepticism and cynicism concerning politics both nationally and locally.  To an extent, local politics has been unfairly coloured by the goings on in Westminster which hardly needs any explanation here.  Scarcely a day passes without some new example of poor policy making, corrupt dealings or serious misjudgement.  ‘A plague on all your houses’ is a familiar refrain from many which as I say, unfairly tarnishes the work of local politicians.

    Involvement

    Part of the problem centres on involvement and participation.  There is also an issue when the local authority does engage in consultation about how real that is.  There are two forms which have the acronyms DAD and EDD.  DAD stands for Decide, Announce, and Defend.  In essence, the local authority decides on what it wants to do, announces it and invites responses.  Then it seeks to defend its position if there are counter views.  The problem is the quality of the original decision and whether it has looked at other options.  It frequently leaves people thinking that the consultation process is little more than a sham. 

    EDD by contrast stands for Engage, Deliberate and Decide.  Engagement has the advantage of involving people in the decision-making process at the start which provides an opportunity for people to contribute ideas with some chance they will be incorporated or at least considered. Of course, no method is perfect and policy makers may say it can be difficult for people to contribute to policy making if they are not provided with options and suggestions to begin with.  Community events can end up with arguments over small details and an avoidance of more strategic issues. Deliberation is important because it gives participants an opportunity to consider the evidence for and against different options before deciding on the recommended ones.

    Talkshop

    But back to the Talkshop.  The three topics which emerged were: making a more concerted effort to involve those who, for one reason or another, are disengaged with local politics; participatory budgeting and finally ‘forum theatre’ – using the arts as a way to engage local people in decision making.  We hope to work on these ideas over the coming months and we are setting up a second event in the autumn to take things forward.  We were delighted to welcome three city councillors who took an active part in the morning and the discussions.

    Those we spoke to after the event felt it was worthwhile.  It was a pity the sudden arrival of warm weather and a bank holiday weekend, reduced the numbers attending.  A deep frustration was evident concerning how we are governed now: people do not seem to believe we are best served by the current system. 

    SDA believes there is a better way and it is within our grasp to make it happen.  At least locally, and here in Salisbury, we can do something to get better decisions and demonstrate to residents that they have a role – a real role – in the management of the city’s affairs.  There will however, have to be a culture change.  Involvement has to mean something tangible and a move away from the DAD (see above) approach we have now.  The councillor who proposed the parish poll is quoted in the Journal as saying “you cannot put a price on democracy”.   Quite so. 

    Peter Curbishley

  • Second Talkshop event

    We are please to invite you to the second of our TALKSHOP events in collaboration with the RSA at 29 Brown Street between 10am and noon on Saturday 27 May. Last year’s event was very successful and resulted in the creation of the Eco Hub who have a presence in the Market Square.

    This time we will exploring how we can do politics differently in Salisbury and how we can engage more citizens in our local democracy. Participants will be given examples of how politics can work differently both from the UK and throughout the world and select some ideas that are achievable locally. You can find out more by clicking on the link above.

    More details will be provided soon.

  • Citizen Assemblies

    We attach a link to an email from the Sortition Foundation which provides a list of the many examples of citizens’ assemblies around the world.

    http://www.sortitionfoundation.org/?e=c338496109f46bb9940162ed8d660933&utm_source=sortitionfoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nov_2022_news&n=2