Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Salisbury

  • People power

    This is the title of a letter from our chair published in the Salisbury Journal on Thursday 15 April 2021 on the subject of Citizens’ Assemblies.

    It is time to restore the faith of the citizens of Salisbury in the political process.  To that end, it is heartening to see so many candidates for the City and County elections to be held on May 6th embracing the idea of giving a voice to a wide cross section of the citizens of Salisbury.  Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Independent candidates have all pledged their support for the idea of Citizens’ Assemblies or Citizens’ Juries to consider deeply issues like how to meet the climate emergency or how to revitalise our city centre.  The Conservatives are the notable exception.  Have they not learned that they need to restore the faith of the citizens of Salisbury after their shabby treatment of us in recent years?

    Members of Citizens’ Assemblies/Juries  are chosen by a process called ‘sortition‘, where letters are sent out inviting citizens to participate and those who respond positively are then chosen at random to be representative of the make up or our community in terms of income level, ethnicity, gender and age.  The citizens who are chosen to attend are paid to attend much like a jury in a trial.  This process ensures that people who would not normally be engaged in such issues are give n the means to participate.  

    The participants study the evidence from all sides and make recommendations for our community which are not based on political dogma, sectional interests or personal favour.  Councillors – for all their commitment and hard work – rarely have the opportunity to focus so closely on one issue, hear from the experts scrutinise the evidence and work collaboratively with others to make fully informed recommendations.  This deliberative process is being used in communities throughout the world.   A recent OECD report covered 300 examples world wide.

    Why will the Conservatives at both city and county level not back a process which gives power to members of our community in Salisbury?  We have seen the consequences of poor decision making by the councils for our city.  It is time to restore power to our community. 

    Dr Mark Potts

    Chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance

  • Annual meeting

    The officers held an annual meeting today (31 March 2021) to review progress and plan the future. Overall, the chair said, we have made good progress and the idea of both Democracy Cafés and Citizens’ Assemblies were both gaining ground. Dickie had set up a second Democracy Café in Bemerton Heath and this was slowly gathering members. There were now some 300 assemblies which have taken place around the world. Unfortunately, the CA idea had not been enthusiastically received either by John Glen MP nor the leader of Wiltshire Council Cllr Philip Whitehead. They both felt that they already represent everyone so it is not necessary.

    Account

    The bank account was in funds with little activity at present. As TSB had closed in Salisbury there was the question of where to bank in future.

    Officers

    The Committee was Mark Potts, Dickie Bellringer, Mike Hodgson, Jill Cheatle, Lesley Curbishley and Peter Curbishley. Officers were elected as follows:

    • Mark Potts, Chair,
    • Andrew Hemmings, Treasurer
    • Peter Curbishley, Secretary and website
    • Dickie Bellringer, Membership secretary

    Elections

    Elections are to be held in May and there have been attempts to interest the various parties to adopt policies to encourage Citizens’ Assemblies. Good progress has been made:

    • Labour’s manifesto for Wiltshire has included the policy of ‘trialling the use of a Citizen’s Assembly’.
    • The Labour group on the city council has, in its Statement of Intent, included ‘… supports the use of Citizens’ Assemblies’
    • The LibDems have a policy of encouraging and supporting CAs and has an immediate priority of ‘initiating planning for Citizens’ Assemblies’. Further details can be found from this link.

    Updates

    • A Zoom meeting was held on PR hosted by the LibDems and the local representative of Make Votes Matter will make contact with DB.
    • OECD had published a report Catching the Deliberative Wave which discusses the 300 different models and experiences around the world
    • The People in the Park event has been postponed until September 18th. We have been invited to attend and to speak. We will plan a leaflet or factsheet nearer the time.
    • The Hampshire Equality Trust are considering a Democracy Café which will not be exactly like normal one but will focus on equality issues.
    • A Democracy Café was held with RSA which split into two groups. There will be another meeting in Devon on 11 May.
    • On 18 May there is to be a Zoom meeting with the polymath, Prof Raymond Tallis. A link will be provided in due course. Early registration is advised.
    • The talks to schools are on hold as they will be concentrating on restarting the education programme and catching up on lost time.
    • Dickie spoke of the reading group he runs under the aegis of the Library.
    • The Talkshop event, cancelled at the outbreak of the pandemic, is still on hold. It was agreed that we would not consider restarting the project until we had resumed a face-to-face Democracy Café at the Playhouse. When they re-open we did not know at present.

    Readers would be welcome to join our next Democracy Café which takes place on Saturday 10 April at 10:00 am. Leave a message here to let us know and we will send you the link.

  • Chalk and Cheese, and Save our Salisbury

    February 2021

    In this month’s Democracy Café we debated the question of a land tax a proposal which has appeared from time to time – most recently in the 2019 Labour Party manifesto – but it never lives to see the light of day.  Part of our discussion was taken up with how the Normans established the pattern of ownership in England following the invasion.  Some families who own estates, can trace their lineage back to the Normans even today.

    I was reminded during the discussion of a book published in 1979 by J Martin Shaw (not the actor) entitled Rural Deprivation and Planning, who used to be the County Planning Officer for Norfolk (where coincidentally the actor comes from) who wrote a book about shire county councils and how they worked up until quite recently.  Unfortunately, I lent the book to someone and I cannot find it or its title on the internet.  He described how shire counties like Norfolk used to be run essentially by its landed interests.  For them, a rural county was an ideal form of life.  They had the time and money to be able to take part in local politics and from their ranks, many county and district councillors were elected.  Those who worked the land could not get, or afford, the time off and so the whole issue of rural poverty and disadvantage never got a hearing.

    Wiltshire was similar in many respects.  Wiltshire is unique in that it is the only county not to have a university except for tiny Rutland.  What is now the University of Bath was intended for Wiltshire.   Someone close to the negotiations at the time said the idea of a university was not universally welcomed by those in power in County Hall.  Likewise, the dire state of roads in the county was also as a result of the landowning interests not wanting or needing to improve communications.  They believed in small government, long before the phrase became popular, and county council meetings started at 2pm with the intention of ending by 3pm at the latest.  After a good lunch of course.  As the main aim was to do little and invest even less, this was not difficult.  A senior highways engineer told me they did not want improved communications or roads because it would encourage their workers to look elsewhere.  I have no way of knowing if this was true but it was said with feeling.

    I can see echoes of this thinking in the decisions of county hall even today.  A kind of remoteness and an approach based on ‘we know best’.  When a group of us met the leader of the County Council at the beginning of austerity, their easy acceptance – relish even – for cutting funds in the county was very evident.  There were words of regret but the readiness to cut funding was easy to see.  They talk ‘consultation’ but this is more ‘this is what we plan to do, do you like it?  No?  Tough, that’s what’s been decided.’  When the idea of citizens’ assemblies is put to them, the idea is politely received then during a public meeting in the Guildhall, it is nowhere to be seen.

    There is now a move to get more independents elected onto the City Council.  I suspect this is born of a frustration with continued mismanagement, not especially by the City Council itself, but by their paymasters in Trowbridge.  Will this succeed?  As a Scottish colleague of mine used to say ‘I ha’ ma’ douts.’  One problem is a collection of independents is not a party almost by definition.  Will they be able to collaborate sufficiently to counter the established parties?  Maybe, maybe not.

    Secondly, the City Council is a parish council.  This is really an absurd state of affairs.  I was never a fan of the district council but at least it was local.  A city whose administration is a parish council: bizarre.

    Chalk and Cheese?  This is probably a Wiltshire saying coming from when, in the immediate area of Salisbury, they could only rear sheep on the chalk.  West and north they could raise cattle and produce cheese.  Hence in Salisbury market there were two parts and the cheese was sold outside what is now HSBC bank.  It seems to be a metaphor for the state of affairs we have in the county today with decisions taken in the north of the county and often seem divorced and irrelevant to the south.

    Perhaps we need to think differently and divide Wiltshire into two counties: North Wiltshire and South Wiltshire?  North would continue to run from Trowbridge – after all they seem to have spent millions on the building there.  The south would need to be decided and not necessarily Salisbury.  Save our Salisbury could perhaps direct part of their efforts to this endeavour.  It is likely to reap better dividends and more locally based local government than we have now.

    It leaves the baleful influence of the landed interests still quietly evident.  They can continue, behind the scenes, to select their own.  The only way to counter this is to enliven local democracy.  More independents in a South Wiltshire County Council which has the powers of a county, could make a real difference.

    Peter Curbishley

    Updated 10 March

  • Lib Dem organised meeting

    If you attended the meeting yesterday evening (27 Jan) with 30 others organised by the Lib Dems, you may have seen reference to the SDA. The speaker spoke of citizens’ assemblies mentioning the Northern Ireland example in particular.

    We are keen to support this idea so anybody keen to support it is welcome to keep in touch. We want to establish the principle in Wiltshire. The meeting expressed considerable dissatisfaction with politics both local and national and the speaker, Dr Ian Kearns was encouraging us to get active. He mentioned the Frome Flat Pack project which has been written up here.

    A report by Dr Kearns can be read by following this link.

     

     

  • Democracy Café – December 2020

    We ended this most unusual year with a lively discussion on sovereignty but we also briefly, and rather gloomily, discussed was England doomed?  Two jolly topics leading up to the festive season. We also managed a brief diversion into animal rights.  The meeting was held via Zoom.

    Two aspects to sovereignty were suggested, firstly what is it exactly and what does it mean?  Secondly, we discussed it in relation to the current Brexit situation where, in the last few weeks, it has assumed considerable salience.  This is being written when the UK was hovering on the brink of leaving the EU and leaving without a deal looking like a real prospect.  [If it takes me more than a hour or so to write this, we might even know.]

    We were reminded that all through the tortuous negotiations of the past three or four years, it was economic prosperity which was promised with the easiest trade deal in history and a world waiting to sign us up to their trade deals.  In the last few weeks, sovereignty seems to have loomed larger in the discussions, hence the suggestion we debate it.  Could it be that the realisation that the economic case has become quite weak and so sovereignty has risen up the agenda?

    Every time we make an agreement or sign a treaty with another nation, we essentially give a piece of our sovereignty in return for some kind of advantage.  This is the essence of all the hundreds – probably thousands – of such agreements we have made over the centuries.  It is believed the first treaty the UK signed was in 1386 with Portugal which, outrageously, allowed free trade between the two nations and for free movement of people as well.  There may have been a party formed in the 14th Century called UK Independent of Portugal’ or UKIP for short but I’m not certain.

    In recent times, sovereignty has come to mean ‘bending people to our will’.  It seems to have lost its sense of mutual cooperation and become all about power – and one-sided power at that.  It was observed that there was a sense that we were seeking to leave the EU to prove the sovereignty point – a bit like shooting yourself in the foot to prove you have one.  It was also seen in terms of competition – ‘take back control’ – with winners and losers.  How could we change and move from a culture of conflict to one of cooperation?  What can we do to develop a greater sense of a caring culture?  Perhaps the education system was the place to start. 

    One of the puzzles of the current position and the prime minister’s statements of the past few days, concerns the point that once we have left the EU we will not have influence over its rules.  This is the situation Norway and Switzerland are in:  they are rule takers not rule makers.  If we diverge too much with our labour laws or standards for example, then the EU will be concerned about unfair competition and act accordingly.  It was compared to someone leaving a tennis club and then seeking to change club rules.  Yet this has seemed a difficult concept for some in government to accept.

    There was discussion about the loss of Empire and the effect of that on people’s views.  For some, this loss has been a painful wrench and being tied to the EU merely acted to reinforce that loss.  This was also linked to some of the myths of WWII (‘we stood alone’).  In this connection, and the desire to hold on to an imagined past, could we not imagine a future it was suggested?  We can never go back to that past yet we find articulating a view of the future difficult.

    There was then a discussion about wealth and the banks especially following the crash of 2018.  This was perhaps part of a feeling that sovereignty was too narrowly focused on us and the EU.  We did not have full sovereignty over the City of London yet few were concerned about this.  Chomsky has commented that $47tn has been transferred from the poorest to the wealthiest in recent years: 

    “We have just endured 40 years of regression, the neoliberal regime, a bitter assault against democracy and on the kind of society that can sustain it.  An estimate of the monetary cost to the general population was recently given by the Rand Corporation: $47 trillion transferred from the working and middle classes (90 percent of the population) to the super-rich; the top 0.1 percent doubled their share of wealth to 20 percent of the total since Ronald Reagan.

    “The Rand figures are a considerable underestimate.  Tens of trillions more were “transferred” after Reagan opened the spigots for tax havens, shell companies and other devices to rob the public.  More were developed under Clinton’s deregulatory mania.  Reagan and his partner Margaret Thatcher moved at once to undermine the labor movement, setting in motion the campaigns to deprive working people of the primary means to resist the assault.  The serious decline of functioning democracy is a virtual corollary of the radical concentration of wealth and dispatch of much of the general population to stagnation and precarity.”  Global Policy Journal, 26 November, 2020

    This and other imbalances have never been fully addressed by the Left it was noted.  Corporate Welfare was another area of wealth imbalance which receives almost no attention.

    We moved on to discuss big corporations and their increasing power.  Shoshana Zuboff’s book on Surveillance Capitalism was mentioned.  People are beginning to have second thoughts about some of the tech giants and their increasing power.  It was the power of ‘them’ – a reference to the various corporations, media firms and banks – who seem to control our lives in various ways.  The likes of Cummings and Johnson it was suggested, were about facilitating the movement of wealth upwards i.e. from the poorest to the wealthiest.

    In this connection, the concept of psychopolitics was brought up: a kind of version of Big Brother where people are conditioned by a combination of neoliberalism, corporate power and information.  How this was used in America to micro-target the black vote and successfully persuade them not to vote was given as an example.  

    Was England doomed?  The many problems – economic, a failure of democracy and the first past the post system, and cultural divisions, all led to a gloomy view.  In a sense we are now in a ‘phoney war’ as far as the EU was concerned, the full effects either way will not be fully felt until 2021.  Could this be an opportunity to reset it was suggested, a bit like after the wars which heralded important social changes in housing and the creation of the NHS?  Possibly, but during those wars, significant work was done in preparation as part of a desire for ‘never again.’  No such preparation is currently in progress since leaving the EU is believed to lead to a successful future for the country.  Indeed, the government is preparing bills to limit the power of the judiciary and to modify the Human Rights Act which some would argue are negative steps. 

    Some were more positive on the other hand noting the huge rise in community support which emerged with programmes like the NHS responders and locally, WCA.  This was reflected in more positive coverage of events in the local media. 

    This took the discussion on to the issue of subsidiarity – leaving decision making as close to the individual as possible.  We discussed likely devolution in England; the desire by the Scots to stay in the EU (if UK leaves), and the increasing independence shown by the Welsh government over the past year.  Perhaps there might be a greater role for local government it was suggested. 

    Finally, we moved onto animal rights.  It is here that we have almost complete sovereignty despite the fact that many animals are sentient creatures and are social.  Animals were not in a position to reciprocate however. 

    This only gives a flavour of the debate.   Perhaps one of the main conclusions is how partial the debate is framed particularly in relation to the EU.  It is seen as a kind of zero sum game where if you have a treaty with another country, then you have lost something and your sovereignty is diminished.  It seemed to be linked to nationalistic sentiments.  Secondly, it is extremely partial in its application seeming only to apply to Brussels.  Corporate power, and in particular the tech giants, the City and countries like USA and China all exert power over us and actually, or potentially, reduce our sovereignty, yet this is seldom discussed and almost never in terms of lost sovereignty.  

    Peter Curbishley

    Our next meeting is on 9 January and you would be welcome to join which you do by getting in touch with one of us.

  • People Friendly Salisbury

    A case for a Citizens' Assembly?

    The last few weeks have seen an outpouring of discontent concerning the People Friendly Scheme in Salisbury and it is going to be abandoned if temporarily.  Last week’s Salisbury Journal letters pages were almost entirely taken up with criticisms and negative comment about the scheme.  This week’s Journal has seen several comments in favour of it with comments such as ‘once again, Salisbury has managed to lead the way backwards into an era of continued traffic confusion and commercial decay …’

    How have we arrived at this state of affairs?  How come that the scheme is launched and has to be abandoned after such a short period?  In defence of Wiltshire Council, they were unlucky (perhaps) with their timing coming as it did in the middle of the pandemic.  It could be argued, on the other hand, that faced with the pandemic, they might have decided to postpone the experiment until steadier times. This is the substance of Mr Glen’s comments.

    However, if you look at the WC site and read the PFS pages, you can easily spot straight away a major problem: it is all about traffic.  And nothing but traffic.  If all you think about is traffic, it is hardly surprising that the other elements of the scheme get forgotten.  One of the problems with an organisation like the county council, is that they consist of large departments of which highways is one of the biggest.  It is staffed by highway engineers.  There is a danger of myopic thinking and the web site is replete with traffic orders, technical stuff about traffic management and suchlike.  I could find little to explain non technical benefits.

    PFS is more than tarmac however and is about people, the environment, amenity and businesses.  A scheme of this nature has to be sold and explained properly.  The human aspects have to be taken into account.  I suggest it was technically led added to which ‘consultation’ simply meant submitting comments after the big decisions have already been made.

    So if your timing is wrong, the project is technically based and highways led, and managed remotely from Trowbridge, it is perhaps not surprising it results in a giant raspberry.

    Could it be done better?

    Dickie Bellringer (of this parish) writing in today’s Journal (26 November 2020) says:

    “If ever there was  a case for having a Citizens’ Assembly, the debacle of the PFS has surely got to be a contender…

    He goes on to recommend the use of Citizens’ Assemblies to tackle just this sort of project.  It would bring together a properly random selection of people to discuss this topic, informed by expert witnesses.  Which brings me to a further point: an examination of the web reveals study after study, research and other reports, on the implementation of similar schemes around the world.  All these studies – without fail that I could find – spoke of the benefits.  These included environmental, safer streets and better spend in the shops and restaurants etc. indeed, quite the opposite of what the letter writers wrote the previous week.

    Another key problem for Salisbury is that the City Council is a parish council with few powers and little money.  Power resides in Trowbridge and many Salisbury people will know from long experience that something mysterious happens on Salisbury Plain that seems to affect the thinking of Trowbridge folk when it comes to matters Salisbury.

    So, in summary, we have a highways led project devised with little sign of any consideration of the human aspects of what they proposed, with little sign of previous experience of such schemes being used to ‘sell’ the project, followed by a consultation exercise consisting of asking people to comment on what’s largely been decided already, launched in the middle of a pandemic and run from Trowbridge.  Apart from that, it was OK.

    Better would be to involve a random selection of citizens, informed by experts and made aware of how such projects have been implemented elsewhere, and paying due attention to the human aspects involved (as well as environmental etc.).

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café – September

    We held a Democracy Café via Zoom on Saturday 12 September 2020 which was quite well attended. The topic which won the vote was, unsurprisingly, the decision by the government to table an Internal Market Bill 2019 – 2021 to enable the government to override the withdrawal bill agreed with the EU under the Northern Ireland Protocol. This had caused a major outcry across party lines as it would mean the government would be able to breach an international treaty. This all took place in the week previous to the meeting.

    Members were united in feeling helpless in the face of this action. We wondered in fact, if it was put to some kind of vote, whether it would get much support in the nation as a whole. We discussed whether it was in fact a ‘wheeze’ to force the EU onto the backfoot. By doing this, it might force the EU to stop negotiations and hence enable the government to blame them for being intransigent. Evidence of this can be seen in papers like the Telegraph which was blaming the EU for the problems, not the UK government for introducing the bill.

    Could it be part of a plan to destabilise all our institutions? One by one, organisations and individuals are blamed, sacked or side-lined. Senior civil servants, ministers who did not support the prime minister, judges and the BBC have come in for attack and threats.

    The idea of seeing the government as facilitators rather than actual government was a way of looking at this. Perhaps we might debate this idea in the future more.

    Corruption

    Still on this topic, the debate moved onto the ‘revolving door’ the process by which ministers, military leaders and senior civil servants, leave government in their hundreds to go and work for various companies that lobby them or receive funding from the government. It is supposed to be controlled but effectively isn’t. This clearly leaves the door open for influence peddling on a massive scale. The full extent of this was set out in a Transparency International report in 2011* and has featured in several Private Eye articles and a full length feature.

    Another factor has been a steady trail of contracts placed without notice or tender with firms and organisations which were either incompetent or inept (track and trace) and many of which were friends, relatives or cronies of members of the government. It seems as though all rules of good governance have been jettisoned.

    There seemed no way to control this. Power lay with the executive and there was no way to scrutinise them. The only way it seemed was to take to the streets. Even here, the government has introduced restrictions and fines of £10,000 to try and stop these, purportedly as part of Covid-19 restrictions. This prompted the question, was the government using the pandemic to try and stifle protest?

    Do people care in fact? Since the majority of our media was owned by individuals who have access to some extremely creative accountancy to enable them (perfectly legally) to avoid paying tax, it was not in their interest to promote stories of corruption since the light might shine on them. Hence there was little disquiet among the public at large. Another factor was the role of social media which served to distract from the real problem. It was ‘encouraging wilful ignorance’ someone said.

    This led to a discussion about 2008 and the fact that none of the bankers involved had been called to account for their part in the crash. The Coalition government of Cameron and Osborne had been able successfully to blame the Labour government for the crisis and to introduce austerity. The rest is, as they say, history.

    City of London

    We discussed the role of the City of London and its part in siphoning huge sums of money off to various tax havens. George Monbiot had written an article about it in this week’s Guardian. It was noted that the City is not fully part of the United Kingdom and protects its independence jealously. They employ a man called the Remembrancer who is the only unelected person in the House of Commons part of whose job is to frustrate any moves to inhibit the power of the City. Attempts to remove him have always been unsuccessful.

    It was suggested that one of the reasons for Brexit was the fear the City had that the EU was seeking to contain their power and were considering the introduction of legislation. In the end, money was more powerful than democracy it was said. When John Glen MP was appointed Minister for the City about 2 years ago, it was suggested to him in a letter to the Salisbury Journal that he would do his constituents and the country an enormous service if he got rid of this anomalous post. He did not reply. The post is still there. The City is still at the centre of an enormous web of corruption.

    Philanthropy

    We discussed philanthropy briefly following a ‘long read‘ in the Guardian recently. This was linked to the topic because some firms had made vast fortunes and sought to whitewash their reputations by giving money to certain causes. Some felt that they had made the money so should be free to spend it how they wish. Much wealth was inherited however but even if a fortune was made, it relied upon employees, social support, education and society generally to achieve. No man was an island.

    Conclusion

    There was a feeling of helplessness at the activities of the government who seemed beyond control. What can one do? However, one member said s/he had written to John Glen several times and received the normal party line responses but that s/he had written about the Cummings scandal and his response was not party line. We agreed to write to him to ensure that he was aware that there are people who think the proposed legislation is outrageous.

    We will – as the Salisbury Democracy Alliance – campaign in next year’s local elections, not for election, but to promote the idea of citizen’s juries.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Treasure Islands, Tax havens and the men who stole the world, Nicholas Shaxson, 2011, Bodley Head

    Money Land, Why thieves and crooks now rule the world and how to take it back, Oliver Bullough, 2018, Profile Books

    *no longer available on line

  • Virtual Democracy Café

    On Saturday 27 June 2020, a small group of us had a go at a virtual democracy café courtesy of Skype. Not altogether successful because of technical issues and the occasional drop out. Nevertheless, we did manage a discussion of various topics and it was good to meet up during this time of forced isolation.

    The conversation started with the future of Salisbury and in particular the ill-fated library scheme. It was always a scheme which looked particularly precarious before the current Covid-19 problems with retail. The idea of shifting the library away from its current central position was not widely popular. Converting the tunnel into an arcade of shops also seemed a dubious proposition. The decline in retail activity during the forced lockdown was probably the final kiss of death for the scheme although the Salisbury Journal reported that it had been paused. In the last few days, Wiltshire Council is one of the authorities which are effectively bankrupt if they were a commercial concern. It was questioned whether the planning application had been withdrawn.

    We spent a little time discussing the TV programme on the Salisbury poisonings which were mostly thought to be a good piece of drama. One of the scenes showed an angry meeting of residents and the person who was at the meeting said this was not how it was. There were angry questions but this was not the general tone of the meeting. Well, that’s drama I suppose.

    We got onto discussing the future of Salisbury and it was suggested that it was an opportunity to rethink the city and how it will be in the future. Climate was one consideration and would the City take the opportunity to make it more green and do things like pedestrianisation and making it more people friendly?

    Against this was the increasing use of cars with people less inclined to use public transport. People have also got used to on-line shopping in a big way and some may not wish to go back to physically visiting the city. More were working from home and this trend was going to increase as will more automation of work.

    The effects of pandemics in history on politics was discussed. It sometimes had the effect of forcing political change: shortage of manpower after the plagues for example improved wages for the poorest if only because there were fewer of them. But, it was noted, inequality increased post the 2008 crash so disasters did not always result in improvements. It was noted that the [Overton?] window had moved a little in terms of things like government expenditure. The government had borrowed heavily during the crisis, a policy inconceivable in the recent past. The current government was committed to ‘balancing the books’ and it was likely that the ‘book balancers’ would emerge at some time in the not too distant future, indeed, George Osborne was busy opining to this effect on BBC’s Start the Week recently.

    We hope to repeat this next month on 11 July but which medium we will use is currently being looked at. Those on the email list will receive an invitation to join so we hope to see some more people then if you care to join in.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café, February 2020

    The February 2020 Democracy Cafe saw discussion of two topics:

    1. Can we trust things that come out of China?

    The latest thing to come out of China is of course the coronavirus and it was this that was discussed first. Given levels of secrecy in China, are we getting the full picture of the seriousness of the situation? Reports seem to suggest that the Government is being more open about the spread of the virus and is taking serious measures to try to contain it.  It was suggested that this was perhaps due to concerns from the Chinese Government that if they don’t deal with the situation it may present a threat to their authority.  This is the view of Richard McGregor writing in the Observer this week. The coronavirus, along with the protests in Hong Kong, may be seen as undermining the authority of the ruling party.

    There was discussion of trust in relation to Chinese trade and their economic strategy.  It was suggested that historically the Chinese have expanded their political influence through trade, rather than through military endeavours.  Are we seeing this today in Africa and South America, where Chinese economic expansion is extensive? Does the way that the economic expansion is carried out amount to exploitation, or are there mutual benefits for the countries concerned?  It was generally agreed that the goods that China is exporting are now more trustworthy than they used to be because they are higher quality.  They used to be known as ‘junk’ and tat but know we routinely buy high tech goods from China.  It was suggested that the Chinese economic strategy of government intervention to improve living standards and reduce absolute poverty has been successful in building the trust of Chinese people in their Government but the slowing of economic growth may represent a threat to the consent that they have been given.

    It was suggested that whilst discussing this topic we might need to be mindful of how our perceptions of China are shaped by our own media and by opinions coming out of the USA.  Trump’s trade war with China has generated a rhetoric of mistrust, as has the discussion over Huawei.  It was pointed out that trust in governments and the operation of states is an issue in other countries as well, including our own and the US.  Examples were given of how authorities in the UK and the US routinely track transatlantic messages.  It was suggested that “information is the new oil” in terms of its’ value.  The Chinese authorities recognise this value and exert control over social media.

    Trust is an issue for China over its’ treatment of minorities and reference was made to the Uighur people and the appalling way that they are being treated.  Perhaps there is a need to take the Chinese authorities to the International Court over this issue, but which country would be bold enough to do so?  Is it a case that the Chinese regard this as their century and are willing to override the wishes of others in order to become the dominant world power?  This lead to a more general discussion about when do we reach a point that the actions of the state are so bad that we stop trading with them bearing in mind that multinational corporations are so influential.

    One thing is for sure, China’s behaviour will continue to be a major talking point in the coming decades.

    2. Is positive discrimination a help or a hindrance?

    The assertion was made that if someone is appointed to a post due to positive discrimination and they perform badly this reflects negatively on the process of positive discrimination.  Some comments were made suggesting that the best person for the job should be hired and reference to various strategies, such as the anonymising of applications, was made as a way of reducing negative discrimination in the recruitment process.  It was pointed out that appointing the best person for the job often meant appointing someone who fitted in with the predominant culture in the work place and not “rocking the boat” which would preserve the dominance of white middle class male culture.  It was suggested that there will often be more than one candidate who seems suitable and in those circumstances it may be sensible to positively discriminate in favour of a member of a minority group.

    The discussion moved on to the importance of creating a more level playing field through a more equitable education system and by raising the aspirations of members of minority groups so that they are more likely to apply for high powered jobs.  Reference was made to the predominance of private school alumni in positions of power.

    It was mentioned that there are an increasing number of women heads of state around the world, examples being Finland and New Zealand and Angela Merkel in Germany.  It was noted however, that even when a woman is the head of state they do not necessarily advance the cause of women, as with Margaret Thatcher who did not appoint a single woman to her Cabinet.   

    Our next session is on Saturday 14th March at 10am at Salisbury Playhouse. This will not be the same as our usual Democracy Cafe. Instead it will be a TalkShop activity on how we in Salisbury can tackle the climate emergency.

  • Interesting article published by the chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance

    Mark Potts, who is the chair of SDA, has published an article in the Educational Journal of Living Theories and it discusses his motivation for taking part in the formation of SDA and the Democracy Cafés which have been running successfully now for over two years.

    He discusses the divisions following the Referendum and the need for a change in culture and behaviour if we are to see an improvement in political engagement. It is an interesting read and the article can be accessed from this link.

    The next Democracy café is this Saturday 11th January 2020 starting at 10:00 as usual and lasts 2 hours. It is free to attend but if you feel able to contribute to our expenses that would be appreciated.