February 2024
A good turnout for two debates as usual the first being a bit of a surprise. The New Statesman in its 2 – 8th February edition had made two serious allegations concerning the MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen, in a piece entitled: The Rotten State: How corruption and chumocracy are pulling the British Nation apart (subscription needed). The first debate centred on these allegations and what it meant for the future of the MP and the constituency in the forthcoming general election.
The two allegations were as follows: ’[…] the Future Fund, established in 2020 by the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, at a cost of £1.1bn to support British start-ups. The taxpayer has lost almost £300m on the Future Fund, which has given money to the businesses of centimillionaire wife, Ashata Murty, [and] the cabinet office minister John Glen […]’. Mr Glen has shares in a sub-Saharan African mining firm. The second allegation was that Mr Glen attended meetings (which he probably chaired as the City Minister) with the banks to arrange £71bn in loans as part of the Covid recovery. The article suggests that £17bn of this has gone missing according to the Public Accounts Committee. When attempts were made to provide details the journalist was told by the Treasury ‘we do not hold minutes of the meeting’.
The proposer of the topic has written to Mr Glen but his answers were somewhat vague. It was up to the Treasury to keep minutes he said. It was quickly noted that this was becoming part of a pattern with large numbers of WhatsApp messages being deleted both in Scotland and in England in connection with the Covid enquiry. It was simply not satisfactory for the business of the country to be run this way with politicians able to delete the records at will or, in the case of Mr Glen, for their to be no record in the first place.
It was suggested that Covid was an event to enable a large sum of money to be transferred to a small number of people. It was not clear if everyone agreed with this point. The same speaker mentioned Walter Lippmann who spoke about how people were deliberately distracted from the main issue.
The fact that there was no mention of these allegations in the Salisbury Journal was a surprise it was suggested. They do not seem to have asked any questions of him or sought a response. Maybe we should all write to the Journal and ask ‘why not?!’ Did it matter who was the MP? someone said. Yes it did and we right to expect a certain standard of honesty and integrity from those who represented us.
One speaker said she always got a response when she wrote but many others said they did not. They only got a reply if it was a ‘standard’ one they said. One member had written to him about matters in the Maldives for example which Mr Glen has said he has a special interest in since there was a group of Maldivians who lived in the City. No reply has been received**. Another response was to say as a minister he was unable to interfere in another department.
Back to the Journal and it was asked how influential was it? Difficult to answer but it did have a much lower readership which was true of all newspapers it was noted. However, it did give Mr Glen a column each week in which he can tell us what he is doing and as such was a ‘mouthpiece’ for him.
There was a brief discussion about the need to improve local journalism and the Trust News Initiative was mentioned.
The second debate centred on Palestine and ideas around creating a state. The war in Gaza was in full spate at present with a reported 27,000 dead and many thousands missing. The proposer noted that Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, had mooted the idea of a separate Palestinian state. But who would fix the boundaries especially as the Israelis wanted to take more land? Would not be better if the countries of the Middle East held centre stage rather than ‘outside’ countries such as the US?
One speaker noted that Palestine had been offered statehood in 1948, again after the Yom Kippur war and also after Camp David talks. Each time they have refused. At elections they have voted for Hamas who murdered the opposition and who’s only motive is the extinction of the Jewish State. It was also noted the leadership lived in Qatar. While this may be true, it was noted that Hamas had also been supported by Mr Netanyahu partly to destabilise the Palestinian leadership.
This narrative overlooked the significant role played by the US in the region and the powerful influence they had on Middle Eastern politics. The real issue is the relationship between the US and Iran which was a key driver of the politics of the area.
Several speakers referred to outside influences over history – one even went back to the Romans! Perhaps they might ask in the area ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?’ More recently, Britain took a keen interest because we wanted a secure route for Persian oil through the Suez Canal. Mention was also made of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the role of Lloyd George in seeking Jewish support to get the US into WWI. We played a role in the UN Mandate in what was then called Palestine. There was also the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between France and Britain concerning post-war and post Ottoman spheres of influence in the area. One comment was from someone who served with Army in the area in 1948 in an attempt to keep the peace. He referred to the 900 or so British soldiers who were murdered during this time. Wounds run deep.
Latterly, the Americans have held sway. A solution can only come it was said if there was a regional deal. To achieve this some of the Palestinian leadership needed to be released from Israeli gaols.
But the overriding series of comments centred on the role of outside influence of one kind or another. The selling of arms by several western countries particularly the US and Britain although Russian and China are involved, can only inflame the situation. The Abrahamic Accords in 2020 were mentioned and the commitment to recognise both sides diplomatically. They were called ‘Abrahamic’ because they recognised Abraham as a common link between the two religions.
South Africa was mentioned who had launched the case against Israel in the International Criminal Court accusing them of genocide in Gaza which Israel has denied. Could they be mediators? The crucial point someone said was what was needed was a country which didn’t have history in the area. This would rule out USA, Britain, France and some others, all of whom have meddled or had a role in pursuing their interests over the interests of the people who live there. A related factor is possibly a sense of collective and almost atavistic guilt in some of the powers involved especially their bad treatment of Jews over the centuries: their expulsion from York in the twelfth century for example, their expulsion from Spain and so on, not to mention the Holocaust itself.
Northern Ireland was mentioned and the decades of the ‘Troubles’. It was eventually resolved by negotiation, pressure on the UK from the US, and a Canadian negotiator. These things can be resolved. In this connection, António Guterres*, the UN General Secretary was suggested as a possible mediator.
As a final note, the practice of calling someone ‘anti-Semitic’ when they criticised Israel was deprecated.
For once, two unrelated debates as different as chalk and cheese (a good Wiltshire based expression). The next meeting is on Saturday 9th March, same place, same time.
Peter Curbishley
*Guterres is Portuguese.
** Correction 16 February: a reply has now been received and Mr Glen said he will raise the matter with the FCO.
Books:
The Palestine – Israel Conflict, 2015, Dan Cohen-Sherbok and Dawoud El-Alami, Oneworld.
The Balfour Declaration. 2018, Bernard Regan, Verso.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 