There will be our usual DC this morning, Saturday 13th August starting at 10:00 am as usual at 29 Brown Street Salisbury and finishing at noon. Well there wasn’t. A small handful of people turned up and after a quarter of an hour, we called it a day. Hot weather, several people away or on holiday, meant it did not happen.
We shall be back in September when hopefully, the weather is kinder so we hope to see you then.
PC
This meeting was held following the week in which Boris Johnson was forced to resign as prime minister of Great Britain and the start of the selection process for a new PM. The final straw was the revelations about Chris Pincher, the deputy chief whip, and when and how much the prime minister knew of his unwelcome groping of other men. Johnson was found to have lied about the matter and this prompted a series of resignations which rapidly grew to a flood resulting in his departure, although he was still in Downing Street as we speak, and he had formed a new cabinet. The uncertainty surrounding his departure led to the first question we debated: Do we need a written constitution? This is not the first time we have debated this.
Peter Hennessy, a writer on the UK political scene, called our system the ‘good chaps’ model, a kind of echo of Victorian times when gentlemen ran things and there were rules – some unwritten – about they were to behave honourably. This point was made along with the point that one problem with a written constitution was that changing it was difficult. Ireland has such a constitution and they have been able to change it so perhaps it is possible. Mary Dejevsky, writing in the Independent, has argued recent events demonstrate that reliance on the gentlemanly way of running things was no longer tenable and that we needed a written constitution.
The point was made however, that we did have a wide range of rules and procedures governing behaviour, including precedent, but if they were to be brought together who got to decide? If it was parliament then they are likely to do it to suit themselves.
We were brought up short by the question: what is the purpose of a constitution, written or otherwise? Later in the debate the question, what problem does a written constitution solve? I suppose it is fair to say we circled these questions in our debate. We were reminded that we do have a constitution of sorts and that is Magna Carta. Later we had the Great Reform Act. The same speaker noted that Germany’s constitution was written by the Allies after the war. Chile was given as an example and the country, post Pinochet, is engaged in constitutional reform following a period of unrest. Consultations, rather like citizens’ assemblies, have taken place with a wide range of groups including minorities and native Americans. It is about to finish and to be voted on by the people.
Other influences were discussed. These included the old favourite, the media, but also the judiciary and the role of a small group of public schools. If we do have a written constitution, who will police it? The Judges? Apart from the fact they are drawn from a very narrow section of society, who appoints them? They could rule on what was legal, but not necessarily the right thing which was more a matter of judgement. It was noted that Russia has a constitution but it has effectively been ignored by Putin. The media, as we have discussed on many times before, wield enormous power yet are run in the main by individuals who live abroad. It is they who inform the people so it is vital that this duty is carried out as fairly as possible and that the information they provide is as honest and balanced as possible. Are they doing that? Any system – written or otherwise – would require a well informed citizenry.
On this point, it was said that it would be important that any such constitution was available for schools, by implication that it would be written in a plain fashion and jargon free. Someone with young children said they were looking at surveys on line which asked questions about their beliefs and ideas on various issues of the day. This then suggested a political party which most fitted those beliefs. Encouraging, and a shift away from just looking at personalities.
Human rights should be at the heart of any constitution, a sensitive issue at present with the government bent on abolishing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights. This point was not really pursued.
Finally, we got onto discussing the role of the monarch. After a discussion about King Charles who had argued he could not be tried for treason since he was the king (so could not commit treason against himself I think was the point), we got onto the role of the current Queen in the light of the events of this week. Some commentators had apparently opined that Her Majesty should not be ‘dragged into’ the row over Johnson’s will he/won’t he? shenanigans this week. What then was the point of the monarch? Why have one when it could be argued, there was a pressing need for some kind of final arbiter?
In the second half we moved on to our second question which was the psychology of leadership. It turned out to be closely linked to the first debate. It started naturally enough, with the question of Johnson’s personality. People voted it was said, for politicians like Johnson, who had charisma: the word ‘machismo’ was mentioned. Keir Starmer’s problem was that people thought he lacked it.
This led to a general discussion about personality. To sum up this point, people simply voted for people with a likeable personality. They were not turned on by ‘men in grey suits’ (interesting – we do not have a phrase ‘women in grey skirts’). It was also noted that Johnson was lucky in his opponents: Corbyn and Livingstone.
There has also been a move towards TV debates which favoured those who were good at this kind of activity (products of Oxford University perhaps where they have a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons). But were they the right people to run things? A highly regarded prime minister was Clem Atlee for example would have been extremely unlikely to get anywhere near No: 10 in today’s climate of celebrity politicians yet was an extremely effective and highly regarded prime minister.
At this point the idea of psychometric testing was introduced. This led onto a discussion of teams and the point that a good team has a variety of personality types. There are various models and tests surrounding this to establish an individuals best place in a team according to their personality.
Various disasters in the armed services had led to a thorough appraisal of leadership and a variety of tests and training to determine leadership skills. Young recruits for example are given various tasks in a group to see how they perform and one of the centres is based in Westbury.
Back to our parliamentary system and the difference is immediately obvious. An MP is selected, not on leadership skills or how they would perform in a team but on how they performed in front of a selection panel. That was often influenced by whether the candidate was seen to be ‘one of us’. Once in parliament they might be selected to become minister following, in some cases, a brief period of ‘training’ as a PPS. There was no training offered for this ministerial role and it is immediately apparent that many individuals are simply not up to the task. Indeed, many who were appointed did so on the basis of their loyalty to the leader not necessarily on their abilities or relevant experience. Since many MPs nowadays were career politicians and many never have had what might be referred to as a ‘real job’, there was precious little of that experience anyway. Is it any surprise then we get the results we do? It’s a wonder it’s not worse in fact. Why cannot the system sort out ‘flaky’ people someone ruefully asked?
Will there be a reaction to the cult of personality following the departure of Johnson? There were many angry people on both sides of the political divide.
We ended with a comment by the journalist Peter Oborne who, speaking at an event in Salisbury some years ago, was asked about Johnson and his reply was ‘he is not a team player’. Greg Dyke was quoted as saying he would ‘not allow [Johnson] to run my bath’.
Two interesting discussions broadly about how our country is run. We have a hotchpotch of a system based on the concept of good chaps who do the right thing when appropriate. Recent events tested this to the limit so maybe we do need some kind of constitution. The people who run it are not selected on their management or team skills but on loyalty to the party and to its leader. There is precious little training in ‘how to be a minister’. Three dysfunctional bits add up to a dysfunctional whole.
Peter Curbishley
Readers might like to read the book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians by Isabel Hardman (Atlantic Books, 2019) which gives an interesting and quite sympathetic picture of an MP’s life.
We had a busy day on Saturday 18 September at the People in the Park event in Salisbury. We were blessed by the weather and a steady flow of people through the day. Our SDA stall was well attended and we ran out of Democracy Café leaflets.
There was interest in the Citizens’ Jury concept which has received a degree of local publicity in last few weeks. It was briefly debated in the City Council last week. There were many questions: what is it? isn’t it expensive? and don’t we have councillors whom we elect to decide these things anyway (and can ultimately vote out if we don’t like them)? Well yes and no.
The basic concept is a randomly selected group of people who come together over 3 weekends to discuss a topic of political interest. They are advised by experts in the topic. The randomness is important as the problem is often that ‘consultation’ just means a narrow group of people talking to each other. Many feel excluded and public meetings are often populated by only a small part of the population as a whole. The young are only rarely seen or heard from.
It is quite expensive. Participants have to be paid, selection costs money as do the experts. Then there is room rental etc. But just think of the huge sums spent by Wiltshire Council on half-baked schemes which get nowhere and on their consultation exercises. Wouldn’t it be better to get a more broadly based set of views rather than from council officers in Trowbridge? Consultation in their terms actually means telling us about their plans. How much credence is given to different ideas or suggestions which are contrary to the political beliefs of those in Trowbridge?
‘We elect councillors’ is a frequent refrain so why invent a new (and expensive) system? So how many people engage in lengthy and complex discussions with their councillor on these topics? Very, very few I wager. Councillors over the years tell me that their contact with electors are about holes in the road, hedges not being cut, planning application moans and about fly tipping. All important in their way but hardly strategic topics which affect our futures.
Finally, the process is considerably more ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’. It can be argued that it is genuinely more informed by randomly selected people who have had having had the benefit of expert advice and which is much more likely to recommend practical and doable projects.
That is why we believe that citizens’ juries are a superior form of policy making than the current system. One person spoke to me who was dead against the idea mostly for the reasons above. He had been a councillor. As we discussed the idea the conversation slowly morphed into how he found being a councillor unsatisfactory and inefficient and he ultimately stood down. On the one hand he was wedded to the current system but, as time went by, he found it more and more unsatisfactory and left. I suppose the moral is that people are so inured to the system that despite its manifest failings, they find radical change of this nature hard to accept.
At both the national and local level, the way we do politics is failing us. Surely it is time for radical change?
Peter Curbishley
Picture: SDA
If you attended the meeting yesterday evening (27 Jan) with 30 others organised by the Lib Dems, you may have seen reference to the SDA. The speaker spoke of citizens’ assemblies mentioning the Northern Ireland example in particular.
We are keen to support this idea so anybody keen to support it is welcome to keep in touch. We want to establish the principle in Wiltshire. The meeting expressed considerable dissatisfaction with politics both local and national and the speaker, Dr Ian Kearns was encouraging us to get active. He mentioned the Frome Flat Pack project which has been written up here.
A report by Dr Kearns can be read by following this link.
Mark Potts, who is the chair of SDA, has published an article in the Educational Journal of Living Theories and it discusses his motivation for taking part in the formation of SDA and the Democracy Cafés which have been running successfully now for over two years.
He discusses the divisions following the Referendum and the need for a change in culture and behaviour if we are to see an improvement in political engagement. It is an interesting read and the article can be accessed from this link.
The next Democracy café is this Saturday 11th January 2020 starting at 10:00 as usual and lasts 2 hours. It is free to attend but if you feel able to contribute to our expenses that would be appreciated.
The December 2019 meeting took place a day after the emphatic win by the Conservatives in the General Election. Boris Johnson was returned with an increased majority of 80. The Labour party is now engaged in what will be an extended period of soul searching and will in a few months, elect a new leader. The LibDem leader lost her seat and although they increased their vote this was not rewarded with any additional seats
It was not surprising therefore when the various suggested topics all centred around the state of politics today. There seems little doubt that the main issue in the election was the seemingly never ending saga of Brexit. Boris Johnson had stuck to his key theme of ‘Get Brexit done!’ and this clearly had resonated with the public many of whom are fed up with the whole issue and want it all over.
The discussion about what happened ranged quite widely. What was the meaning of traditional Labour supporting areas in the north voting for the Conservatives? Many of the traditional jobs in large areas of the north have gone and with it those ideas of collectivism and solidarity. ‘Thatcher’s children’ were now the norm. Many have forgotten the battles of the past such as the Jarrow march it was noted. The achievements of trade unions have also been forgotten.
What do people mean by ‘socialism’ now? Was it some combination of public ownership and controls on capitalism? Someone argued for the complete absence of private capital. People wanted capitalism but with limits and were happy overall with a mixed economy.
Mention of a more equal press drew the only applause of the meeting. It seems undeniable that, although fewer and fewer read a newspaper, the relentless bias of the right wing press did have some kind of effect.
The discussion had focused thus far on the problems experienced by Labour and where they might go in the future to recover. The point was made on the other hand that the Conservatives had their own ideological problems. Their beliefs – dating back to the Thatcher era – were based on small government, low taxes, private enterprise, deregulation, competition and free trade. The effects of these policies were increasingly becoming clear. They have been acutely experienced by the ‘left behind’. To reverse these problems, to retain what Boris Johnson called the ‘borrowed votes in the north, and to rectify a decade of cuts to health, schools and to infrastructure generally, was going to require significant reversal of policy. All this while the next stage of Brexit was in full swing. Will the Conservatives be able to carry out such a change in their core ideology?
Individualism seemed to be a thing which counts now. Many of the public who are interviewed seem only concerned with their own situation not on wider issues. The ‘aspiration of the individual’ is what counts someone said. Or was it to be a member of a fairer society? Did people understand the difference between capitalism and socialism in any event?
Inevitably, we got onto personality. It seems that neither of the party leaders was liked nor trusted. At the Salisbury hustings for example, people laughed at John Glen when he referred to trust in Boris Johnson. Studio audiences also laughed when trust was mentioned in the same sentence as his name. Corbyn was widely disliked and distrusted on a wide number of issues. So is the result of this election a one-off and a result of people’s attitudes to these two men?
An argument developed about immigration – one of the prime political concerns today and one that crops up on the doorstep. Indeed, at the last Salisbury for Europe street event, there were two people with strong and fierce anti immigrant views. The difficulty it was stressed was the difference between genuine concerns about the scale and impact on the one hand and prejudice on the other. ‘White working class people look out of their door and see something completely different’ it was said. It was regrettable that words like ‘swamp’ and ‘flood’ were used however. The point that without immigrants, the health service could no operate, food would not be prepared and vegetables left unpicked was not made. The problem has a long history it was noted, Enoch Powell for example.
We continued along similar lines after a break and the discussion moved on the nature of the current system – a familiar topic for the cafe. Salisbury is a safe Tory seat which means that someone could live a lifetime in the City and not ever be represented. That an MP represents all the constituents cut little ice.
One theme was how well can the public understand the complexity of government? This brought up the issue of the Referendum: do MP’s go with what they believe or what the voters told them? This was the difference between an MP being a delegate or a representative. Large parts of the public seem to want the former.
Proportional representation has its own problems and can lead to a small party wielding disproportionate power. The DUP is a recent example. Now that Johnson has a big majority, he will safely ignore them. But in a sense that illustrates the basic problem: one minute the DUP is influential, a day later, they can be ignored. Whatever one thinks of the DUP – and few this side of the Irish Sea will think favourably of them – how representative and balanced is this system of voting. For three years, the ERG has wielded enormous power and influence over government policy. Now, a day later, they can be largely sidelined.
The point was made that democracy is about the ability to challenge the government and Gina Miller was instanced. It was about the right to speak. So in a sense, no votes were wasted as it showed the depth of feeling about a subject.
Conclusion
No definite conclusion but a widespread feeling that things are not right. The damaging effect of a foreign owned right wing press and its influence on voting was expressed. First past the post might, on occasion, produce a strong government which its supporters claim, but it more usually ends up with marginal government and does not represent actual voting. In Salisbury, some felt that they are never represented nor ever can be.
Peter Curbishley
This meeting (9 November 2019) took place a couple of days after the official start of the General Election campaign which will take place on 12 December 2019. Both topics chosen had a political feel to them – to be expected I suppose – and both were related.
The first topic was should we be able to delete social media history from when we were young? The concern was that rash or ill-considered comments made in someone’s youth could be dragged much late in life to embarrass them. This applies to political and other public figures of course and the point was made that the media was always on the lookout for such remarks. The main charge laid against someone in these cases was hypocrisy and some wondered whether this was said too quickly. Maynard Keynes is credited* with saying ‘when the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir?’
Someone observed that to change one’s mind shows you have one.
Much of the discussion focused on trust and how to establish it. Consistency was one aspect and being able to see what someone said in the past and compare it with today was a way. Deleting the past would frustrate that of course. Some examples were quoted of well known politicians arguing, before the Referendum, for a second one once details were known are now to be heard saying people knew full well what they were voting for. The question of course is where and when to draw it. These were not statements made when they were young.
It was noted that student debates were often on some nonsense subject so to hold someone to things they said then would perhaps be unreasonable. It was also said by several people that we all change our minds as we go through life, cannot politicians do the same? It would seem that time and distance in the past is the key here. If someone did change their mind, was it not justified to ask them why and to give a reason?
The debate moved on to freedom of speech issues and the issue of causing offence was discussed. There is arguably an increase in the number of instances where politicians and others are asked to apologise for ‘causing offence’ to a group, usually a minority one. There was a difference of opinion here with some thinking that causing offence was a real problem and can make minorities feel vulnerable or victimised. Sometimes this hate speech led to physical acts.
Another significant point made by several, was the importance of teaching children to question what they read and the information they receive. They should learn the important distinction between facts and opinions.
The second half of the session switched to the question ‘can a politician tell the truth today and expect to be elected?’ The election had started with some startling claims to spend vast sums on various parts of the economy. Could any politician stand up and say that this may be reckless or unaffordable and would in any event take many years to achieve (the promise of more GPs for example would take a decade)? Was it possible for a prospective politician to say for example ‘our economy is weak, our debt is 80% of GDP, our productivity is poor and if we want a better NHS and more help for the elderly, we are going to have to pay for it with higher taxes.’
It was pointed out straightaway that arguably there were a few who did(do) and Shirley Williams and Caroline Lucas were both mentioned.
The discussion moved quickly onto the life led by MPs now and in particular the role played by social media and the tech giants. A number of MPs – particularly female MPs – were not standing again the main reason appeared to be the constant stream of death, rape and other violent threats they regularly receive. The life of an ordinary MP was described at length in Elizabeth Hardman’s book Why we get the wrong politicians. She paints a fairly dismal picture of life in parliament and the expense and problems of getting there in the first place. At the end of the book you get a good understanding of why we end up with such poor decision making, bad laws and poor governance.
Another key debating point was the nature of ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ and who decides? A lot of what politicians say is about what will happen in the future if they are elected into office. This is by its nature speculative. In this connection, a local MP can make all sorts of promises but they are promises about his or her party and over which they will have little say (unless they become a minister).
Needless to say the Referendum was mentioned and the point was made that our system was based on the concept of an MP being a representative. This had changed into them becoming delegates. So an MP who thought, prior to the referendum, that we should stay in the EU but his or her constituency voted to come out, what should they do? Were they honest to continue carrying out a policy which they believed to be wrong? Some thought they were not. Also, carrying on supporting a policy knowing that it could not be done was dishonest.
The role of the media was discussed and it was suggested that they often focused a lot on the future which, as we’ve said, is essentially speculative. It was here that we touched on the first debate because what politicians say they will do has to be looked at in terms of what they said they would do in the past and did they do it?
Was it the media’s duty to inform? Some would say yes but it was also noted that newspapers were about selling papers and they had to reflect to a large degree what their readers wanted. No doubt if there was a demand for facts then they would be provided. At least conventional media was subject to some kind of control and the laws of defamation. Social media platforms were outside anyone’s control and enabled people to say anything and say it anonymously. Which is where we came in and the role social media is having in the nation’s discourse…
No doubt we shall come back to this topic area in the future. The next meeting was scheduled for 14th December but it may be too noisy to have a debate in the Playhouse. We shall meet anyway and see.
Peter Curbishley
*there are doubts whether JMK said this.
The next DC is tomorrow Saturday 9th November at 10 as usual in the Playhouse. With the general election announced the other day, there will surely be lots to talk about. The bidding war between the two main parties is extraordinary: it only seemed like yesterday that the cry was our financial woes, and the need for austerity (remember that?), was due to the Labour party recklessly overspending. Now countless billions are promised.
Is this degree of spending the right answer anyway? Will pumping that degree of money into the economy risk inflation? Are the promises to be believed?
Lots to discuss and it doesn’t have to be about the election anyway.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 