Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Salisbury.

  • September Democracy Café

    Smaller group than usual but two fascinating topics

    At the end of this post you will be invited to think about the future development of the Café

    September 2025

    The Café took place a day or so after the murder of Charlie Kirk in Utah, USA. This has produced a huge degree of anger in that country and cries of vengeance. An element of this is the role of Christian Nationalism and this led to our first debate: Christian Nationalism, is it a threat to democracy? These ideas and beliefs seem to permeate many levels of American society and are influential certainly with young people. It combined God with government and together were a powerful force. It was disturbing they were able to persuade so many people.

    It was important to remember on the other hand that Christian values – whether you were a follower of the religion or not – had brought a lot to our world. Whether the sort of evangelism so common in the US could come to the UK was questionable. However, it was pointed out that one of the local MPs, Danny Kruger, had received substantial funding from Christian evangelicals which he failed to declare in time. [Kruger defected to the Reform party a few days after the Café took place]. An issue however was the selective interpretation of Bible teachings.

    People were looking for certainty someone suggested and the Evangelicals relied on Hebrew texts not the Gospel. Christian nationalism goes back a long way in the States it was noted despite the Constitution saying that Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion (First Amendment). The connection between church and state is a feature of the UK however and Tony Blair was mentioned briefly although he was famous for saying ‘we don’t do God’. Governments often talks positively about religion when it suits them, but then criticises them as being ‘political’ if they say something they don’t like. A separation of church and state was unlikely to happen in the UK it was thought.

    The Alpha Course was mentioned. This is an American evangelical course which is now established in the UK. There are some criticisms of its approach. It was claimed that the course misunderstands what aspects of Christianity is about [and several references on the internet seem to bear that out].

    There was then a bold statement that religion was ‘a form of manipulation of the masses’. There was considerable hypocrisy and my post [Facebook] about the enormous wealth of the Cathedral was noted and its failure to share that wealth locally. There was a fear of living a life which was bleak and pointless. This led to a discussion about whether abortion – and the various religious approaches to this difficult subject – was ‘political’ or not. All these subjects were political it was argued and there was tendency for all religions (Christianity and Islam were both instanced) to use texts for their own purposes: an echo of the comment above and Hebrew texts. Someone said that religion was about ‘we know the answer – it’s in the Bible’. That is, giving specific answers to a range of moral issues.

    This was developed by the suggestion that religion was transactional. For example, people feared death and it gave them the promise of immortality. It was suggested that religion was based on ‘getting something back’ (I assume for believers) if you follow their precepts.

    Someone spoke of their brother who had been an alcoholic but stopped and subsequently became a fundamentalist. Addiction seemed to be the point being made here. The Ten Commandments were mentioned at this point but then the fact that the Church ‘got rid of’ women [from the priesthood]. Were not some of the Apostles women? There was an anti-woman movement in the US. The late and hugely influential Charlie Kirk was quoted who said ‘black women don’t have brain power’, ‘Democrat women want to die alone without children’ and the much quoted remark that ‘Taylor Swift should submit to her husband’.

    The role of fundamentalist Christians funding settlements (mostly illegal) in Israel was mentioned. ‘It’s in the Bible’ they claim and if you attempt to argue with this you are deemed ‘anti-Semitic’ or just plain evil. Their fundamentalism meant there was no way to argue with them,.

    ‘Jesus gives my life a point’ and also meaning and a purpose someone said. She suggested that they should not leave their minds at the door to the church. She mentioned a service where people were free to say what they thought about Palestine Action. It was suggested that people should have a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other.

    ‘In the beginning was the word’ – was it? it was asked. The ‘creation myth’ is still believed it was noted [and still taught in some schools]. There was disagreement about the constancy of religious belief. Some argued that beliefs went back thousands of years, others argued that it was constantly evolving. Another issue was the meaning of words which have changed enormously over the ages. Translation was an issue as well and we were reminded of the bitter arguments surrounding the translation of the Bible into English.

    So did we answer the question put? Probably not although we did on the whole conclude that extreme positions on religion were unwelcome. Some fundamentalist positions meant argument was impossible: they had the truth. This was clearly the opposite to a democratic approach.

    The second half we switched to discussing the question With otherwise brilliant people, should we accept their warts [and all]? This was a reference to Peter Mandelson who had been sacked the previous day as Ambassador to the US following further revelations in the Sun concerning his relations with the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein. We seemed to be obsessed with undermining our leaders the presenter suggested. Mandelson was praised by many for doing his job well but clearly his relations with Epstein were more intense than apparently the prime minister was aware of at the time of his appointment.

    One aspect was that it was not a level playing field it was suggested. All week, the Guardian has been writing about the scandalous activities of Boris Johnson who used his position to secure millions yet this has not been mentioned on the BBC, Channel 4 or the Daily Telegraph. There seemed to be two standards where someone like Angela Rayner was intensely scrutinised whereas people like Boris Johnson seemed not to be despite the huge sums involved. We have a broadly right wing press keen to hound anyone it was said.

    Could there not be a system of apologies where people’s past indiscretions could be accounted for? The central question was ‘does this make you incompetent anyway?’ It was a problem for women especially. Men can have multiple affairs but for a woman, there was still a degree of shame attached to any activity of this kind. Will people stand for office or to become an MP etc if their past lives are crawled over? A female minister for X had a child out of wedlock – and? But for the tabloids it was fodder for a takedown and acres of prurient comment.

    At what point however can you wipe the slate clean and move on? A difficult question. Some may remember the Profumo scandal (seems tame by today’s standards) and the eponymous minister resigned and spent his remaining years working for a charity in the East End of London. There were personality types who don’t ever see they’ve done anything wrong – perhaps Johnson was an example of this. Apologies and clean slates were irrelevant in these cases as they will always carry on in the same shameless way. Unfortunately someone noted, they are attracted to power.

    Mandelson had been ‘unbelievably crass’ however. This was his third comeback and he did seem to be drawn moth like, to the rich and famous. Clearly, his charm had taken him far. Had in fact has he done anything wrong? Surely, it was suggested, he had stayed loyal to a friend. That is regarded by many as a positive quality. The question however centred around the gravity of Epstein’s offences it was argued. It was about powerful men abusing their positions and about child abuse.

    Mandelson was a protégé of Morgan McSweeney it was claimed schooled in the ideology of ‘the ends justify the means’. It was pointed out though that the Labour party did have an ethics adviser which the Conservatives did not for some while. The Nolan Principles were mentioned number 1 of which is ‘selflessness’ and No. 2 ‘integrity’. Hard to square with some recent behaviours.

    Back to the question and Fred Goodwin was mentioned as someone good at his job who had to step down after the near collapse of RBS. This was not really a relevant example because the rise and fall of Goodwin concerned his management and reckless expansion which led to disaster. He was not brought down by some kind of personal scandal. He was ultimately found not to be good at his job. [Famously, Goodwin hated mess, so filing cabinets had to have sloping tops to stop staff putting stuff on them].

    Richard Wagner was mentioned as a noted anti-Semite but is regarded as a major composer and still performed around the world. Picasso and his treatment of women was also instanced. However, they were not politicians so did not have direct effects on our lives.

    We ended by the observation that we needed a spectrum of people to run our affairs and we do not elect saints. As if to link with the first debate someone observed ‘let him without sin throw the first stone’ [John 8:7].

    Our thanks again to the Library for allowing us to use their space

    Peter Curbishley

    Future of Democracy Café

    We have been running the cafes for some time now and early in 2026 we will have our hundredth session. They are well attended and we regularly see over 20 come each month. We have had a very wide range of topics to debate and ideas for new ones never seem to be lacking.

    Following this success, the committee is wondering if we can extend the idea in any way? We do not want to change the DC itself under the principle of ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ but whether some similar idea could not be tried. There seems to be a thirst for political debate and it is very evident from our sessions that people are unhappy with the local political process, the local media landscape and the media generally, and are worried about democracy itself.

    Do you have any ideas? Please use the comments section or on Facebook where this post will be linked or contact us individually – whichever suits.

    Meanwhile, have you thought of joining us. We have a small committee and additional members would be welcome. Are you a subscriber?

  • Democracy Café: March 2022

    Just over 20 people attended the café in Brown Street with a handful on line via Zoom. Better microphoning improved matters but there were still a few technical hitches. The meeting took place about two weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this issue popped up several times during our debate.

    The first topic was about gender balance and should there be more balance in our national institutions? A common theme emerged in the discussion was that of culture. For example, the first point to be made is that two of our cabinet ministers at present are Priti Patel and Liz Truss, neither of who inspire much in the way of confidence. Indeed, Patel is under fire at present because of her dilatory approach to Ukrainian refugees, few of whom are able to make it to the UK. Do we want more women like this? The riposte was immediate: we are quick to criticise poorly performing female cabinet ministers but what about failing or inadequate male cabinet ministers? One thinks of the dismal performance of the past education secretary who has recently been knighted and what about ‘failing Grayling?’ Secondly, who appointed them but, a man, namely Boris Johnson. The culture point however was that men created a system which leads to people like Truss and Patel. This was not developed but it was implied that women who succeed in these roles have to assume male characteristics and behaviours to do so. The overall (poor) quality of our politicians was noted.

    It was argued that one of the key differences was the differing life experiences between men and women. It meant those in power – predominantly men – simply do not have the experience or personal knowledge of what it is like to be female in our male dominated society. Issues of safety in our streets, being out at night, the attitudes of police towards women and so forth were unknown to them. It applied to those with disabilities and people of colour it was noted. However, what about Margaret Thatcher? When she was made prime minister, it was widely thought she would bring a female perspective to the role but the opposite was the case. No woman was appointed to her cabinet and she took little interest in social issues although she never quite said ‘there is no such thing as society’. The issue of better involvement and decision making was part of SDA’s desire to have a Citizen’s Assembly in Salisbury and the Maltings development, Fisherton Street and the Library were cases in point.

    Back to Priti Patel and co, the point was made that women had to work a lot harder to get anywhere. The discussion moved onto women’s role in childcare which was generally different although the point was made that more men were giving up careers if their wives or partners were doing well. It meant that when they (women) re-entered the workforce after their children had grown up they had had less experience of outside activities (and thus were disadvantaged I think was the point). The need for more, and more affordable, childcare was emphasised the absence of which was a real impediment to women (mostly) being able to integrate into the workforce.

    Someone with a background in education said that men were largely missing from primary school teaching. This led onto a discussion about women being more about nurturing, but, it was counter argued, wasn’t this more about culture than some intrinsic gender difference? It was assumed to be so therefore it came to be. The younger generation have different attitudes and are generally more flexible about these supposed roles. Another view was that it all went back to hunter-gatherer days when men were the ‘protectors’ and although it wasn’t quite clear protection from what: one assumes it was wild beasts. Some women might feel that now wolves and bears have gone it’s men they need protecting from …

    Baboon behaviour was put forward to challenge our views of gender stereotypes. Apparently, male baboons establish positions around the outside of the flange whereas the females cluster in the centre. But, when real danger appears, the male baboons run away whereas the females fight to the death. As if by chance, a new book has just been published entitled: Bitch: A Revolutionary Guide to Sex, Evolution and the Female Animal by Lucy Cooke published by Doubleday. The Guardian review ended by quoting the author saying ‘Much of the distorted science [we] have been taught was shaped by the values of a certain kind of man. To change that … we need more diverse scientists: “a mixture of sexes, sexualities, genders, skin colours, classes, cultures, abilities and ages”. ‘Only then, it seems, will we be able to see the female experience in nature for what it is: “variable, highly plastic”, and “refusing to conform to archaic classifications”. Issue 24, 12 March 2022.

    There were many during the course of the discussion who doubted whether there were great differences between males and females. A lot of it was a kind of cultural overlay: women’s roles were set out for them, how they should behave, what they should wear and what they should do: ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ for example. Women then had to conform to these norms and stereotypes which had then become self-fulfilling. Women should stay at home and look after the children which meant that they were suited to nurturing: basically a circular argument. Meanwhile men were off fighting those pesky wolves and bears. I hope this is a fair summary of what people felt.

    Part two was a discussion around Ukraine and the effects on nationalism. Parallels with the World Wars was obvious. Powerful anti-German feelings were evident in both wars with German homes and businesses attacked as if all Germans were complicit. It was noted that all Germans (in Germany) had to tread carefully once the Nazis came to power – it was more or less obligatory to join the Hitler Youth for example.

    It did seem though that so far at least, people were distinguishing between ordinary Russians and President Putin. Russians were not all being tarred with the same brush. The attacks on Germans during the wars was not being repeated. It was recognised that Russians were largely being kept in the dark because of the tight media and internet control exercised by the regime. The wildly improbable narrative that Ukraine is being led by a Nazi regime was nevertheless believed by many Russians apparently.

    The interesting point was made that sanctions will be hurting ordinary Russians whereas the effects on the elite will not occur for some time.

    Back to the question: isn’t the Ukraine war making us more international in our outlook? It had stiffened NATO, Finland and Sweden were both considering joining and the UK was aligning itself closely with Europe. Whatever happened to Brexit?

    The point was powerfully made about what exactly is a ‘Nation’? Just considering that part of the world, borders have changed over the past 100 years. Poland has moved east and then west, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had gone altogether and whatever happened to Prussia? Czechoslovakia had been created and was no more. Millions lived in countries who spoke languages other than the national language: Polish was spoken in west Ukraine for example. The idea of a nation as some kind of fixed immutable entity was a nonsense. They were like lines drawn on a beach, when the tide of history came in, they were no more.

    It was noted that Russia had never (in recent times) been successfully invaded although they had suffered terrible privations, as in the siege of Leningrad. Ukraine on the other hand, still had memories of the German invasion. Ukraine also suffered a terrible famine purposely engineered by Stalin. Russia also think it was they who won the second World War which they call the great patriotic war. Someone said we need to do more to understand Putin’s standpoint.

    The discussion moved onto refugees which in an eerie way took us back to Priti Patel. Other European nations were welcoming refugees with open arms whereas the UK is … not. There were some who doubted whether they were still proud to be British. Even the Daily Mail is criticising the government although we do have to note that the paper has spent years and thousands of column inches reviling refugees and immigrants.

    A three stage response was suggested 1. fight or flight 2. us and them and 3. thinking about ethical values.

    Finally, and certainly hopefully, was the question, are young people less nationalistic? The answer seemed to be an emphatic ‘yes’ and instances were quoted of various offspring who had married people from other countries and that this was not seen as exceptional.

    Two interesting discussions and a recurrent theme was the differing attitudes between the generations which should give us hope for the future.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: July

    The chosen topic this month was ‘how to repair our broken society?’ The question was inspired by recent feelings of divisions in society which seem quite deep and unbridgeable. There was a sense that since 2008 it had got worse. Everyone seemed to be looking for scapegoats and Covid seemed to have made it worse still. We were reminded it wasn’t just the UK: look at the USA and the events surrounding the Trump presidency. On PBS TV the previous night, there was a programme about anarchist groups in the USA and their role in the storming of the Capitol. The far right seemed to be making progress in several countries, for instance, Hungary.

    Opinion seemed more polarised. One person felt that the right wing had become more radical and that if you believed in broadly left wing causes you were somehow deemed unpatriotic. Those who shouted the loudest were the ones who got heard. This seemed to create sense of tribalism. There were likely to be large numbers of people on the other hand, who were perhaps the silent majority whose voices were not always heard.

    Inevitably social media was mentioned and the way it was able to magnify voices and to create echo chambers. However, it was pointed out that this media did give the opportunity for people, who previously may not have been able to get their views across, to express themselves. Anonymity emboldened people it was noted. Perhaps there was a need for more curiosity it was suggested and the need for people to deliberately explore alternative views to break out of (their) echo chamber.

    Brexit made an appearance and it was noted that friendships had ended because of it and families were also fractured. It seems that not just society was broken but there were breaks at the individual level as well.

    Was it something to do with how the brain works someone wondered? The world was complex and yet we needed simple solutions to enable to understand and make sense of it.

    Should ideas and methods of self-analysis be taught at school? Surrounded by all this ‘noise,’ children and young people needed these skills to be able to question what was coming at them.

    The concept of the topic was questioned. ‘Repair’ implied that the society was once whole and unbroken and was now in need of repair. Our society has always been divided and in a sense broken. There have always been powerful people and groups who controlled the levers of power. For centuries we were essentially feudal. The industrial revolution created huge disparities in wealth and enormous poverty and misery for the majority. Burke’s concept of ‘little platoons’ was mentioned in this regard.

    The conclusion was that although we lived in peaceful times (according to Stephen Pinker) we are perhaps more divided now.

    The second question was: ‘Are we all hypocrites, if so does it matter and can it be beneficial?’ The first point to clear up was the meaning of the word ‘hypocrite’. One definition has it that a hypocrite is someone who expresses certain moral, political or religious beliefs whose actions belie those beliefs. The second, more common use is simply someone who fails to live up to their expressed moral beliefs and it is the second definition that the question was intended.

    It was argued that in this sense the gap between beliefs and action can act as an incentive to close the gap. An example given was someone who is persuaded by moral and environmental arguments against eating meat but continues to eat meat. However, this hypocritical position may encourage the person to eat less meat and then only free range – maybe eventually given up meat altogether.

    A wide-ranging deliberation followed that took in motivations and intentions and freewill versus determinism. One interesting question was whether we can ever know our motivations and desires because they spring unbidden from our unconscious. This prompted a common thread about self-awareness to the extent that the more you know about yourself more likely it is that you might be able to identify your motivations and intentions and choose the ones you want to deploy. Self-awareness, it was claimed, enables you to make the change you want to make.

    Another interesting suggestion was that you should stop worrying about your intentions and consider only the impact of your actions on the grounds that good intentions on their own are not enough because they can go horribly wrong. There was also some discussion about whether all intentions are in some sense egoistic or self-centred or whether at least some can be altruistic in nature.

    It was pointed out that we were in danger of letting politicians off the hook for being hypocrites because they are human like the rest of us, but perhaps that referred to the first definition of hypocrisy rather than the second.

    The last word goes to the political journalist Michael Gerson: “Being a moral person is a struggle which everyone repeatedly fails, becoming a hypocrite in each of those moments. A just and peaceful society depends on hypocrites who ultimately refuse to abandon the ideals they betray.”

    Peter Curbishley; Dickie Bellringer

  • Virtual Democracy Café

    About ten of us met for a Democracy Café meeting on Saturday 8 August via Zoom. I say ‘about’ because one member had a lot of buffering and did not make the second half and one came for the second half only. We are at least keeping the flag flying.

    The proposed topics were all sort of related: the increase in apparent cronyism with contracts going to friends of friends without announcement or tender (wouldn’t be so bad if the projects worked but they don’t even do that); is Black Lives Matter a distraction? and the Tory party’s view of community.

    The week had started with the announcement of a proposed wholesale reform of the planning system by ‘honest Bob’ Jenrick the minister concerned. The ideas is to introduce three zones which would allocate land for various types of development and would give developers a fast track to development (it is claimed). Trevor (who lives in Devizes) said he was hoping to meet his local MP, Danny Kruger, to discuss the issue of community led planning. The Conservatives were said to be keen on the idea although the question was, will they resource it? It does not always seem to be recognised that running and managing ‘community’ events costs money. It will be interesting to hear what Kruger says. The government were once keen on the idea of citizens’ juries but dropped them because many of the proposals emerged from Labour run authorities.

    Local Governance

    It was noted that the government has an almost visceral dislike of local government which has been evident during the pandemic. They are happy to give funds to the likes of Serco rather than support existing LA health teams run down during austerity. Why government is giving out these contracts is being challenged by the Good Law Project. But, it was pointed out, the government had put more into local government recently. Maybe this could herald a change in attitude? We were reminded of the Lansley reforms of the NHS which caused such immense harm and drastically reduced local input.

    Covid-19 had seen a rise in volunteering, community involvement and the activity of local groups and charities. Since local government was not functioning as it should, could the use of community groups be a better way to run things in future? Burke’s idea of ‘little platoons’ had been taken over however by the rise in extreme libertarianism.

    A problem with local involvement it was pointed out was that people often choose what were termed ‘cuddly’ projects to contibute or give money to. Effort and resources may not go to areas of real need if this process was pushed too far. Encouraging people to think strategically was also difficult it was noted. This could be alleviated with proper guidance such as with a citizens’ jury process.

    Linked to this was the issue of ‘infantilising’ of the general public by government ministers. They were aided in this by the echo chamber of social media. It would seem the prime minister and his aids were quite happy to promote this process. Local government was in a pretty poor state and the government should have done more to reverse this: that it hadn’t reflected perhaps its dislike of them and a desire for control.

    Science

    This part of the debate was around influence, the media and social media. I had been listening to the BBC’s How They Made us Doubt Everything (still available) which discussed how the tobacco and oil companies had systematically developed systems and methods to sow doubt on the science. For example, scientists always refer to the ‘uncertainty’ of their results and this was misused to claim that the science as a whole is uncertain. As we have discussed before, the need for balance in TV and Radio reporting meant climate deniers had equal say, leaving the impression that the science was less certain than it is. These arguments are also set out in the book Merchants of Doubt.

    One person said about their son who disbelieved ‘the media’ ie the BBC, newspapers and so on, and preferred to believe what they read on social media. The latter were promoting – or rather allowing the promotion of – anti vaccination for example. Media organisations filter out extremes or wholly unsupported assertions whereas anything can get published on social media which made it attractive to some. It gave them the sense they were getting at the truth which mainstream media was denying them access to. It did give people the opportunity to challenge received opinion.

    Paradoxically, it was noted that the government always said it was ‘following the science’ when it made an announcement. But whose science since the alternative Sage group and WHO often said different things? Maybe it was part of its desire to shift blame with the implied assumption that science is always right.

    We ended with a brief discussion about the future and whether Salisbury Democracy Alliance should have something to say in the local elections. Not to be a party seeking votes but to promote ideas of better government and decisions by using citizens’ juries for example. The meeting took place after the ‘will it, won’t it’ debate about pedestrianisation in Salisbury. [Indeed, one of our participants, Mark, had a letter printed in the Salisbury Journal on this subject (6 August 2020)]. An announcement made, then backtracked and little sign of serious research or consultation. Snafu* as the Americans would say. It was in the long term interests of democracy that better decisions were made. Thus we ended on a positive note.

    Peter Curbishley

    *situation normal all fouled up, although sometimes ‘fouled’ is replaced with something stronger