Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Salisbury

  • Democracy Café: October 2021

    The Café was able to meet outside for a third time since lockdown

    Not only were we able to meet again but there were several new members and numbers attending were over 20 again. We discussed two topics from the eight that were voted for: ‘More houses for Salisbury – what are the facts?’ and ‘Global Britain – is it a force for good or a force for the bad?’

    We started with the housing question. Anyone driving around Salisbury, Amesbury and Wilton will have noticed the vast increase in the number of houses and huge new estates opening up where once there were green fields. Both ends of the A345 Amesbury Road have seen almost new townships opening up. The proposer noted that the 2006 – 26 allocation for South Wiltshire is around 10,400 houses and the current level of permissions is well over 11,000. In other words, WC has granted permission for more homes than the government requires it to. This extra building brings with it needs for more infrastructure, schools, roads and medical services in particular. Would it not be better to spend more money, not on new properties, but on refurbishing many sub-standard older properties?

    The issue of social housing quickly made its appearance. Although many new houses were being built, only a small proportion were affordable for those on low wages or for the young. Provision for those with disabilities was also poor. The point was made that the right to buy policy was skewed because the funds were returned to the Treasury and were not available to the local authority to construct new council houses (for rent). It was explained that the funds were originally Treasury funds so rightfully went back to them. The government could have changed the legislation if it wished however but chose not to do so.

    The debate broadened into the language we used. We talk in terms of ‘housing’ not ‘homes’, indeed, in the quote of the morning it was pointed out we only use the latter word in connection with second homes which aren’t homes at all. Should we not consider needs more? The system it was suggested should focus more on these needs rather than just responding to the market. This was part of the purpose of the planning system it was pointed out which is not popular and is being curtailed.

    Back to the issue of refurbishment and one of the problems is that new build does not attract VAT whereas refurbishment does. At 20% this is a serious disincentive. A change in the VAT rules would be of immediate benefit.

    One speaker thought part of the answer might be in increasing the level of council tax on second homes. There were 550,000 of these and around 300,000 on waiting lists suggesting he thought a ready solution. However, not all second homes were where the demand or the jobs were, some councils already charge a higher community charge for second home owners (one speaker knew this because her sister owned such a house in Wales and paid more) and would a higher charge induce someone to sell anyway? It was noted that not all second homes were for personal use but were rented out i.e. a home for someone.

    It was noted that some people are stuck in unsaleable flats because of the cladding scandal.

    Land was mentioned. It was noted that agricultural land might sell for around £5,000 and acre but with the benefit of planning, it could fetch a thousand times more. A key element of the price of a house therefore was the land it stood on. Yet there were no policies to tackle this currently and the last attempt – Betterment Levy – was abolished in 1970. A single owner can reap a huge windfall from a sale of land which adds considerably to the cost of a house (or should I say home).

    The role of finance and the mortgage industry discussed. Britain was fairly unusual in Europe and USA in having such large freehold tenure. The majority rented in countries like Germany. This meant a home became an investment not just a place to live. The result was a very large finance industry which it was argued, shifted power away from politicians and towards the financiers. The equity that people had in their homes also led to issues of inheritance and the expectation that it would pass unencumbered to their descendants.

    On the subject of new build, the fact that new houses were not being built to high enough insulation standards was thought to be shocking. Few of the estates had solar panels fitted as standard, an optimum time to do so when being built.

    In Salisbury itself, the development of several large developments for the retired was altering the balance of the city. There was an absence it was claimed of people in the 20 to 40 age band. They tended to leave and only return in middle age.

    If there was a theme to emerge it was that the market was not serving the people but was determined by the power and will of the developers. Their motivation was of course profit maximisation.

    After a break we tackled the second topic about the meaning of ‘global Britain’. What was our place in the world? Has it been coloured by by our colonial past? Do we as a nation spend too much time ‘in the past’?

    In Asia, the perception of Britain was of a ‘chocolate box museum’. In China, where memories are long, our role in the Opium War and colonial repression is still remembered. Talk of human rights do not readily impress. In Europe, their view of us is bafflement (following Brexit it is assumed). The special relationship with America is viewed as something of a joke. All sobering thoughts. It suggested we should show a bit more humility.

    Globalisation was not universal however. Capital was free to move sometimes at the press of a button, and goods are services could sold around the world with only limited restrictions. People were not free to move on the other hand which meant globalisation have different implications for different people.

    On the other hand, the English language was a huge asset and influence and contributed to our soft power. Our cultural influence was extremely strong as was our academic excellence and scientific prowess which is still admired around the world. We were still a relatively uncorrupt country. Perhaps we shouldn’t talk ourselves down too much: we still have some prestige for tolerance, liberty and human rights.

    Progress on this topic was difficult and we were left with the thought – was it little more than a slogan? Did global Britain actually have any meaning? Perhaps ‘Britain in the world’ might be better but it was less catchy.

    Two interesting if quite different debates and the next meeting is on 13 November at 29 Brown Street, our new home.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café

    Democracy Café meets again today – Saturday 9th – starting at 10:00 in Brown St. We shall meet in the former Alzheimer’s building. We look forward to seeing you there in person.

  • People in the Park

    We had a busy day on Saturday 18 September at the People in the Park event in Salisbury. We were blessed by the weather and a steady flow of people through the day. Our SDA stall was well attended and we ran out of Democracy Café leaflets.

    There was interest in the Citizens’ Jury concept which has received a degree of local publicity in last few weeks. It was briefly debated in the City Council last week. There were many questions: what is it? isn’t it expensive? and don’t we have councillors whom we elect to decide these things anyway (and can ultimately vote out if we don’t like them)? Well yes and no.

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance in action!

    The basic concept is a randomly selected group of people who come together over 3 weekends to discuss a topic of political interest. They are advised by experts in the topic. The randomness is important as the problem is often that ‘consultation’ just means a narrow group of people talking to each other. Many feel excluded and public meetings are often populated by only a small part of the population as a whole. The young are only rarely seen or heard from.

    It is quite expensive. Participants have to be paid, selection costs money as do the experts. Then there is room rental etc. But just think of the huge sums spent by Wiltshire Council on half-baked schemes which get nowhere and on their consultation exercises. Wouldn’t it be better to get a more broadly based set of views rather than from council officers in Trowbridge? Consultation in their terms actually means telling us about their plans. How much credence is given to different ideas or suggestions which are contrary to the political beliefs of those in Trowbridge?

    ‘We elect councillors’ is a frequent refrain so why invent a new (and expensive) system? So how many people engage in lengthy and complex discussions with their councillor on these topics? Very, very few I wager. Councillors over the years tell me that their contact with electors are about holes in the road, hedges not being cut, planning application moans and about fly tipping. All important in their way but hardly strategic topics which affect our futures.

    Finally, the process is considerably more ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’. It can be argued that it is genuinely more informed by randomly selected people who have had having had the benefit of expert advice and which is much more likely to recommend practical and doable projects.

    That is why we believe that citizens’ juries are a superior form of policy making than the current system. One person spoke to me who was dead against the idea mostly for the reasons above. He had been a councillor. As we discussed the idea the conversation slowly morphed into how he found being a councillor unsatisfactory and inefficient and he ultimately stood down. On the one hand he was wedded to the current system but, as time went by, he found it more and more unsatisfactory and left. I suppose the moral is that people are so inured to the system that despite its manifest failings, they find radical change of this nature hard to accept.

    At both the national and local level, the way we do politics is failing us. Surely it is time for radical change?

    Peter Curbishley

    Picture: SDA

  • Consultation on Climate policy

    In response to a proposal by Wiltshire Council to consult on their climate policy, the following letter was published in the Salisbury Journal on 9 September 2021.

    [The Journal] reported that Wiltshire Council has launched a consultation on its Climate Strategy (Consultation on council’s Climate Strategy now live, 2nd September). Although engagement with the public is always to be welcomed, we question however whether this is the best way to get a proper and balanced view on this important subject.

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance has argued that a much better approach would be achieved by using a citizens’ assembly. This method selects a truly representative group of people who then meet over a period of three weekends and, advised by experts, discuss the topic in some considerable depth.

    This method has been applied very successfully in several parts of the UK and among its most notable successes have been in Northern Ireland.

    The problem with the consultation proposed by Wiltshire Council is that it will attract the ‘usual suspects’ and those with vested interests to protect or promote. It also limits views to those put before them by the council and hence might inhibit new thinking.

    Climate – as we have seen around the world in recent months – is a hugely important subject and merits a properly organised citizens’ assembly which will provide a genuine and informed contribution to policy formulation. Importantly, it will demonstrate proper involvement by citizens and counter any belief that this is another set of policies which the council is imposing on them.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: August 2021

    The two chosen topics were: Do humans have the will to tackle climate change? and, What impact does concentrated ownership have on local newspapers?

    Two of the problems highlighted early on were, firstly, the sheer scale of climate change such that it seemed too big for us to process and the other brought in the issue of short termism in our political system.  But it was suggested that part of the problem was the framing of the topic. It was often portrayed in a binary way – either we will save humanity or there will be catastrophe, whereas climate change can be mitigated and the damage limited.

    An allegory that proved to be popular suggested that there were three monsters with government in the centre flanked by business and the media, all three wallowing in the mire of money.

    On the other hand, it was also thought that you needed to tackle the problem from both ways, from the individual and from the power dynamics of the three-headed monster.  The participants’ attention was drawn to Drawdown which analyses problems associated with climate change and the solutions – only two of which out of the top 20 were things that we could do as individuals.

    It was suggested that we needed to engage more people in the issue and one way was through deliberative democracy and, in particular, Citizens’ Juries, which is something that Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for for many years.   One topic that could benefit from such an approach was the ill-fated People Friendly Streets.

    Another way of engaging people is through and online tool called Pol.is which enables open ended feedback from large numbers of people and is used very successfully in Taiwan.

    The second question revolved around the fate of local newspapers and the impact of their ownership by a small number of giant corporations.  The Salisbury Journal, for example, is owned by Newsquest – the second biggest newspaper conglomerate in the UK, which itself is owned by the giant USA-based Gannett.

    It was suggested that if you looked at public information as a market square, then before the internet papers like the Journal would have occupied the entire square. But since the advent of the internet and the reduction of journalistic standards created by the business model, that dominance has been eroded to the extent that the Journal occupies just one small stall and the rest of the space is taken up with various, often overlapping groups on social media.

    One of the major problems associated with this, it was pointed out, was the lack of independent, trusted provision of credible, unbiased information and facts, of the sort once provided by local newspapers but now under threat by their diminished status and capability.

    One solution to this could be the creation of groups like Salisbury-based The See Through News Newspaper Review Project. It was pointed out, however, that a deeper problem was the philosophical and cultural undermining of the concept of truth itself, particularly with the rise and dominance of post-modernist thinking. Nevertheless, work like the project was vital as part of the fight back to truth – along with deliberative democracy and Citizens’ Juries.

    Dickie Bellringer

  • 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

  • Citizens’ Jury: progress

    One of the projects the Alliance is keen to progress is to hold a Citizens’ Jury in Salisbury. The idea is to assemble a randomly chosen group of people to discuss a particular problem or topic in some depth. Advised by experts in the topic, the group comes together over several weekends and aims to come to some kind of conclusion. The idea is particularly useful with those knotty and difficult issues which can divide communities sometimes for many years. Salisbury has several of those for example, traffic, pedestrianisation and how the city should adapt to climate change. Views can become entrenched and often detached from any rational examination of the evidence.

    At a meeting of the core group today, we heard of the progress being made. Several political parties have CJs in their manifesto. A meeting was held with Kendal Town Council who held a jury on the topic of climate. Kendal is relevant because they are a parish council like Salisbury.

    We discussed the prospects for funding through the Area Board. We also considered how we could secure a majority of councillors keen to support the idea. On that front, progress is being made although there are some councillors who are not in favour. In view of recent voting results, there may be more of a groundswell of support by people who feel their views were being ignored and this in turn may be reflected in some politician’s attitudes.

    Further meetings are due to be held to see if the idea can be progressed into an actual project. For now, we can say there is cautious optimism that we may be successful in securing agreement and funding for a jury to be held.

    PC

  • Democracy Café: June 2021

    A discussion on ‘Wokeness’ and then the role of charities in society

    Woke has become a political factor which is being used to try and divide people into ‘woke’ and those who are not. One of the features of the new channel to be launched tomorrow (13 June 2021), GB News run by Andrew Neil, is to host debates and provide a platform to counter the claimed domination of our existing media by wokeness.

    One of the politicians promoting the ‘war on woke’ is the Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden, who has issued instructions to cultural institutions saying the government does not support the removal of statues (a serious issue in 2020 in Bristol and elsewhere), that approach to contested heritage should be in line with the government’s position, reminding them of the spending review and asking for them to notify the department in advance of any actions or public statements in relation to contested heritage and history.

    The issue has also flared up in connection with ‘taking the knee’ at football matches. The government refused to condemn the booing which took place at a recent match when players kneeled. It was noted that the England Gareth Southgate asked players if they wanted to do this and the response was unanimously ‘yes’. It was suggested the discord it engendered was ‘manna from heaven’ for the government who wanted to create a divide.

    What does woke mean? One definition is: having an active awareness of systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those related to civil, racial and human rights. Which seems harmless enough but there is an attempt to make it sound like something you shouldn’t have. There was a deliberate tactic it was suggested to bring in other factors, such as defund the police, to add to the criticism.

    In this connection, the process of diversity training was mentioned and how some organisations see it as ‘a joke’. A YouTube video was mentioned called White Fragility in which the author discusses the reaction and responses to racism among white people in the USA. It seems the antipathy was based on fear. This was especially so in America where there is genuine concern that the white population will be in the minority in around two decades time. This fear was also evident in the UK where, although the numbers were a lot smaller, there was still this worry about being taken over or ‘swamped’ by refugees and immigrants. The recent debates about slavery had also caused mixed responses: some felt it was appropriate that this unsavoury part of our past should be discussed and brought into the open. Others (in the wider public) felt it was all in the past and we should ‘move on’. In this connection, a post on the Salisbury Soap Box Facebook page which said: No white person alive today ever owned a slave. No black person alive today was ever a slave. We can’t move forward if people want to keep living in the past was mentioned and the fact it had been ‘liked’ well over a hundred times, presumably by mostly Salisbury people. Many people had written to object to the post but it did reveal an attitude of mind.

    The murder of George Floyd in the USA – and the Black Lives Matter movement which it spawned – had changed the world. We were reminded on the Rodney King attack a quarter of a century ago where a black man had been savagely beaten by police who were subsequently acquitted resulting in riots. This time, the policeman was convicted of his death.

    Someone mentioned seeing a poster displayed in a house saying ‘British values: kindness’. This drew the immediate response that victims of slavery, those conquered in the pursuit of empire, and victims of the opium trade in China may not see it is as particular British quality. It also rather implied that non-British people were unkind.

    The second half of the session debated the relationship between the state and charities from the point of view of who does what. One view was that charities like Help for Heroes should not exist as charities: the government sent soldiers into theatres of war and it has a duty to look after them if they are injured. Using a charity partially absolved the government and the MoD from this duty. It was suggested that this was part of the Conservative philosophy of small government and low taxes. The Cameron notion of the Big Society was mentioned. What did happen to that?

    It was also felt that basic needs – housing, health, education and transport were instanced – should be the responsibility of government since it was important that all citizens had reasonable access to these things. Prof Guy Standing suggests that it ‘was a way to procure services on the cheap, transferring activities done by professional employees to those on precarious contracts and ‘volunteers”. He notes that half charity’s income comes from government. It was suggested that charitable activity should be ‘icing on the cake’ not the whole cake.

    It was pointed out that disposition of charities was very uneven around the country. The prosperous south had large numbers of people who could afford the time to devote to a cause. In poorer parts of the country, where the need was greatest, had fewer people able to devote such time.

    Looking at what charities do reveals that there are popular causes which attract huge sums and other causes which are less popular which struggle to raise money. It was very uneven. A look at the top charities in the UK shows 4 animal charities in the top 20 for example. It was also noted that in the area of disability, the under 18s had fairly generous provision, but once they reached 18, this abruptly stops. Giving was strongly influenced by emotional factors rather than on need.

    Another issue was billionaires who sponsored causes close to their hearts. This meant who got help depended on the beliefs of these individuals not on what society felt might be needed. Many paid no tax so that denied the ability of government to offer more help.

    Charities did however enable people to offer help and this was a good thing in itself.

    We moved onto the question of who helps Syrian refugees for example – should it be the state or charities? Our response was compared unfavourably to Portugal. The worry was expressed that if we were too welcoming this would act as a draw and more would come. Our performance in this regard can be seen on the UNHCR site which discusses some of the myths and misinformation which is common in the press and elsewhere. There was no ‘regular’ way for refugees to enter the country.

    Finally, it was noted that it was harder for charities to make problems known because of recent legislation designed to limit lobbying. This has had a ‘chilling effect’ on the ability of charities to voice concerns on behalf of the causes and people they represented. So although charities were playing an important role in society, legislation made it hard for them to speak about it.

    Two interesting debates and for once, not closely related.

    Books mentioned:

    The Precariat, Guy Standing, 2011, Bloomsbury

    Black and British: A Forgotten History, David Olusoga, 2021, Picador

    Not mentioned but readers may find this book interesting in relation to our slaving history:

    The Interest: How the British Establishment Resisted the Abolition of Slavery, Michael Taylor, 2020, The Bodley Head

    Peter Curbishley

  • Trusting the people

    On several occasions on this site we have talked about Citizens’ Assemblies or Citizens’ Juries where a carefully and randomly selected group of people come together to discuss a topic of local interest. They have been used more and more around the world to try and find solutions to those tricky decisions that can so divide communities. People have great faith in democracy the assumption being that electing people who believe in certain things will result in good government, local or national. A quick look around us should have put paid to that belief.

    Shortly, we shall be having local elections. We have been trying to persuade the various local parties to include CAs in their manifestos with some success. A letter by Dickie Bellringer in today’s Salisbury Journal (29 April 2021) discusses progress so far:

    “There is one political party holding out against People Power in the upcoming local elections – the Conservatives. Before last week’s online candidates’ hustings , organised by the Salisbury Transition City, two Parties – Labour and the LibDems – had already committed to the idea of Citizens’ Assemblies in their manifestos.

    “LibDem candidate Victoria Charleston confirmed that commitment during the debate. The idea is in the Green Party’s national manifesto and the Green candidate Rick Page nailed his Party’s flag to the local Citizens’ Assembly mast.

    “Independent candidate Annie Riddle said we would needed to develop more grass roots democracy including CAs. We don’t know yet what the other Independents think. And Labour’s Clare Moody and Green’s Sarah Prinsloo made the important point, in answer to a question about how to educate people sufficiently to take part in CAs, that participants received information from expert witnesses so that they can make informed decisions.

    “At Salisbury Democracy Alliance we have kept the flame flickering for Citizens’ Assemblies over the past four years despite a cold wind of indifference from the Conservatives – apart from a glimmer of hope when the former City Council leader Jeremy Nettle warmed to the idea.

    “There was, however, silence from the Conservatives on the issue at the hustings and there is nothing in their manifesto. So, if the Conservatives don’t change their minds and if you don’t want to live under what Conservative peer Lord Hailsham called ‘elective dictatorship‘ don’t vote Conservative!”

    Dickie Bellringer is a member of SDA

    Peter Curbishley

  • What does -‘Independent’ mean?

    Increasingly frustrated by poor decisions being taken by local politicians in Salisbury, several people are standing as independents in the forthcoming May elections. Here, SDA member Dickie Bellringer cautions getting too carried away with the idea that independents will automatically solve problems in a letter to the Salisbury Journal two weeks ago.

    “AS a member of Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) and the Labour Party, I welcome independents who want to stand in local elections.  However, it should be pointed out that the description ‘independent’ is not necessarily the same as the description ‘apolitical’.  All independence means for sure is that the candidate is not a member of a political party. It may mean that they are also apolitical in the sense of having no interest in politics but this is not guaranteed.

    “In other words, independents may be just as political as members of political parties – we just don’t know what those politics are. And, by the way, Labour does not have a whip on the city council.  Further, simply standing for election, whether as a member of a political party or not, does not mean you are partaking in a democratic process tout court.

    “It could be argued that what we have would be better described as representative government in which the wishes of the voting public are kept as far away from the policy decision-making process as possible.  Which is why SDA is campaigning for Citizens’ Assemblies in which members of the public are randomly selected to deliberate and advise elected representatives on important local issues.

    “To date two political parties – Labour and the Lib Dems – are known to have included Citizens’ Assemblies in their manifestos as part of their plans for more open local government.

    “Let’s inject some real democracy into our community!”

    Dickie Bellringer