Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Salisbury

  • Democracy Café

    December Café discusses two topics, one very topical

    December 2025

    The last Café of the year chose two topics to discuss. One concerned the plan to restrict the number of offences which need to go to a jury and the second was a more general question concerning how democracy works.

    How do we feel about David Lammy’s proposal to reduce the number of offences needed to go to trial by jury? This procedure has an extremely long history dating back to Magna Carta which refers to no man being punished without the judgement of his peers. The principle may have pre-dated this document in fact.

    There were a number present who had served on juries and had a reasonable degree of experience to offer. This cropped up during the debate and for the most part people felt it was time consuming although there were some who found it fulfilling or interesting.

    One found that people were reluctant to convict in drug cases. They also found that there was a degree of ’emotional play’ with the jury taking place. Were people selected for service always capable of examining evidence and being objective it was wondered?

    A major focus of the debate was the state of the judicial system generally, a topic we have debated before. Was the purpose of the proposal really about reducing the lengthy delays before trials could take place? This could be years it was pointed out and was often to the advantage of defendants who hoped that witnesses would fail to turn up or other problems leading to an acquittal.

    Justice delayed was justice denied it was pointed out. Only 3% of cases went to jury trial so was it so important was the inference?

    We were reminded that there used to be three magistrates, now there was only one. If we removed more jury trials then more people would be sentenced by just two individuals i.e. the magistrate at first instance and then the judge sitting without a jury. It might be more efficient and quicker even but was it justice?

    Another aspect of the debate was the nature of judges. The great majority hailed from a privileged background. Around 60% or more had gone to just 6 of the public schools, then on to Oxford and thence into chambers often via family connections. The suggestion was a profound class and establishment bias and a lack of any experience of ‘real life’. Were these the best people to decide on our justice?

    We were reminded of the Birmingham Six whom the justice system manifestly failed over many years of trials and appeals. Master of the Rolls Lord Denning was mentioned who said:

    “Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further“

    Their convictions were quashed after 20 years of imprisonment and they received compensation of around £1 million.

    The case of those arrested for alleged criminal damage at Elbit Systems which makes drones for use in Gaza (which the company denies) was mentioned. The initial judge in the case has been replaced by 3 others who are alleged to be more sympathetic to the government’s case appointed. [There is considerable (and astonishing) evidence of collusion between the police and Elbit including video footage being given to the company and stored in their safe not in secure police facility.]

    Concern was expressed that this (reduced number of juries) was yet another example of the whittling away of our rights. The series of acts which limited protests and was making it harder and harder to mount or attend demonstrations were mentioned. The right to protest was fundamental and historically has achieved many improvements which to an extent we take for granted today – votes for women for example.

    Was this the wrong answer to another problem? was the theme of another part of the discussion. The prison system was in a terrible state with overcrowding, infestation and drug abuse. By removing some rights to a jury trial it might reduce numbers held on remand but would it solve the major problem of a dysfunctional system which has suffered decades of underinvestment? Not for the first time Rory Stewart’s book Politics on the Edge was mentioned and how difficult, nay impossible he and other ministers experienced trying to reform it.

    It was connected to the steady increase in sentence lengths which in turn was connected with tabloid mania about any government being seen to be ‘soft on crime’. Attempts at reform just seemed to get nowhere because of this fear by politicians who saw it as career ending.

    Another aspect was the ending of legal aid. This was a major problem for those with limited resources trying to seek justice.

    Has there been any research into the effectiveness of the jury system and juries themselves? Short answer, almost none largely because the jury room is private and their deliberations secret. [There have been calls for researchers to be allowed into jury deliberations]. So we do not really know how much about them.

    There was a suggestion of the use of AI in jury deliberations. Mad? or will we wake up one day to find that it’s happening or is government policy? Let us hope no one in the Justice Dept. is reading this.

    What did we think overall? Not a good idea. There were too many worries about government motives, the integrity and background of the judiciary, the ending of an ancient tradition and the wrong answer to another problem.

    The second part was a debate around the question How do we improve our political process? There is clearly a degree of despair evident in the public at large about politics, politicians and the process as a whole. No sooner had Labour been elected into power than its popularity has fallen dramatically. This seemed to show a degree of fickleness by voters.

    One aspect was the adversarial system which seemed to be about being adversarial for the sake of it someone suggested. It was a lot about getting media attention the inference being that the media was only interested in conflict.

    Would compulsory voting make a difference? it was asked with addition of a ‘none of the above’ as one of the choices. This latter suggestion was roundly disagreed with: we should make a choice it was suggested. The country cannot be run by ‘none of the above’.

    There was a case made for a well trained civil service along Confucian lines in China. This led to a discussion about the nature of our political leadership. We elect MPs many – the majority even – have had no experience of managing a major enterprise or indeed managing anything. Once elected they can find themselves minister of this that or the other with no experience or training to call on. The ministry may contain thousands of civil servants and a budget of billions.

    The select committee system was praised as a major improvement particularly since the whips office lost the power appoint members to it. It was noted however that it did not receive that much publicity which meant it did not get the recognition it deserved. The recent enquiry into Royal wealth was mentioned and how the representatives of the Royal household were extremely reluctant to reveal any details. This raised the issue of transparency particularly around Royal wealth with financial details concerning the Duchy of Cornwall for example shrouded in mystery.

    It was claimed the politicians in the Nordic countries were more trusted than ours for reasons unknown. The media perhaps? Maybe it starts in schools with pupils being taught critical thinking and citizenship, a topic we have discussed before.

    The current Reith Lectures being delivered by Rutger Bregman was mentioned and his first about the problem of a lack of seriousness by our current crop of politicians was relevant.

    This prompted a discussion about tax and the universal belief that we are better off with taxes as low as possible. No politician can argue the opposite or that there is some kind of optimum tax rate. A fundamental issues such as this is reduced to almost mindless claims at elections that ‘my party is going to fix everything but not raise your taxes’.

    Should we have a benevolent dictator? A question not debated.

    Proportional representation was put forward which did not receive much support. How did they tackle the fundamental issues? How does it solve the low quality of politicians? It almost always led to coalitions which is not the same thing as cooperation.

    More subsidiarity was also suggested. This has advantages in leaving local people to decide local issues instead of everything being Whitehall led. But, poor parts of Britain have few resources however much subsidiary they have whereas wealthier areas have plenty that is, it’s a matter of distribution which is what a national government should be about.

    A more global issue was mentioned namely that Britain had achieved its wealth via plunder. Were we as a nation living beyond our means? Was there any politician or party capable of facing reality and telling the public what it needs to face up to? An interesting point of view can be found in a recent post to this site What could possibly go wrong?

    I am not sure we really cracked this problem although there were interesting points raised. We have a democratic process which we accept as being the least worst system and does enable us to evict politicians who fail. But we don’t seem to be able to say how to make it work better. We stick to electing local MPs who may appear personable and charming but many are seriously lacking in relevant experience, judgement or knowledge of how the business of government works. Some are dishonest and lacking in other ways. When a ‘personable and charming’ MP gets given a ministerial position we seem surprised at their incompetence a fact which was probably obvious from the start. Perhaps much greater rigour at the selection stage – not by the party machine – but by members of the public perhaps possessed with recruitment experience might help.

    Next meeting is on Saturday 10th January 2026.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Rory Stewart, Politics on the Edge, Jonathan Cape, 2023

    Brené Brown, Daring Greatly, Penguin, 2013

    Previous posts:

    Thought of joining our committee? We would like more support. Please get in touch if you are interested.

  • Dissatisfaction with our politicians expressed at latest Democracy Café

    That and tax were the two topics discussed

    A recurring subject of our Cafés is the dissatisfaction both with our MPs and the political process generally. This is clearly becoming a matter of national concern with low voter turnout at elections, falling membership for the main parties and a rise of what were once called ‘fringe’ parties.

    The escape of various prisoners that week from Wandsworth Gaol was the focus of our first topic: not the escapes themselves but the unedifying debate which took place in parliament particularly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Two prisoners, Brahim Kaddour-Cherif and William Smith were released mistakenly and there ensued a major political row with the Conservatives blaming Labour and Labour blaming the Conservatives.

    The question which won the vote was How can we encourage more cooperative working [between the parties] in Parliament? The proposer was motivated to pose the question by the debates about relatively petty issues and insufficiently on the big ones. The slanging match which took place between the parties overlooked the years of underfunding of prisons which had taken place under both parties. Prisons were unpleasant places said someone who visits one regularly and they too little time was spent on things like behavioural change. No party was willing to tackle the system or the huge investment the estate needed.

    A lot of theatrics we saw was around PMQ and this often got televised. Many politicians were playing to the popular press. Would it not be an idea to stop televising parliament it was suggested? We did not pursue that thought and it would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Another thought was Eton. The school has a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons and boys practice the skills (if skills they be) of debating. Since Eton has provided a preponderance of ex-pupils to become MPs and ministers including many prime ministers, could this be a contributory factor to the public school raucous style of debating?

    The need for a constitution was suggested. However, the US has a constitution and it hasn’t ruled out bad politics. Could not the Speaker control things better?

    It was noted however that the Select Committee system works well where party members do work together on them. This system has been a success especially after control of the selection of members was wrested from the whips. But how often do people follow select committee debates? People watch the spectacle of PMQs are less inclined to follow the dry stuff of a select committee even though it was often more consequential. As we have noted in these debates before, do we not get the politics we deserve?

    Back to PMQs. Was it not absurd that the prime minister was summoned each week to answer what can be trivial or detailed questions? The session was dominated by point-scoring and appealing to the gallery not discussing matters of strategic importance. Imagine for example if the boss of M&S was asked each week why one of their stores was out of a particular size of trousers say. Would you run a major corporation that way? Probably not.

    One of the shifts which has taken place in recent times is the way all parties now have focus groups and fashion their policies around what these and other sources of public opinion thinking. They were no longer leading but following. But what many are crying out for is leadership. The election this week of the charismatic Mayor of New York was mentioned. What we seem to be getting is followership.

    The quality of our MPs was mentioned. Do we need to know more about candidates? Should there not be some kind of minimum standard? What that would be and how it would be enforced was not discussed.

    An interesting point was that we elect our MPs but have no say over who gets into the Cabinet or goes onto the government payroll. Since it is the latter individuals who exercise the power it does seem anomalous that we spend all the time selecting someone to represent the constituency who then may well go onto become a minister of some kind. Rory Stewart discusses this in his book Politics on the Edge (Jonathan Cape, 2023) where no interest is taken by selection committees in someone’s policy making experience or management skills in the selection process. It suggests large numbers of people being elected with no regard at all for the skills they’ll need to run the country. And we wonder why we’re in a mess.

    Back to the public school system and whereas it was true that such schools provided a disproportionate number of MPs and hence ministers in the past, a Sutton Trust study in 2024 shows that just one member of the current cabinet had a private education. This contrasts with the last Conservative government where just 19% of ministers did not have a private education.

    Another feature of Stewart’s book was the practice of ignoring expert advice. There was a suggestion that there should be more in the way of expert input into decision making. One said their experience of meeting civil servants to convey expertise or knowledge was met by the response ‘this is what the minister wants’ with little or no interest in whether it was practical or workable. Another said there was no shortage of reports, McPherson and Louise Casey into the Met for example. Most ended up ignored. The problem was a ‘we know best’ attitude not a lack of informed input.

    Was our government a product of the class system? Perhaps we should debate this as a topic all of itself in the future. As noted, the role of public schools has lessened in recent years.

    We digressed somewhat to talk about the removal of power and money from local authorities.

    As a kind of summing up it was thought that manifestos should be more visionary and not the product of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The lack of interest in the political process was also noted and we will not get improvement or change unless the public presses for it.

    On to our second topic which was Should the wealthy pay more tax? It is only about 2 weeks until the Budget around which there is already considerable debate. The Chancellor gave a speech a week or so ago which was widely seen as a hint that there will be an increase in income tax. The immediate answer the proposer noted was to say ‘yes’ but in fact the system already enabled sufficient tax to be collected the problem was all the loopholes. [Official statistics show it stands at 5.3% of theoretical liabilities i.e. £46.8bn (2023- 24 tax year). Experts say this figure is an order of magnitude too low].

    The major problem with the system was it was concentrated on earnings not on wealth. Considerable wealth was in the possession of those who paid little in the way of tax on that wealth. Land for example was not taxed (but rents would be). However, it was noted those who owned property did pay tax on any rents. Major estates could gain exemption from Inheritance tax by opening their homes to the public once a year or more. It was stated that art did not attract tax [This is incorrect. Works of art are subject to capital gains tax when sold subject to current rules and exemptions. So if you are thinking of selling your Rembrandt, be careful].

    One of the things not mentioned in the debate about tax is the moral question. It is frequently said that the rich would leave if taxes were too high. Taxes paid for the things we need in our society. It was pointed out (from the perspective of a wealthy person) that they might say they do not need many of the services. They pay for their own medical treatment, they educated their children privately, they live in gated communities and do not need police protection and rarely use roads on the way to the airport to board a private jet or helicopter. Why should they pay tax certainly a higher rate? Why should they pay yet more to keep individuals who were too lazy to work? They might even use the word ‘feckless’.

    However, they lived in a society which is getting ever more unequal. Placing the burden of higher taxes on the poorest in society risks bringing the whole system down. A recent BBC programme on inheritance had noted that inequality was embedded in the system. As some people got wealthier, they were able to pass on this wealth and its attendant advantages to their children thus further increasing inequality. Home ownership for many was but a dream but those who had access to the ‘bank of mum and dad’ ‘could achieve this. We should think more about what to do with our wealth it was suggested.

    There was some discussion on loopholes which is where we came in. The role of the so-called ‘treasure islands’ as discussed in Nicholas Shaxson’s book Treasure Islands: Tax havens and the Men Who Stole the World (Bodley Head, 2011) is key to the system of avoidance. He estimated around £12 trillion was stored in them (2011 figures). These havens were a relic of Empire.

    Part of the discussion about tax was based on the notion we were better off with lower taxes which is why politicians constantly promised that they, and their party, were dedicated to lowering them. Would any politician who said we needed to pay more tax if we want the services we expect ever get elected. Almost certainly not. As we have noted before, lower taxes will enable you to buy some more consumer goods or services but it will not buy you a road system, a health service, schools, defence and so on: all the things which gives us our society.

    Which led to the notion that we should be proud of paying tax and such individuals should be admired. Paying tax should be seen as a duty.

    It was noted that wealth also gave power. So we would not see changes in the tax havens for example because many of those who use them possess the power to stop change. On the subject of loopholes, Eton cropped up again and that it, along with other public schools, did not pay VAT or business rates until this year. They were regarded as charities going back to their foundations but were far from charities today.

    I suppose there is a theme linking both debates and that is our role as citizens. It is surely up to us to demand better service from our leaders, to take a closer look at those standing for election and to enquire about their ability to lead, manage or develop workable policies, to take a closer look at those policies and promises made and to be realistic about things like tax. We cannot have something for nothing. The focus should be on making sure that the tax system works as it should but how many people know of the tax gap or how much it is? Two interesting debates which raised several interesting questions.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on December 13th

    Thought of becoming a subscriber?

  • Democracy Café

    The next Café will be this morning Saturday, 8 November starting at 10:00 as usual in the Library. Lasting 2 hours with a break. If you haven’t been before, the idea is people bring a topic – ideally in the form of a short question – and we vote on which topic to discuss. Typically, we debate two. You can just come and take part – there is no compulsion to offer a topic.

    If you want to see examples of previous sessions just scroll down and see the write-ups. It’s free but there is a collection if you are able to spare any half groats that would be appreciated.

    There seems no shortage of things to talk about – the Royal family, the state of the economy – but you might find these too depressing so if you have any uplifting ideas they would be welcome.

  • Conspiracies: the Five Factor Theory

        

    Some ideas about conspiracy theories

    We went to a talk at the Cheltenham Literature Festival recently and the topic was conspiracy theories and why they are so widespread.  I have been thinking about this and done a little research and these are some of my conclusions.  I propose The Five Factor Theory which is discussed below. Conspiracy theories have cropped up in our Democracy Cafés from time to time so they are a matter of interest for us. I would welcome comments on this idea.

    I suggest that there are 5 major factors involved in conspiracy theories (CF) and why they are widely followed.

    1. Believability
    2. Psychology
    3. Power
    4. Politics
    5. Information.

    1              Believability

    A conspiracy has got to be believable and not utterly bizarre. Indeed, many provide simple answers to complex issues or unknown forces.  Crop circles were by aliens visiting not by a group of blokes going out at night. The solution was simple, providing an answer to a problem which originally did not have an answer.

    It has to provide an answer. So how did a loner like Oswald manage to kill JF Kennedy?  It seemed unlikely he did it on his own so a mountain of conspiracies were produced about other’s involvement and state actors.

    Often the conspiracy is more interesting.  Instead of dry facts, evidence and complexity, we have a simple and interesting story.  It must be easy to grasp.

    It mustn’t be mundane. They are never dull but involve dark forces, aliens, secret cabals and so forth.  So much more interesting than the truth. 

    They are often embellished to enhance the theory. So crop circles had force fields around them which scientists couldn’t explain.  They couldn’t because there weren’t. Notice by the way that crop circles have disappeared as a story.   

    There has to be a degree of topicality to them.  Recently, anti-vax theories have been the game in town. It is extraordinary to note in passing, that to get a science or medical theory off the ground, you have to collect evidence using established protocols, a paper has to be produced with copious references to published work, then submitted to a journal who will get 3 referees to review it and then, after any corrections, it get published.  Others in the field will comment on it and the experiment might get repeated.  There are occasional frauds and mistakes do happen but these are rare. A conspiracy has absolutely none of this, yet people believe in them and will scorn established science or ‘conventional’ medicine.  ‘Einstein proved Newton wrong’ is my favourite numpty phrase: no he didn’t, he refined Newton’s theory which is still taught as the basics in understanding mechanics.

    However, scientific theories are sometimes wrong even well-established ones.  Phrenology was widely believed and practised for example.  Cold fusion another scientific mistake.  But the point is that there are methods to check on scientific hypotheses or theories.  Another point is that they make testable predications. Experiments can be performed to see if the theory is correct.  Einstein’s prediction about the bending of lights by the sun was dramatically proved with the orbit of Mercury for example.  Conspiracy theories on the other hand cannot be tested. 

    2              Psychology

    It gives individuals a sense of power.  A lone person can nowadays launch onto the internet all manner of theories and ideas and see them spread in no time.  A successful blogger may enjoy hundreds of thousands of people viewing their theories and conspiracies some of which will get repeated more thousands of times. Some are monetised and make their promoters large sums. The woman claiming that the French president’s wife isn’t really a woman has made her millions of dollars. 

    Linked is a sense of excitement. Just knowing that people are reading to what you have written is a powerful force almost like an aphrodisiac (whether it’s a conspiracy or otherwise).  And it’s very tempting.  I get excited if the number of readers of my posts get into double figures.  If I posted something outrageous would I get hundreds or even thousands?  Hmmm.  Moving on –

    It is a means to bite back especially if you or your community has been left behind. Suddenly, you can be heard and listened to (or read) whereas the politicians are nowhere to be seen. It is also a means to vent anger.  It might even be therapeutic.  You are angry at an injustice and in a few lines you express your anger and ‘let it out’ possibly making you feel better.

    There might even be a childlike pleasure in metaphorically throwing stones at the powerful or successful. This might be linked to a sense of resentment at such people.  It is a feature of the media landscape that bringing down the successful is a popular newspaper activity.  It sells copy and people like to see them brought down. 

    But another feature is that conspiracists are likely to be more gullible.  They may actually believe the theories.  Flying saucers are ultimately unbelievable (why have they never been found and how are they able to traverse the vastness of space?  Why here?). But rational thought does not intrude. Homeopathy is widely accepted despite the total lack of evidence. The lack of evidence can be explained by a further conspiracy.  But what about religions?

    There is a thirst for answers.  Everything seems a lot more complicated now.  The world seems full of protocols, rules, regulations, endless button pressing – nothing seems or feels simple.  People thirst for a simple answer and to an extent a CT provides that simple explanation.

    3              Power

    Closely linked to the above comments, it can give people a sense of power. Those who pester stars for example are able to exert power (negative though it may be) over someone cleverer, more attractive or able than themselves.  People sense that nobody really cares about their condition or plight.  The ease with which they can mount an attack on Facebook or X etc is a form of power for them. 

    It also seems to give them power in conversational situations. You are left – if you are not a conspiracists – feeling that you are naïve to have believed what you read in the paper or saw in the news.  They have the real story: you believe what they want you to believe, they being some secret cabal or some such.  It can be difficult to pursue the conversation because how do you prove the negative?  I believe from having read about it and seen film and pictures that the Great Barrier Reef is suffering from bleaching because of ocean warming.  Not so a conspiracy man insisted to me.  A scientist who says the opposite has lost his post in a university and his works shut down and he is not allowed to speak.  The true story is being suppressed.  How do you answer this?  By their nature conspiracies are almost unprovable so the promoters of them gain power over you the listener.

    Believers have a sense of superiority.  You, have been duped by the fake media and believe what they want you to believe.  They (the conspiracists), on the other hand, are privy to the real story i.e. it’s a conspiracy. 

    British law prevents much truth coming out because of fear of lawsuits.  The powerful are in a position to suppress truth because of the shear cost of defence.  It is worth noting that it is up to the person making the allegation to prove the truth of it.  This suppression of free speech provides perfect space for conspiracies to take place. It can even be argued that the conspiracies can actually be true. 

    Ordinary people have lost power and influence.  Our society is such that many doors are closed to the powerless and fomenting or spreading conspiracies is a means to fight back. 

    4              Politics

    There is almost a complete loss of trust in politicians and the political process.  There is a widespread belief that we are constantly being lied to. This is linked to a belief that various forces – ill-defined – are actually running things – Liz Truss’ ‘deep state’.

    That there are background forces who exert some form of control is not altogether untrue, the City for example has considerable power.  But they are not totally hidden and we know who they are even if we don’t know all the details.  Media influence is strong and to state it is not a conspiracy. 

    There is a degree of muddle here in that there is some truth in the allegations (or is that conspiracy at work?).  The problem here is that the political world is murky.  Honesty and integrity is hard to find and knowing what is true or not extremely difficult. 

    5              Information

    Most of the information we get comes from various forms of the media.  Social media is substantially unmoderated and not controlled by anyone.  So any theory, however wild, can be posted on any one of dozens of sites and quickly gain traction.

    There are few controls and a desire to make a profit. If a lot of people believe there is life on Mars then it will find an outlet either because of a lack of control or because there is money to be made.

    People do realise that a handful of men own and control our media so it is not a conspiracy to believe this.  But it is likely to lead to ideas that we are not seeing/reading the whole truth.

    Belief in once trusted sources like the BBC has declined.  Partly due to constant attacks by rivals but also its own behaviour and not broadcasting stories for example around Gaza.

    The anti-vaxers are widely believed and are causing great damage in the US, less so here.  Dr Wakefield of MMR fame is back in business in the US and is widely believed.   I looked into one case, promoted by one of our local MPs and it was founded on nothing.  There was no science, no published papers and no peer review.   Just a motley crew of keep fit types, a gym owner and ordinary citizens expressing their views.  He also made a basic schoolboy error of confusing cause and effect.  But it has taken root and is very hard to shift. 

    Types of Conspiracy

    I suggest conspiracies take several different forms:

    1. Full on conspiracies.  These have no foundation in fact
    2. Partial conspiracies. These have some truth to them but are embellished by conspiracists into something much larger
    3. Actually true things which seem as though they are conspiracies
    4. True things which people believe to be conspiracies.

    Many years ago at a party in Brighton we were pinned in the corner by an American who told us at great length about a conspiracy involving President Nixon.  He seemed quite mad.  His story seemed fantastical and totally unbelievable.  A year or so later, Watergate broke.  Recognising truth from conspiracy can be extremely difficult. 

    I said at the start that they need to be believable.  That does not mean they necessarily have any truth at all.  That Microsoft was putting trackable microchips in vaccines was widely believed and spanned the globe.  It was believed because people thought it was possible.

    A perusal of the above will show that there is no way in the current world to prevent or even limit conspiracies.  The ease with which they can be started and spread, the sheer number of people who have the psychological make up to a) to believe in them or b) create them in the first place, is vast.  There is also the lack of serious penalties for carrying out this activity. 

    There is also the influence of overseas actors.  China, Russia and others are busy engaged in trying to destabilise the West and are actively engaged in cyber warfare an element of which is promoting conspiracies.

    They are ultimately undeniable.  Because there is no science or facts to support them, demonstrating their implausibility or falsity is impossible.  Attempting to do so is another conspiracy of itself. 

    Disinformation, Lies and Conspiracy

    There is a link between these factors. We are subject to disinformation that is, deliberately producing wrong information in order to persuade or confuse.  We are also lied to.  From individuals all the way through to governments, lies are told or truths withheld which is a form of lying.  Then there is conspiracy as discussed above.

    They are nearly all linked to power and a desire by those with power, or seeking it, to deceive for some kind of gain. They are not identical – that’s why I say ‘linked’. 

    The unifying factor is power.  From and individual through to a state or politician, they are a means to exert power over others.  However, as you move up the food chain so to speak, there is a risk for promoters of conspiracy theories to look foolish.  This is likely to be because of greater scrutiny by the media and others looking for the source of the claims.  This critical review is likely to reduce the likelihood of those at the top of the tree using them but it does not stop their currency.  Indeed it may even enhance it.  Think of the logic: there is a conspiracy, the rich and famous do not discuss it, ergo, it proves the conspiracy.

    PC

  • October Democracy Café

    Probably the 100th Café to be held

    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 that immigration 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, number 101, is on November 8th.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café

    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.

    Lots to talk about so see you there.

    PC

  • August Democracy Café

    The Café tackled two contentious topics

    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 Pipeline was 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.

  • Democracy Café

    Two debates on Palestine Action and climate change

    We were pleased to welcome Phil from Southampton back to the Café who helped set up a café in Southampton but which sadly, did not survive the Covid hiatus.

    Once again, we offer thanks to the Library for allowing us to meet there.

    Nine topics were suggested but winning through for the first half was Should Palestine Action be a proscribed organisation? By way of background, the organisation had mounted a number of protests and the last one was to get into RAF Brize Norton and spray aircraft with red paint. This had prompted the organisation to be proscribed.

    It was immediately claimed that their action at the RAF base did not seem to cross the threshold of the Terrorism Act, 2000. [This said in the interpretation section ‘terrorism’ means, inter alia, intimidation of the public, involves serious violence against the person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life …]. None of these seems applicable – who was terrorised at Brize Norton?

    It was also quickly questioned why other legislation could not have been used, criminal damage for example? Although this might have failed as it was noted the paint did not seriously damage the planes.

    The Home secretary had achieved the ban by linking the Commons motion in with two other decidedly violent organisations leaving MPs limited options to object. The others were Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. This move was described as ‘deeply cynical’. The speed with which the government moved was also noted and the methods used to tarnish the reputation of Palestine Action. This had to be seen alongside the government’s refusal to sanction Israeli politicians.

    Perhaps the reasons behind the speedy action was firstly, the ease with which the protestors had accessed the base and secondly, it highlighted the role of the RAF in the Gaza conflict. They had undertaken around 600 flights ostensibly to help with the location of the hostages – which seemed to have been a spectacular waste of money – but it was suggested to give information to the IDF which they used to identify alleged Hamas terrorists. Clearly the government did not want this to become well known.

    The conversation moved on to protests generally and it was noted this was the latest in a long line of legislation making protest harder and harder. Politicians keen to support the idea of protests as long as they are not effective. It seems sometimes that only direct action has any chance of success. There was a call for people to come together to try and counter some of the mis-information. Suella Braverman’s aim to get minor acts treated as severe has been overruled by the High Court it was noted.

    Protests were a means to gain the attention of the public it was suggested and labelling such groups as ‘terrorists’ was just a convenient label. Was it to do with content someone asked? If it had been to do with Ukraine would the home secretary taken the same action?

    The latest plan by the Israeli government to create a ‘Humanitarian City‘ on the ruins of Rafah was mentioned. This would be to confine Palestinians to an even smaller area than now. It was an attempt at ethnic cleansing. It was noted that the IDF was not happy with the proposal as it was not part of their war plans.

    Was the influence of the US to be detected in the government’s actions? The unquestioning support of Israel was perhaps evidence of that. Was there a fear of offending Donald Trump? The role of money and business also playing a part.

    The singer Bob Vylan and his set at Glastonbury made a brief appearance. Singing ‘death, death to the IDF’ caused a huge storm and a major reaction against the BBC for not pulling the performance. It was noted that young people supported the singer. The ‘Brandenburg test’ was mentioned which said speech which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action‘. This was a case in Ohio. Whether Bob Vylan met this test remains to be seen.

    We were reminded of the Greenham Common protests (and two of those present took part!) where the perimeter fence had been penetrated. CND were effective in raising consciences about nuclear weapons but were never proscribed. Clearly things had changed. Was it the effects of 9/11 someone wondered?

    An interesting debate and it is probably true to say that few if any agreed with decision to proscribe Palestine Action. The lumping them in with two other organisations was seen as deeply cynical.

    The second topic – or should I say a combination of three topics – concerned the climate. Appropriately so as we were basking in a heat wave, the second of the year. The three were have climate protests been subdued? what individual actions can be taken? and is climate change caused by us?

    It was noted that climate protests have dwindled, possibly linked to the previous topic. Government actions were at a lower level it was claimed. Was climate change a result of human action anyway? We have had periods of extreme weather in the past, could this just be another phase? There had after all been an ide age not many centuries ago.

    Climate protests have been effective it was argued. There is a much greater awareness of climate issues today. There are more and more electric vehicles on the road and people undertook much more recycling now. Salisbury Transition City was mentioned. There were concerns that things were not happening quickly enough though. 78% in Salisbury were said to be concerned about climate change.

    It was argued that the weight of evidence and a preponderance of scientists were agreed that human activity has had an effect. There was a lot of research to back this up. There was a worry about ‘greenwashing’ where companies try and persuade the public they are doing more than they really are. Oil companies were also funding institutions which made denialist claims.

    It was pointed out that many years ago, parts of N Africa and the Middle East were once forested long before industrialisation took place. What mattered was heat and a factor today is the enormous amount of heat we produce from running computer systems and the like. Bitcoin consumed electricity equivalent to Argentina to run its calculations. It was suggested that a MIT study showed we should now be entering a period of cooling [I was not able to locate this on MIT’s site]. The biggest contributors to climate problems were agriculture and industry.

    A worry was that climate science was increasingly being ‘weaponised’. Papers were being used to refute basic facts. The US was defunding institutions which were working on climate science. Climate justice and social justice were two equivalent issues and the public were increasingly being moving towards the latter. Issues like cost of living were now top of the agenda.

    The majority wanted climate action it was suggested. We were warned against ‘binary thinking’ and it was a pity this idea wasn’t developed more in the context of the discussion. Basically, things are seldom straightforwardly right or wrong but usually more complex or nuanced.

    Why weren’t we doing more it was asked? Several answers: it wasn’t cheap. Insulation and making homes climate proof would cost billions. It wasn’t popular and by contrst, the popularity of politicians calling for an end to net zero was clear. Perhaps the most significant point was the policy of growth which the government was concentrating on. If the focus was on growth then climate mitigation issues were likely to take a back seat. The issue of climate change and growth was noted. Since agriculture was a major factor in global warming – the methane ’emissions’ from cattle in particular – a meat tax was a desirable objective but was a vote loser someone noted. Another point in the same vein was consumerism which directly linked to climate pressures.

    Maybe a driving force in the future is insurance. Insurance companies were less and less likely to offer cover to properties likely to be affected by flooding for example. Insurance costs could exceed the costs of not doing something

    We were reminded towards the end of Doughnut economics which is about how humanity conducts its affairs in the light of the planet’s finite resources. There was a suggestion that we should be supporting the global south to develop their economies sustainably not follow in the path the West has done.

    Finally, this picture was displayed during our debate. It was submitted as part of the current exhibition but could not be shown because of its political nature. It is by RM Wilde CBE.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on August 9th.

  • Area Board meeting: the follow up

    Group met after the Area Board to discuss future actions

    Last week, we presented the results of the three People’s Assemblies we held over the summer and the response was on the whole, positive. We seem to have the prospect of actual progress now and the group met to discuss next steps.

    The results from our Assemblies will be part of the national response which will be taking place on 20 – 22 of this month in London. Three people will be present from Salisbury.

    We discussed what to do next and the major exercise is the support we can offer to the ‘champions’ whom we hope will lead on the five top wishes coming out of the Assemblies. One idea was to try and ‘match’ a councillor to a champion to try and make sure the ideas don’t get forgotten or sidelined.

    One of the first things we will be doing is organising a meeting of all the champions to plan the next stages and to discuss what offers of help and support they might need. It was emphasised in the meeting that ours is a supporting role but maybe also guiding in some cases.

    We also discussed our own future and the need to consider a more formal structure for SDA: at present we have none. We may opt for a Company Limited by Guarantee or a Community Interest Company and this will be looked into. It will help with the ‘credibility’ issue. We need to be clear about our objectives.

    We looked in general terms about trying to involve others including going into schools if at all possible.

    The idea of a fresh assembly was discussed and it was decided to leave it until the Spring largely because of the amount of time and effort needed to make them a success. One suggestion was for a junior assembly – we’ll see.

    Next meeting is on 15th July at the Ox Row Inn starting at 6:15.

    If you are not a member or supporter of SDA, have you thought of joining us? Best thing is to make yourself know at the Democracy Café the next one this is this Saturday 12th in the Library starting at 10:00. Or put a message below. You’d be welcome.

  • What is politics?

    A silly question but with a serious answer

    What is politics? A silly question, maybe, but a comment from Chris Dillow’s blog this week chimed with what I have been thinking of late: “Politicians make mistakes. This is inevitable because society is complex and knowledge is limited. But there are different types of error. Being bad at your job is one type, but another is simply not understanding what your job actually is. By some definitions of political activity, leading politicians have for some time been guilty of the latter.”

    Dillow picks up on issues such as transgender toilets and banning controversial bands as being not politicians’ business, and I think there are more areas where they have turned issues that are not in themselves political, into matters of partisan posing. It is at least arguable that politicians take on areas outside their remit as a form of displacement activity, as dealing with big issues is hard.

    There are many cases where legislation has been introduced to regulate activity unnecessarily (think of all the laws banning protesting activity), which could be better dealt with by following existing law rather than creating new ones. The argument about the small boats could have become much more helpful if politicians had agreed to act jointly instead of holding a bidding war as to who is the toughest. Reform is only the worst offender at inventing an issue and then demanding it be addressed. I am not suggesting that all political issues should be turned into a lovefest, but the present confrontational approach is at least timewasting.

    Political debate should be about principle and policy, how we might order and protect society and improve people’s wellbeing. Anything else is noise. Obviously, whether or not politicians are debating the issues, the issues still exist, but the British are very bad at taking responsibility, so politicians fill the gap (a gap frequently created by the media). Anyone is free to have an opinion, but decision-taking seems now to have been taken out of the hands of the relevant bodies and claimed by others (witness the number of U-turns of late). This is how we end up with a politics of impunity – it’s someone else’s fault, but I’ll apologise anyway, as long as you know it wasn’t my area of responsibility.

    If we could remove some conflicts from the parliamentary field, there would be more time to debate the direction the country could or should be taking. Ethical questions should be eschewed as far as possible unless actual legislation is required (the debate on assisted dying was much praised for its respectfulness and lack of partisanship. This would, I think, be the exception). Abortion, for example, is not a political matter; it is a health matter. “Wokeness” is not a political matter; it is a set of opinions. Anti-Semitism isn’t a political matter; it is bad manners.

    What would be left to the politicos? Economic policy (there is a clear left/right policy differentiation), foreign policy, resource allocation, climate change, food policy, governance – there’s lot to get on with. I would exclude immigration (largely a managerial issue), growth (a misguided aim) and most of welfare (should be dealt with at an appropriate [i.e. lower] level). But you can choose what you think should be the business of legislators; the point is to concentrate their minds on the important things and not to interfere with things which are the task of lawyers, the police or the Health Service.

    As a side issue, this would, in my view, help engage the public better. They would be clearer about who was responsible for stuff, they would recognize political posturing more easily and they would get a better sense of the differences between parties. I’m not asking for a return to ideological warfare, but rather that parties were forced to express their vision, or at least to acquire one. Better that than interminable arguments about BBC presenters.

    Andrew Hemming