Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: refugees

  • Democracy Café, May

    May 2024

    Members of SDA will be at the People in the Park Event in Elizabeth Gardens on Saturday 18th and if you are curious about our activities, about citizens’ juries or about Democracy Café, drop by and have a chat

    A good if unexpected turnout to this café such that we had to scrabble around for seats. The refugee ‘crisis’ and the numbers arriving at our shores in boats, continues to feature in the tabloid media certainly so it was perhaps no surprise that the first question was How would we deal with the refugee crisis? Bibi Stockholm; registration system broken down; wars and people seeking a better life: there seemed no end to the problem of people wishing to come to the UK by any means.

    Which raised the question of safe and legal routes. How does a refugee make it here or get an assessment? The existing routes were closed off leaving getting on a boat more or less the only method. Which gave rise to the first suggestion of an assessment centre in France and those who qualified to be given a warrant to enter the UK.

    The first substantive contribution came via Shami Chakrabarti who said in an interview that the current conventions were no longer suited to the present day. Climate did not feature at the time of their creation [she might have mentioned globalisation similarly]. Also, there was no recognition that we were keen to spread our culture during the growth of conquest and Empire but express surprise when they turn up on our doorstep.

    A point quickly made by several about what a waste it all was: not only the cost of the current system with thousands held in hotels and other locations sometimes for years, but also the waste of talent and skills. Many were qualified and keen to work. We had shortages in many sectors of the economy and instead we continued to see it as a ‘crisis’ rather than an opportunity.

    The question of how many were deported was raised and a figure of 22,000 was quoted but is not mentioned in the media. However, large numbers were Albanians some of whom had been trafficked so that did not represent the problem as a whole. The global nature of the problem was put forward which pointed to a solution to be worked on at the UN. It was not clear many thought this a promising solution.

    Gangs were mentioned and a key target of political ire. Yet recent programmes and interviews have shown how they are highly sophisticated and multi-layered organisations which ultimately relied on the banking system to move the cash around. Yet tackling the banks is never part of government plans it seems. The role of HSBC in moving billions of dollars of drug monies was given as an instance.

    Several mentioned the possibility that this was a deliberate posture by politicians keen to create a ‘them and us’ culture. Seeking to blame outsiders (in this case the gangs and those on the boats) in an effort to take away the responsibility for their own failures. Blaming outsiders or starting wars with them was a familiar political stunt. It was about ‘framing’ the debate one said.

    The hypocrisy was mentioned and as we have discussed in previous debates, people are usually proud of family members who go to a foreign country to work or study, but those coming here for the same reason are treated with scorn and seen as a problem. Could it be linked to our island mentality someone wondered? Another thought that media representation of immigrants as being poorly educated and desperate people (with the implication they should be kept out) whereas many were not.

    An irony was that an analysis by the OBR of the Chancellor’s last budget showed that the forecast growth would come from immigrant contributions both from their output but also their spending.

    It was pointed out there was some confusion around the words ‘refugee’ ‘asylum seeker’ ‘immigrant’ ‘illegal immigrant’ and so on. Perhaps one solution was to produce a leaflet to explain what the various terms meant. We were reminded of debates on this topic at the beginning of the last century and Churchill voted against restrictions at that time. It shows that the question of immigration and movement of people has been with us for a long time.

    Someone thought that Brexit did not help as it changed attitudes in quite fundamental ways. It seemed to enhance nationalistic sentiments. Something has changed she thought. Almost certainly the internet has not helped and aided the spread of harmful attitudes.

    A familiar remark made by people expressing hostility to immigrants and refugees was that ‘we are full up’. This of course takes us back to the housing crisis.

    Well there was something of a tour d’horizon about this debate with philosophical questions about whether it was in fact a ‘crisis’ rather than a wasted opportunity. No one mentioned that the numbers of immigrants in other countries are enormous in comparison the the relatively tiny numbers we experience. We did seem to recognise that attitudes were deep seated and would be difficult to change. The hostility by some politicians and elements of the media – reflecting elements of public opinion – means rational discussion is difficult and the benefits that immigration brings, and has brought, to our society is overlooked.

    And for something completely different for the second half was the question Does climate change matter and do we mind? With more cars on the road than ever, increased pollution and the prospect of hitting 1.5° before too long was ‘frustrating’ the proposer said. The issuance of drilling licences in the North Sea was especially discouraging.

    It was too big a problem and it has the effect of ‘grinding you down’. The oil companies tried to put it on us it was said.

    It was ‘complicated’ someone remarked: can we not use [global warming] rather than try to stop it? The prospect of farming the Tundra was given as an example [if the Tundra melts it will release enormous quantities of methane, a gas more dangerous than carbon dioxide]. Whether in answer to this, it was said global warming increase will be exponential making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and would also see widespread disease spread. Someone added that we must not forget species loss as well. Another point was the chain of connections in wildlife, that is one species depending on the next. The threat to bees was mentioned who are suffering from a combination of a disease, climate and and from organophosphorus pesticides.

    Probably the first time Top Gear has been mentioned in our debates so there has to be a first time for everything. The point it was more than just moving to electric cars but things like integrated transport. In a discussion about long and short journeys, the suggestion that cars are more like Trabants [a basic car in the former East Germany much hated by their users] the point being it would deter people from making long journeys by road.

    Perhaps a better way than forcing us to use Trabants was to use government policy to shape public opinion. So tax inefficient activity and give grants to the more efficient. A good idea in theory but the reaction to Ulez shows that the public has little tolerance of this kind of activity by government. Nothing is joined up someone complained, it all seems to be a collection of ‘micro-problems’.

    We were then introduced to ‘doughnut economics‘ the idea of 3 levels and living sustainably within the ring of the imaginary doughnut.

    Other ideas introduced included the circular economy that is ensuring goods are maintained, reused, repaired rather than just thrown away.

    The question of wealth and inequality arose partly in the sense that those at the top of the economic tree do not have to concern themselves with climate matters since they have the resources to move or mitigate them. But also because unequal societies are unhappy ones and the book The Spirit Level was mentioned. This book and its successor, examined copious statistics to show the more unequal societies the less happy and contented they were. It was a pity that these three ideas were not developed and debated – perhaps another time.

    We ended with a rather sobering thought about children’s lunch boxes and the brand of snack within it was a measure of social class.

    One overriding thought was that we had to ‘own’ the problem that is it isn’t sufficient to see it just as a government problem but for all of us to play a part. A pity again that this was not debated more.

    Two interesting debates and several remarked how enjoyable they were.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    The Spirit Level, Why Equality is Better for Everyone, 2010, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

    The Inner Level, How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-Being, 2018, same authors.

    Too Big to Gaol, 2023, Chris Blackhurst, Inside HSBC, the Mexican drug cartels and the greatest banking scandal of the century.

  • Democracy Café

    December meeting debated two topics of current interest

    December 2023

    Two topics won through at this meeting: one about how we might fortify the United Nations and the second what are we to do with migrants? Both are in the news at present. The UN has featured in the Gaza situation and the issue of migrants is front and centre with the news concerning the boat crossings and Rwanda.

    Viewing the current state of the world with the terrible events in Gaza following the attack by Hamas on 7 October, the war in Ukraine and other wars taking place in sub Sahara for example, it was natural to ask whatever happened to the post-war hope of a United Nations able to ‘police’ the world?

    The problem it was pointed out, was that the victors of WWII were not keen on providing the necessary powers to the UN for it to carry out a major peace-keeping role. It was clear the major powers were reluctant to give up their power to allow the UN to step in. In particular, the US was a dominant force and many countries were perhaps unduly deferent to it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example, agreed in 1948, was notable for the reluctance of France and the UK in particular to agree to its universality due to their terrible activities and violations in their colonies, Kenya for the UK and Algeria (France).

    The veto of the principal powers: UK, US, China, France and the then USSR, was discussed. They were able to use this veto to maintain their power and initially at least, prevent countries from joining the UN.

    The discussion moved on to look at reform including issues around the veto. Was it right for this small group of countries – who held their position due to their victory in WWII – should keep this power? How could the UN be reformed? There is a process of reform which takes place and the institution has changed considerably over the years [although most of the sites do not appear to refer to the question of reforming the veto powers]. It seems to illustrate the principle that those with power are nearly always reluctant to give it up. It was suggested that reform should come from outside since the organisation was a ‘closed’ system. It was also noted that the world’s biggest arms sellers were the 5 permanent members. So while they were meeting to discuss how to achieve peace and resolve conflicts, they were busy selling arms to the warring parties.

    Should all countries have the same weight? At present it was one vote per country and the inference in the question was the bigger the country, the more votes they should have. However, it was suggested that the smaller less powerful countries should perhaps have more than one vote to ‘even things up’. The problems of voting power and it consequences were provided by the COP system where any one participant could frustrate the will of the majority leading to feeble results and inaction on the climate.

    The focus on the Security Council and the antics of some countries there, drew attention away from the many positive things the several UN agencies have achieved around the world. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has many disease reduction or eradication achievements to its name e.g. TB; yaws, malaria and smallpox. Also on the positive side, it was noted that the Secretary General, António Guterres, has come out of the Middle East conflict well.

    A more fundamental question was posed: what would the world look like if we didn’t have a United Nations? Would it be a Hobbesian world (nasty, brutish and short)? To an extent the question was left hanging but it did focus our minds briefly on the many benefits of the organisation as against the all too visible failings. If we were to start again, would the idea of assembling 190 or so nation states be thought a good idea today? Will the UN ever be in a position to curb the power of a Putin or the Iranian mullahs someone asked?

    We moved on to discuss the issue of power and whether we should have ‘a people’s UN’ to give voice to those who have been overlooked – the aborigines in Australia were mentioned. Should we adopt a citizen’s jury approach where the views of a wide range of people could be taken account of?

    Does the UN Association still exist it was asked? It does.

    The second half debate was on the tricky subject of migrants, a topic of considerable salience currently with the debate over deportations to Rwanda in full flood at present. Next week is the vote to try and set aside some parts of the Human Rights Act to enable them to take place following the Supreme Court’s decision a few weeks ago.

    It would be fair to say the proposer was not an enthusiast for allowing migrants to stay here, claiming that they pose a security risk and are from alien cultures.

    The first speaker said they completely disagreed. Immigrants add considerably to our society and to the cultural mix. They played an essential part in our economy and filled many vacancies for jobs British people seemed unwilling to do. It was pointed out that without them, parts of our economy would grind to a halt: hospitals would would be forced to offer maternity and A&E; many food products would disappear off the shelves and the London transport system would not be able to function. It was also pointed out that our birth rate was dropping and we needed an influx of young people to do the jobs we wanted doing. Immigration was needed to keep the economy dynamic.

    Many people coming here to claim asylum were escaping from terrible regimes. The government’s plan was to deny the right to seek asylum to anyone arriving here illegally – essentially by boat. It was noted however that there were no boat crossings prior to 2016. They started because all legitimate routes had been closed down meaning that immigrants were forced onto the boats as the only way left. An enormous amount of attention was paid to this issue but much less on the tens of thousands awaiting decisions from the Home Office.

    It was noted that the problem was much worse for other countries which had huge immigrant populations for example Turkey and Jordan.

    We quickly got onto why has this become such a political issue consuming huge amounts of political time and the cause of two recent ministerial resignations. One factor was the foreign own media which presented a regular series of negative stories about immigrants accusing them of a range of antisocial activities. It has to said though that they are supplying a market. On that subject was this week’s edition of Question Time on the BBC. It was in front of a strongly Conservative audience being hosted in Petersfield in Hampshire. The Conservative MP did not get a totally sympathetic audience and there were cheers for comments of a sympathetic nature as far as immigrants were concerned. ‘Very heartening’ someone said.

    It was suggested that immigration was a ‘political lens’ for looking at various problems. There has been significant political failure by politicians failing to look at root causes not just with immigration but climate change as well. In the context of Rwanda, the government has created its own problems.

    The way government treats refugees is very instructive – Tony Benn

    A startling comment was made about Rwanda namely it was a contract of exchange. It has been claimed that for each refugee we send to Rwanda, one will come back on a one-for-one basis. [I have looked into this startling claim and it has been scrutinised by Full Fact. It is not totally true. A ‘portion’ of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees may be sent here but the number is not known. A statement given to parliament said ‘it would be a small number’. Small is relative of course but it is surprising in all the fire and fury of discussions about this topic that this aspect of the deal has not been discussed more.]

    The sheer cost of the Rwanda deal was commented on at an estimated £169,000 per person. Millions have so far been spent with more to come (or is it go?) without a single refugee having gone.

    Then there was the cost of housing migrants here while their cases were reviewed. It was claimed that the government was using hotels in marginal seats for political purposes. According to the Daily Mail, the government is stopping using hotels in ‘battleground’ constituencies (in Mail speak).

    It has been suggested that the Bibby Stockholm be moved from Portland and moored in the Thames opposite the House of Commons for the accommodation of MPs thus saving £4m in second home claims.

    Other points included asking how do we encourage a better debate on this subject and get away from what we see in the media today? It was suggested that sorting the problems in the host countries was much the best way to stop the numbers leaving. It was also noted – in the context of medical staff working in the NHS – that we were ‘stealing’ these people from their home countries thus denuding their health services of valuable skills.

    Danny Kruger, the MP for Devizes, was mentioned in critical terms particularly his comments on migrants and refugees.

    We were left with the intriguing question, if we get a new government, will they reverse some of these decisions?

    We wish all our readers a Happy Christmas and we look forward to seeing you at our next meeting on 14 January 2024.

    Peter Curbishley

    Ken Loach’s film The Old Oak was recommended.

  • Democracy Café: July

    July 2023

    A full house at the July 2023 Democracy Café to discuss two topics, both of which are at the top of people’s minds at present: the state of the two party system and immigration.

    The first topic was around the question How do we get out of the two party system? One of the first comments to be made was that we had an adversarial system exemplified by the knockabout prime minsters questions once a week. Surely it would be better if efforts were directed at how to improve matters (the economy and social concerns for example) rather than spend time on this political theatre.

    Some pointed to other countries which had coalitions which of course we had at the beginning of the last decade. Several of the problems the country has faced recently had a cross party feel to them eg, Northern Ireland, Covid and even Brexit. This indicated that problems were in fact bigger than the parties. It was suggested that with coalitions, minority parties assumed disproportionate power. Some disagreed with this assertion saying they thought it was something of a myth. It probably does depend on the numbers.

    The argument was forcibly put for a written constitution. This led on to the need to separate the government from the House of Commons. The present system meant the governing party and the HoC were almost one thus neutralising the Commons and MPs. The result was it almost became a dictatorship (the elective dictatorship we have discussed previously). The sole purpose of the HoC it was argued was to pass legislation and agree the budget.

    The role of MPs in relation to their constituents was mentioned. Those who contacted their local MP – who in the case of Salisbury was a member of government – were met with the response that he could do nothing because he was barred by collective responsibility. Or they got a anodyne response that was simply the party line.

    With emails and organisations urging the public to ‘get in touch with their MP’, can he or she cope with the volume of material? Was it worthwhile doing so? ‘Yes’ was the response and it can work.

    A dissenting voice was the problem with coalitions was that they tended to be slow. The first past the post system (FPTP) did give rise to strong government it was suggested. There was a tension between authoritarianism and democracy and the tendency of governments is towards the former came up several times.

    The prevailing mood of the discussion so far was the feeling that the ordinary voter was overlooked in the system we have. How could voters voices be heard? What mattered in the process was the swing voter who were critical in some constituencies. As if to counter this pessimistic view the role of protest groups in changing the political climate was noted. The example given was the suffragettes which was true to an extent although the suffragists laboured for four decades without success and it took further two decades for the suffragettes to get votes for women.

    The debate was predicated on the notion of two parties being distinct and with little opportunity for other parties to make headway. However, quite how different were the two parties? If the Conservatives were truly a right wing party then government expenditure would be cut and no doubt other typically right wing polices would be enacted. It was in fact difficult sometimes to see them apart. Indeed, a problem for the Labour party was their policy ideas being taken from them by the government, the windfall tax a recent example.

    Which other countries have FPTP it was asked? Belarus was the answer, hardly an ideal exemplar and which seemed to sum things up quite well. We should not get carried away by claims about the authoritarian nature of the government – we do still have fundamental freedoms. The very fact we were able to meet and have a perfectly free debate would not be possible in other truly authoritarian states.

    People fundamentally wanted to see good decision making. The calibre of those going into parliament – and perhaps more to the point – high calibre people not going into parliament, was depressing. It was still difficult for women to make headway particularly in view of the large number of abuse cases (‘pestminster’) currently being investigated. The culture within politics was discouraging it was suggested.

    How to get change? We do get the politics and politicians we deserve to an extent which pointed to making sure people were educated about the system. This included schools but it seems that civics classes are no more. Whether outside people should go into schools was queried – surely they would import bias? The purpose of such talks was about the system of government, not party policies. Groups like ourselves debating these issues was part of the mix it was noted.

    Conclusions? One thought was that many problems came down to one of two solutions which pointed to two political parties. Historically, the Conservatives represented the owners of capital and Labour the wage earners (somewhat oversimplified) which again suggested a two party system. We were depressed by the quality of the people who represent us but, it is we who vote them in. Would a better educated electorate make a difference? Perhaps. Change was possible however and campaign groups can effect change. The FPTP system has hindered change as we have noted before – UKIP with its 3 million votes but had only one MP.

    The second debate was should we welcome migrants or not? A question of considerable political salience at present. The first problem was defining terms – was it refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants we were talking about? The question was left hanging.

    Migration of one kind of another had been with us since the dawn of time, we originated in Africa after all. Many of those in the room will have some foreign blood. The problem today it was claimed was coloured migrants – we seemed to be reasonably unconcerned about people coming here from America, Canada, Australia and so on, but those stepping off the boats caused fury.

    One curiosity was people expressing great pride with their sons or daughters going to foreign climes and doing well there. But people coming here are regarded with hostility by many. What exactly is the difference? We are proud of our emigrants but hostile to other’s immigrants. A question left unanswered was ‘what criteria should we apply to judge if someone was to be made welcome here?’

    Those who had spent time in the USA said the system was a little different and it was important to gain accreditation i.e. the green card. In the UK it was less clear cut.

    Many people leaving their homes were doing so not because they wanted to but because of war, persecution, climate problems and similar factors. If we were so angered by a proportion of them ending up on our shores – literally in the case of the Channel crossings – then we should do more to improve matters where they live. Yet the government has cut foreign aid. In a similar vein, many were fleeing areas like the middle east – places like Syria and Iraq – where western policies, especially those of the UK and France after WWI, were the root cause of problems today.

    The situation in the health service was noted. The service depended on a vast number of overseas staff many of whom left because of feeling unwelcome during the Referendum and latterly, we were losing significant numbers of clinical staff to Australia, Canada and elsewhere.

    The attitude of Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel, drew almost universal disdain. They were descendants of immigrants welcomed here yet were now vociferously campaigning against those coming after them.

    A view was expressed that immigrants were a cost to the taxpayer. It was pointed out however that if they were allowed to work, they would contribute to the economy and pay tax. So far from being a burden they would be a benefit. There was need of a culture change and to see such people in a more positive light. This might change attitudes. The contrast with Sicily was noted where people buying and doing up properties were welcomed as they were a boost to the local economy.

    We are an island with a very clear border namely the sea. There are countries where borders have shifted considerably especially in eastern Europe for example Poland and Romania. Yet there were still hatreds and enmities suggesting that the problem was connected with culture, ethnicity or language. It was not just an issue of borders and nationality.

    One of the aspects of the political scene was how politicians tried to take the high moral ground: it wasn’t prejudice or animosity towards immigrants they claimed, it was instead a war against the people smugglers. It was a pity more did not recognise this attempted sleight of hand. The smugglers were capitalising on a problem that existed, not creating it.

    Someone had seen a minister claim on TV that we needed immigrants to keep wages down and hence solve inflation.

    On the subject of Rwanda, the country had been used by Israel with the same purpose in mind. They had abandoned it because it just seemed to increase the incidence of smuggling. All those sent there left immediately and attempted to return to Europe.

    To encourage or deter – two opposite policies which mimicked the two party system – which is where we sort of came in …

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on 12 August at 10:00 am and in Salisbury Library