Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Salisbury

  • Democracy Café

    December 2024

    The question ‘Why don’t socially progressive politics get more traction in the UK?’ with an added thought that could the UK turn into a fascist state? won the vote today. In explaining the topic it was asked why people and the planet don’t matter more than profit? Isn’t what matters is the whole of society not just a select few? Wealth concentration seems just to benefit a minority. The notion of ‘trickle down’ has not worked: inequality has increased year by year.

    One reason is that the wealthy have the ear of government. They are able to stir up fears of progressive policies. Remember the fuss around minimum pay? There was a dangerous combination of power and vested interests. An example might be farmers who have protested a lot recently concerning government plans to widen the scope of the capital gains tax. They own 40% of the land yet contribute only 0.6% to the national income.

    Labour won a big majority in the recent general election yet how progressive are they in fact? The plain fact is that the Tories keep winning and have been in existence for 2 centuries. Labour had to water down their policies to enable them to win it was claimed. They had ‘caged themselves in’ it was said. Politicians played to the media. It was politicians who dominated the airwaves. Rory Stewart’s book was mentioned and his unsuccessful attempts to improve policy making.

    Was it another example of media power. A handful of wealthy owned much of the print and online outlets and sites. Oligarchs were not known to be fans of progressive policies and their publications echoed that. It was claimed that the civil service were ‘not keeping up with the times’ and that ministers could not rely on the successful implementation of policies. A remark very similar to those made by the Prime Minister recently in his ‘managed decline’ speech. However, it was easy to blame the service someone said but were we clear about its value?

    An anomaly was the court system which was clearly falling apart. People are waiting years for justice and cases are abandoned because of the lapse of time. The courts are there to protect the establishment yet they are failing. The judges are a powerful component of the elite yet they have not been able to improve matters.

    Was tax an issue? People clearly want the NHS to be fixed, to get dental care and the potholes to be filled in but they do not want to pay higher taxes. Any politician saying ‘I will do these things but I’m going to put 2p on your income tax’ is unlikely to get voted in. The problem was that people who were already poor would resent paying more. The question was how to tackle the wealth issue and the idea of a maximum income. An aspect of this topic was that the wealthy do not use buses for example and therefore have little interest in their provision or efficiency. (Mrs Thatcher famously never used a bus). Cutting public spending was popular and the president of Argentina Javier Milei was quoted as being an enthusiastic cutter of public spending. (Argentina does have massive economic problems and one of the highest inflation rates in the world. Strange to think as an aside that the country was once tipped to become one of the wealthiest in the world. The name derives from the Spanish word for silver which was found in abundance by the colonists). Back to the plot …

    ‘The message of the rich is always in the ascendant’

    We talk of ‘trickle down’ it was noted but what about ‘trickle up’? It was about the distribution of wealth. Currently, considerable wealth was in very few hands and much of it was invested or went overseas rather than spent. If wealth was better distributed then more of it would be spent thus increasing the size of the economy. Perhaps, sardonically, it was noted that ‘trickle down’ obeys the law of gravity whereas ‘trickle up’ requires a revolution. Well, maybe not so sardonic. The message of the rich is always in ascendant. The same speaker spoke favourably of Marxism.

    The tax point was taken up and the fact that economics was not taught in schools – a point discussed at previous meetings. We needed a more literate society in these matters. There was a need for both economics and politics to be taught. The problem with the latter is that politicians were fearful of ‘lefty’ teachers indoctrinating children – a ghastly thought.

    Scandinavia was mentioned as a society which was more egalitarian and where there was high levels of tax to pay for welfare. Finland was the country with the happiest citizens.

    We got onto neoliberalism and the history of the project. It started in the University of Chicago with the ‘Chicago Boys’ and their first ‘experiment’ was Chile where a revolution was instigated by the CIA to oust President Allende and install President Pinochet. It was all about a small state, low taxes and free market ideas. The UK was next under Mrs Thatcher and it spread thence to the USA. The UK was little more than a vassal state to the US it was claimed yet it was something which seldom appeared in the media.

    There was a brief diversion discussing Syria (Assad had been deposed this week and it was the main feature of news programmes).

    Finally, the protests in Westminster by farmers protesting about CGT. It was noted that despite blocking chunks of the capital with tractors and disrupting traffic, no one was arrested. Contrast with climate protestors some of whom are in prison. Yet no outrage in the media about the disruption. Odd that. Who’s interests are being protected someone asked?

    A concluding remark was to say that complex problems are reduced to binary issues. Then to demonise one part (immigrants for example or the ‘workshy’). We were left with the original question – where is the compelling narrative from progressive politics? This perhaps was a clue to the problem. Society is complex and the problems are complex also. Solutions had to be nuanced and were unlikely to be simple let alone able to fit the binary narrative. This made ‘selling’ them to the electorate challenging.

    The second half debate was on prisons and the question was ‘Why do we go on locking up more and more people and for longer?’ Prisons, and prison overcrowding, are much in the news presently and the new government was forced to release many prisoners early to find space. Is sending people to prison a deterrent? Someone who visits prisons said research has shown that it doesn’t work. By this we meant that the recidivism rate was extremely high. Many came out with crime skills enhanced rather than reduced by better behaviour.

    Politicians like Ken Clark and Rory Stewart were mentioned along with David Gauke and Lord Timpson all of whom in different ways have realised that the system is ‘broken’ and we cannot go on simply stuffing more and more people into already overcrowded gaols. Attempts to reform the system have quickly failed because of various prime minister’s fears of public reactions. This was summarised by the phrase ‘tough on crime’ and all politicians are nervous that any reform will dent their reputation for toughness. The public are fearful someone said (of criminals I assume they meant) and this was driving a lot of media hostility.

    There were good ideas and Lord Timspon, the Minister of State for prisons, was a hopeful appointment. His firm appointed many ex-offenders in their shops we were reminded.

    The current 2024 Reith lectures were mentioned as they discussed aspects of this problem and in particular the issue of evil. It was argued that therapy could change people. People have to want to see changes it was said (quoting Lord Timpson). Some US states – including some Republican ones – were adopting these principles. If the prevailing view however, was ‘lock ’em up’ then change was unlikely: actually, not ‘unlikely’, it won’t happen. If you dehumanise people in prisons (and many were infested and there were two prisoners in each cell in many cases), it was no surprise they came out worse.

    We were fortunate to hear from someone who works with sex offenders coming out of prison. Most had made up their minds not to reoffend. Their work was to help them stay away from reoffending by offering them help and support. They would like some of the experiences fed back to influence policy. It was noted (and almost passed unnoticed) that this work was being done by volunteers. The inference being (I am suggesting) that this should be an organised programme of activity, not something that depends on a small charity which has to scramble for funds to survive. We were reminded that many in prison had emotional problems, were abused as children and literacy rates were low.

    Perhaps we should try the Socratic method it was suggested. Ask the prisoners: is it doing you any good?

    The discussion moved to causes. In a sense, imprisoning people is the end of the line of society breakdown. If inequality is rising and people are living in poverty there is a tendency to criminalise social conditions. We need to explore the underlying causes not endlessly talk about symptoms. If you reduced the ‘input stream’ as it was expressed, you reduced the ‘outputs’ of criminality.

    There was a problem however. The discussion was focused on rational argument. The assumption being that by establishing facts and finding out what worked, policy could be changed for the better. As already noted, some ministers have tried this and come unstuck, as in sacked. Prison policy was fixed on emotional reactions and, as someone said, vengeance.

    It was noted that when John Glen first became MP, he was asked about voting for prisoners in their final year or two of their sentence, say. He did not agree with this. David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, said ‘it made him sick’. It was subject to a long-standing row with the EU.

    Finally, religion made its entrance and Old Testament beliefs. There was the doctrine of original sin although this was a late addition to the Christian faith. The Quakers were in the forefront of prison reform and the Methodists were active in the anti-slavery movement.

    These were two good debates and it was interesting that a key element in both was the issue of how the media treated the various topics. Whether it was around how society is run or the reform of the prison system, if people are bombarded by negative attitudes, if argument is reduced to simplistic notions and the owners of newspapers and social media sites can exert such power, change will be difficult to achieve.

    [Added 6 January 2025] On the question of tax, the following link was suggested https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on Saturday 11th January 2025. Seasons greetings to all our readers!

    Latest posts:

  • Assisted dying

    The Bill raises troubling aspects about our democracy

    November 2024

    On Friday 29th November, the House of Commons will debate the private members bill to allow assisted dying. Views about this are very varied. Some, who may have experienced a loved one suffer at the end of their life, may be in favour. Others, and sometimes for religious reasons, are opposed to it. Still others worry that it will be abused and that it is the ‘thin end of the wedge’. Elderly people are known to worry about ‘being a burden’ and might consent to the procedure for quite the wrong reasons. There may be the occasional family keen to hasten the end of a parent with the aim of securing their inheritance sooner. Medical staff, committed to saving life, may be reluctant to be drawn into doing the exact opposite.

    There are matters both of conscience and practicalities. The latter to ensure that there are watertight procedures to prevent abuse of any kind. Recent medical scandals have shown however, that the profession cannot be relied upon to police itself reliably. Medical people who whistle blow are treated shabbily by the NHS and often driven out of the profession altogether. Our judicial system is less than perfect with miscarriages of justice galore. You only have to say the words ‘Post Office’ to see into a world of corruption, incompetence and the mass failure of our various institutions to do the basic business of acting with honesty and integrity. Dare one mention Archbishop Welby exposing yet another institution failing spectacularly. All around, whether it’s government, police, the judiciary, NHS, Anglican and Catholic churches, there are examples of gross failure to protect the vulnerable, to act honestly, to be open or admit failure.

    Given these facts, it is not too surprising that there are some who are reluctant to put themselves into the trust of such flawed institutions.

    However, accepting that there are many – and by some polls, a majority – who would like this to be law, the question is how, as ordinary citizens do we make our views known? In Salisbury, our two MPs are John Glen and Danny Kruger. The latter was exposed in the Observer for allegedly being a kind of ‘front’ for evangelical Christians who have contributed £55,000 to the campaign against the bill. He is being investigated by the Commons Standards body and we must await their findings. We do not know what Glen’s views are but he is also an evangelical Christian and often mentions his faith as a guiding force in his life.

    Is our democracy working?

    This raises interesting questions about our democracy and how it works in our corner of the world. Both these are likely to vote against the bill (Kruger definitely, Glen probably) on the basis of their religious beliefs. Yet, the recent census shows that the number of people who are Christian is now a minority at 46%. It has declined significantly from the previous census. Those who actually take an active part in the religion is much smaller still.

    Do either of them know what their constituents think about this? I very much doubt it. Although some MPs have honourably and assiduously gone around their constituencies and attended various meetings to find out, I am not aware of either of ours having done this. Parenthetically, if it passes its second reading it will go to the Lords where a collection of bishops will have their say: the same bishops who are part of the deeply flawed CofE. There is at last a move to have the bishops removed from the Lords. [It did pass its second reading. Both Kruger and Glen voted against the bill]

    So the MPs, in all probability, will vote against the bill based on their personal and religious beliefs. In a personal capacity – the same as anyone else – they are free to express their views for religious or any other reason. But they are supposed to represent the constituency and not just the religious people within it.

    Citizens’ Assembly

    These arguments suggest that we should have had a Citizens’ Assembly on this matter. That would have enabled an informed debate to take place and for a wide section of the community to take part. The failure to do so, and an almost complete failure in the media and elsewhere to suggest that such a thing should take place, points to a breakdown in our political process. Not only do our MPs not know what their constituents think about this important issue, but many in Kruger’s constituency will be unaware he is being investigated over the matter. Neither the Salisbury Journal nor the Gazette and Herald have reported it. [Correction: 29 November. both G&H and SJ have now reported it on line.] Glen reveals that the majority view of his constituents was for the bill which passed its second reading today.

    This is an important moment and the Assisted Dying bill is the latest example of people being given the power to decide their own fates and it not being determined by church or state. If the bill falls, it will be a long time before it is put forward again. As citizens of south and east Wiltshire, we are surely entitled to have our views known and taken account of. Instead, we have one MP acting surreptitiously, it is alleged, on behalf of a religious group and another driven by his evangelical beliefs. To what extent are they reflecting the views of those they are paid to represent? The answer I suggest, is not at all.

    Peter Curbishley

    UPDATE, 28 November. Mr Glen devotes his entire column in the Salisbury Journal today to this subject. Although not actually saying he will vote against, the tenor of the piece is that he will. It is based he says on discussions with people and medics and doubts some of which are similar to those mentioned above. He also mentions his own family. He makes no mention of his religious beliefs.

  • Democracy Café

    November 2024

    Post amended 23 November

    A lively and well attended session on the Saturday following the wonderful/disastrous (please delete as appropriate) election of Donald Trump to be the next president of the USA. You may not be surprised to know that eight of the 10 topics people proposed were, in some way or another, connected to this event. The one actually chosen was Why did the Democrats lose the election?

    It was suggested that many – a bit like the UK election – didn’t like either candidate, so ‘held their noses’ and voted for Trump partly because he fitted their views. It was suggested that Donald Trump focused on the economy (mostly) whereas Kamala Harris by contrast spent time on things like women’s issues and seldom discussed the economy. It was noted that in fact the economy was doing quite well with 2.2% growth and inflation at 3% but the Democrats failed to get the message across.

    The elephant in the room someone said was the middle east and Gaza in particular. Democrats were put off by Harris’s attitude and silence and many Moslem’s did not vote.

    Another factor it was noted was the late entry by Harris and the lack of a primary. She had little time to establish herself. She was a poor candidate someone thought. Would there have been a different result if the Democrats had had a better candidate it was suggested? I was asked, after the meeting, to include this link to a Guardian article from someone who worked for the Democrat team over the pond. It is an interesting perspective.

    A different view concerned people’s lack of understanding of economics. The discussion moved to the UK at this point and it was noted that it is not taught in schools below A level. It is seen as a specialist subject and is a small part of the curriculum even where it is taught. Bill Clinton’s ‘it’s the economy stupid’ was quoted to express how important the subject was to people. In this connection, it was said that whereas the economy might be performing well but for many Americans, life was a struggle. Someone who’s son was in Texas said they don’t feel well off.

    Back to the USA and the Democrats had a credibility problem it was said. Her focus on gender identity issues; women’s rights combined with Jo Biden’s very visible decline contributed to their loss of credibility. Someone did ask: ‘did Harris achieved anything?’ (as VP) which was left unanswered. But then it was noted that vice presidents seldom did achieve much – it was the nature of the post. We were reminded that if Trump should be unable to carry on as president for some reason, JD Vance will assume power … We swiftly moved on.

    At this point it was noted that the word ‘populist’ has not been used. It was a pity we didn’t discuss this further.

    A different perspective emerged when someone reported on some comments made by Bony Greer on the last edition of BBC’s Question Time. She is reported to have said the US was a completely different country sitting as it was between two oceans. It was populated almost entirely by immigrants yet most saw themselves as ‘post immigrants’. Immigration was a hot topic in the election and a weakness for the Democrats. Rather like the boat people in the UK, immigrants coming across the border from Mexico were not popular. Trump had tuned into these feelings. It was noted that home produced goods will be more expensive than imports and how will Americans cope with that? Wages were not keeping pace with inflation.

    America had prospered after the war and had many manufacturers of cars, domestic goods, clothes and much else. Many of these jobs had gone overseas and had left vast swathes of middle America with few jobs. Detroit was an example. Although the country might be prosperous, large areas weren’t and there was much poverty. As someone noted ‘it was easy to be a liberal when you’re better off’.

    It was easy to be a liberal if you are better off

    It seemed to suggest America was becoming more isolationist. The proposal to impose tariffs on import with China likely to attract 60% was perhaps evidence of this. On the other hand it was noted that America has a history of involvement around the world. It had intervened in many South American countries fomenting coups and other activities.

    In the second half we felt sufficient time had been given to the American election and decided on the topic of the Intimidation of media in the UK. The proposer mentioned the Electronic Intifada site and the arrest on terrorist charges of one of its journalists. Craig Murray was also mentioned who was sacked from his diplomatic post after exposing human rights abuses by the Karimov regime. The contention was that journalists were being arrested for carrying out honest journalism. [Amendment 23 November. It was clear that few had heard of the arrest mentioned at the start of this paragraph which in a way, reinforces the point that it is not just mis and disinformation but the denial of information by the media. In December’s Byline Times, Peter Oborne has written a short piece which is relevant and of interest].

    IMG_0001Download

    SLAPPs were mentioned as another pressure to limit press freedom. [There is no single definition of what is a SLAPP – Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation – but they consist of a range of legal measures to make exposing wrongdoing extremely expensive and act to prevent publication of such wrongdoings because the costs are too great. It is generally agreed that SLAPPs act against the public interest and free speech]. It was noted that London is regarded as the ‘libel capital of the world’ and venue of choice for those wishing to silence criticism.

    We were urged to read publications such as Declassified UK which publishes stories the mainstream media is reluctant to. There was also the D Notice system and that we are not allowed to know that such a notice is in existence. The current conflict in the Middle East was mentioned and how journalists were muzzled, although it has to be noted that they are not allowed into Gaza. In this context, Haaretz was mentioned, which despite being based in Israel itself, was a surprising source of information which does not see the light of day in British media.

    The debate hovered around independent views in the context of the media and someone wondered if there was much demand for this? In the context of the US it was suggested that, to quote, ‘they couldn’t give a monkey’s’ (for independent views). People read material which reflected their opinions. Byline Times was mentioned (and recommended) by a few as providing some kind of spotlight on media activity. Others suggested Tortoise Media and Middle East Eye. This suggested the importance of critical thinking – a topic we have discussed in previous DCs – and the ability to analyse critically what we are being told. The distinction (in the media) between fact and opinion was important it was stressed and indeed, some media did make this distinction clear.

    An ex Open University tutor stressed the importance language and the meaning in words. Students were encouraged to carefully appraise what they were reading to establish its reliability. We were invited to look up Harry Frankfurt, the author of several books on the subject of ‘bullshit’ which he has carefully analysed (these Americans, whatever will they think of next?). You may wish to follow this link which is a sea of text I’m afraid but nevertheless, does give you a good insight into this topic.

    Facts someone said, were all very well, but they did depend on your perceptions. I think the point being made here was that fact was difficult to discern and it did depend on the recipient’s interpretation of them hence, could anything be a fact? What a pity Wittgenstein could not come to our discussions and help us out. That, come to think of it, is a fact. Someone noted the idea of ‘evidence based medicine’.

    Back to the original topic and problems of free speech. The Southport riots saw many people arrested and imprisoned as a result of the violence. The problem was free speech and the distinction between ‘inciting’ and ‘challenging’. Who decides? The first amendment in the US guaranteed free speech (an issue which may be tested if Donald Trump’s threats are to be believed) which we do not have in the UK. It was noted that ‘one person’s rioter is another person’s freedom fighter’ (Gerald Seymour, 1976). There was a link between ‘fact’ and ‘values’ a comment which seemed to echo the issue of perception.

    No platforming a slippery slope towards totalitarianism

    Concern was expressed about the notion of ‘hate speech’. It led to things like no platforming in universities where those who’s views are deemed unacceptable are not allowed to speak. This was a slippery road that led to totalitarianism it was suggested.

    The internet and the world wide web were seen as hugely beneficial when they first appeared around three decades ago. They have a huge influence over our lives but no one voted for them. We are now on the verge of an AI revolution but again, no one has voted for it.

    Comment

    Two really interesting debates and although we have oft debated the media in these meetings, we somehow broke new ground this time. Perhaps the war in the Middle East and Gaza has exposed the weaknesses of the mainstream channels. The alternative sources mentioned above together with al Jazeera and – somewhat surprisingly, Haaretz – provide more insight into the terrible events taking place there. The threat side of things is something we have not touched on before and it will be interesting to see if some of the restrictive legislation passed by the last government will be repealed by the new. Perhaps it would be inadvisable to hold one’s breath.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on 14th December at 10:00 in the Salisbury Library. People seemed to like the table less format so we will repeat that. It’s only the scribe who loses out …

  • Democracy Café – October

    The debate covered what was worth knowing and arms sales to Israel

    October 2024

    Full house for the October meeting with two lively debates.  We were also pleased to welcome several new members.  The first debate which won the vote was What is worth knowing? which quickly changed into a debate about what was taught in schools.  The first suggestion was ‘all that they need to know after they leave school’.  Another thought knowing the names of things important especially as it related to the natural world. This was followed by the suggestion that children should be taught the (true) history of the monarchy and what scoundrels and ‘thugs’ many were.

    A deeper question centred around knowledge or wisdom.  This point was made by several in the course of the debate and concerned the distinction between facts and the capacity to think critically about them. 

    In a similar vein, the importance of relationships was stressed.  Indeed, there was a torrent of suggestions which included the importance of an appreciation of the arts and music; to develop a passion for something in young people; to teach young people to trust their own instincts; teaching how to look for information and the need to teach practical skills especially as so much was spent at the keyboard.

    Critical thinking was mentioned more than once.  It was felt by several that facts alone were not sufficient but there was a need to foster enquiry and scepticism.  In Dicken’s Hard Times, currently being serialised on Radio 4, the main character’s insistence on facts and only facts, that’s what’s wanted – should not be the sole the focus of education.  Was education just about learning stuff to get a job (which sometimes seems to be a government view)?  This brought us to the national curriculum which was seen as something of a straitjacket.  This arose in a discussion about citizenship which some thought had disappeared because of time pressures and the need to get through the national curriculum and pass exams.  It turned out from a quick google search that it’s still around but it is very narrow and focuses on local government and similar parochial matters. 

    One speaker said how disturbed they were to see in a school a chart on a wall with a grading of children on it.

    Faith schools were introduced into the debate.  There are many in the country and a sizeable number were unregulated.  Creationism was still being taught in a few for example. One said ‘faith in schools’ was important rather than faith schools per se.  Spiritual awareness was important.  On the other hand, we now live in a secular society, faith should be a family thing.  The morning assembly was mentioned – a requirement of the 1944 act – but has now been replaced by what is termed an ‘act of collective worship’.  One person said that it used to be the case that non CofE pupils (Jews for example) were excluded from morning assembly.  It seemed to be agreed that teaching pupils about religion was important in view of its significance in our history and culture.  You needed to know about it to evaluate it one said. 

    We were reminded of a pertinent fact namely: children are naturally curious.  Why is it that this seems to get lost?  We did not debate this but the tenor of our discussion was about didactics and what should be learnt.  Yet the system seemed one way or another to dampen this natural curiosity found in children. 

    The mania for exams and qualifications was mentioned in connection with the College. It ran a course called ‘philosophy of our time’.  However, when the government introduced the lifelong learning initiative, perversely it required a qualification at the end and the tutor decided to run it privately. 

    Of course arguments about what should be taught in schools are as old as the hills.  How we acquire knowledge is changing rapidly, one said that their previous role as a librarian has all but disappeared.  What children need for life is also changing rapidly.  There seemed to be a consensus around the problem of government-imposed restrictions.  This meant that time given to ‘life skills’ (however defined) was limited.  There was a real need to facilitate critical thinking and a questioning attitude. 

    The second session after a break, tackled the vexed question How do we stop selling arms to Israel?  The question inevitably morphed into should we still be selling arms? There were several interventions concerning the history of the area.  Historically, British and French interests focused on the Suez Canal’s importance. It was a crucial link to India. At the beginning of the last century, oil also became significant. They did not want Arab run states on both banks of the canal.  The UK’s role in setting up the state in 1948 and the violence which followed was mentioned.  Balfour also got a mention and by implication the Sykes – Picot Agreement which divided up spheres of interest in the region after the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

    It was noted that, however much we might disapprove of the weapons sales and the use to which they are put, Israel thinks it is fighting and existential war.  Hamas and Hezbollah – as proxies for Iran – are devoted to the destruction of the country and to drive all Jews into the sea.

    While some may have agreed with this, the worry was the disproportionate nature of the destruction.  The seemingly wanton destruction of entire blocks of flats allegedly because it contained a terrorist. The ‘human shield‘ justification was often quoted but seldom evidenced.

    A problem was the hard right and hawkish elements in Israel who were influential it was said.  Although diplomacy was mentioned several times, the present Israeli government is not in any mood to engage in it.  Aggression was ever present with a ‘you kill one of ours and we will kill a hundred of yours’ philosophy.  Both sides have to want peace for a solution eventually to be found.  Israel had to establish relationships with those in the region and – a point made more than once – they were all the same people and shared the same DNA.  Indeed, it was noted that historically in the Middle East, all sorts of communities: Christian, Jewish, Moslem and others lived and traded together in city after city.  It was not true to say there has been a perpetual state of animosity. 

    The role of the Jewish lobby in the US was discussed.  They are influential and powerful and able to get Senators and academics sacked it was claimed.  It was noted that the US supplies the bulk of military materiel: around two thirds of Israel’s needs.  What the UK supplies is small by comparison although we do make parts of the F35 which are not included in the embargo.  When questioned about this the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said ‘it was part of a global contract’.  Make of that what you will.  It was also noted that an Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems has a plant in the UK near Bristol.  It is not just arms we supply but it was claimed the UK provides aircraft based in Cyprus to overfly Gaza for intelligence purposes.

    What will be the situation if Trump wins the presidential election next month someone asked?  It was Trump, when president, who ended the deal with Iran.

    It was suggested that a root issue is trauma and Thomas Hübl was mentioned.  The trauma was not just about the holocaust it was claimed. 

    We were reminded that this issue of arms supplies to Israel is not a new one.  Both Mrs Thatcher and Edward Heath imposed sanctions on the country in the past.  In fact, this link shows that six prime ministers have imposed sanctions and hence Labour’s decision is one of a long line of such decisions.

    Another point concerned war crimes and the International Court of Justice. If it is decided against Israel, then the UK will be obliged to end arms sales. 

    We were chided for not answering the question put namely how do we stop the arms sales?  Perhaps another day …

    Peter Curbishley

    In an article by Kenan Malik in the Observer (13 October) he reminds us that Netanyahu supported Hamas as a means to divide the PLO and prevent a Palestinian state.

    [amendment made 13/10: F15 should have been F35]

  • Democracy Café

    October 2024

    Don’t forget it’s the Café today, Saturday 12th in the Library starting at 10:00 for 2 hours. All are welcome. Browse this site for examples of previous debates. You can suggest your own topic or vote for someone else’s.

  • Democracy Café: September

    The power of the media: influence and control

    The group (17 strong this week) met on September 14th as usual in the Library with 2 topics chosen by vote for discussion.

    The first of these was  ”Should the power of the media be in the hands of the people who currently control it?” The media has been a fairly constant topic in our discussions, both national and local.

    Much of the debate centred around trying to understand how influenced people are by the media, both the press and social media. The newspaper market is small and elderly, but dominates politics. It was suggested that papers used to be driven by their readers, but that now the owners choose what is important, and this can be dangerous. Defined as “framing”, this means the reader receiving a partial view, which can be resistant to persuasion. (It was said that positive ideas need 5 times more effort than negative to have an effect).

    Politicians are afraid of the media, but, as one member said, they should “grow a backbone.”

    It was also pointed out that a factor in news reporting is the prevalence of SLAPPS (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), by which the judiciary can interfere with the publishing of unwelcome information about a person or organization, simply because of the cost of pursuing a case, if charged with defamation. The practice of wealthy litigants paying a sum into court means plaintiffs run the risk of having to pay both sides costs – which runs into millions – if they loose. The Murdochs have paid over £1bn to keep phone hacking out of the news using methods such as this. It’s called ‘British justice’.

    But those under 40 don’t tend to read papers. Social media gives access to your preferences and this leads to confirmation bias. For many, social media is where they are getting nearly all their news. A possible remedy would be to make the algorithms available to the public. (There may also be a need for opportunities to be created to re-educate older people about social media)

    Another suggestion was that The Guardian model of the newspaper being owned by a Trust could be a better option than ownership? Someone else observed that podcasts are a better source of information.

    Likewise with social media sites – open source sites such as Bluesky or Signal don’t use the algorithms that X or TikTok do.

    The recent riots have been a useful indicator of the issues. Certain parts of the Press could be accused of adding fuel to the fire, while ostensibly standing aside. The people on the streets were prosecuted, but not those who incited them. The Government’s subsequent prosecutions did not include some who were implicated in the background.

    In conclusion, we were left wondering “why do people believe what they believe?” Whether we are nearer an answer remains to be seen.

    The second discussion concerned whether the Government should stop selling arms to Israel. Some attendees felt (quite strongly) that there was no justification at all for selling arms, believing that claims of genocide were true. Others were concerned about the possible loss of influence it would involve.

    Questions were asked about the extent of British involvement – we are low on the list of suppliers, but arms sales generally are big business (8-10% of our exports), and it is important in our area, even if more through agencies than actual manufacture. The Foreign Office has an open licence policy, but the new government has withdrawn 30 licences out of about 350 over concerns about international humanitarian law.

    Concern was expressed about proportionality. It was pointed out that Israel’s targeting ability was greater than events would suggest which may have a bearing on what we should sell. They are a powerful military, the most powerful in the region.

    The comparison with our sales to Ukraine was made. The racial angle of the distinction was noted.

    International bodies have agreed that the regime is one of apartheid. This seems to be part of a change in attitude over the course of the war. It was questioned whether younger people who don’t get news from the newspapers (see above; the difficulty of journalists getting to the war zones was also noted) might have a different understanding of the situation. Generally the fear was that (partly due to the change in attitude in the US to its historic policing role) a sense of paralysis has set in. The situation was described as the economic colonization of Israel by the US and the political colonization of the US by Israel.

    A view was expressed that Israel may have no wish to agree a peace deal since off the coast of Gaza is a vast oil and gas field. Were a Palestinian state to have access to this resource, it would alter the politics of the region immensely.

    Clearly not an issue that is going to be resolved soon, but the debate was thoughtful and informative. As so often happens with our debates, the two topics were related since our view of the conflict in Gaza has been powerfully influenced by media coverage and the lack of independent coverage from Gaza itself.

    Andrew Hemming

    – For those interested in further details of arms sales generally, please go the the Campaign Against the Arms Trade site.

    – Glasgow University has a keen interest in media matters and publishes research of interest. Scroll to articles published by the late Greg Philo in particular. See also Bad News (Routledge & Kegan Paul pub)

  • Democracy Café: August

    August 2024

    The well attended café took place a week or so after the riots erupted in Southport following the murder of three little girls and the attempted murder of eight others. This sparked off disturbances all around England with a massive police presence to try and keep control. Those events were the focus of the two topics we discussed.

    The first was is multi-culturalism going to be possible in the UK? A feature of the riots was attacks on hotels housing refugees and asylum seekers and a rumour that the boy arrested for the murders was a Muslim and had arrived in the UK by boat, neither of which was true. Some were quick to point out that they were in fact more optimistic now especially following the turn out of large numbers of people to defend mosques and to protect their communities from violence generally. It was noted there was a long history of attacks on ‘other’ groups. The demonisation of vulnerable groups seen to be to blame for society’s shortfalls has a long history.

    The debate turned to culture and it was noted the disturbances took place in England. It was suggested that this might be because the English are uncertain about their cultural identity. The other nations were much clearer on this point: the Scots, Welsh and Irish have a range of cultural memes with which to identify. Even Morris dancers were thought to be a bit of a ‘joke’ by some it was suggested.

    “The English are uncertain of their cultural identity”

    It was suggested that the recent disturbances have had a kind of benefit in bringing the ‘cancer’ of racism into the open. The seemingly respectable views of people like Nigel Farage were seen for what they were having only a veneer of respectability. Culture was also a shifting concept as times changed. It was noted for example that 60% of those born in London were the offspring of parents born outside the UK – a change in culture was inevitable therefore.

    Several pointed out that there was a danger of seeing this as an exclusively English problem. Yugoslavia was a multi ethnic state then disintegrated into separate groups following the death of Marshal Tito. There were problems of this nature in Germany. It was noted that the many ethnic groups living in Southampton congregated in specific areas according to their origins.

    The beliefs were quite strong and we heard an anecdote about a chance encounter in the street in Salisbury where a man, having recovered from a stumble, suddenly said ‘the country was too small’ in a discussion about the riots and ‘we cannot have any more coming in’. He was asked if he could trace his lineage back to 1066 whereupon he decided to leave (the conversation, not the country). David Olusoga’s comments on R4 saying that the riots and attacks were racist and were not an expression of legitimate concerns.

    The role of politicians – in particular Conservative ones such as Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Danny Kruger and Rishi Sunak – in stirring up popular resentment towards refugees and the boat people should not be forgotten. Their negative approach to asylum seekers was disgraceful someone thought and a reluctance to accept our obligations in this regard not acceptable. The idea that those in power needed to keep people divided was suggested as an underlying motivation. Was the social contract broken? There was hope the new government will be different. Immigration was always mentioned in terms of being a ‘problem’ and something to be minimised but Britain was an ageing population with a below replacement birth rate. We needed these people.

    Britain had and ageing population and needed immigrants

    The problem of the underperformance of white working class boys was introduced. They performed poorly in education terms and it was their resentments which might have been an element in recent events. Many of them thought it unmasculine to study for exams and this was a factor. Reports of several generations where no one has worked was mentioned. In the second discussion (below) but it is more relevant here, was the subject of agency. Many people lacked a sense of doing something worthwhile which was perhaps linked to the education point. Some of the mis- and disinformation which the social media people promoted depended on the notion that we know something you don’t. More critical thinking might be an answer to this.

    Of course it was not all bad news and the performance of Team GB in the Olympics was mentioned as a positive. A local school, Manor Fields, was a good example of multi-culturism in action.

    The second discussion was in a sense an extension of this topic and focused on social media in particular. A feature of the riots has been the role of X and Telegram in particular in spreading false stories about what happened in Southport. Elon Musk himself has also entered the fray with some inflammatory statements. The questions for debate were should media power be taken away from irresponsible people? and should [the government] be able to legally shut down websites?

    We were reminded straight away that when the internet was introduced all those years ago, it was seen in positive terms and it enable information and news to be posted straight away and without the sanction or censorship of governments or press agencies. As time has gone by however that freedom has been eroded.

    What is the primary purpose of internet companies? Answer: make money and to do that they had to keep you engaged. This was done by using algorithms to supply you with information related to your search interest. This process was the first step to radicalisation. The website Mastodon – which did not do this – was mentioned.

    We were reminded that after the 2011 riots, there was concern then expressed by the role of the web but the government was reluctant to take action. Will it be the same this time?

    The essential question was asked: why do people want to spread disinformation. What was their motivation? In relation to Elon Musk, his role of being both owner and contributor was seen as ‘crossing a line’ however, it should be noted that the press barons have been doing just that for some considerable time. Many advertisers stopped advertising on X in the light of some of the material finding its way onto it and a fall in revenue might affect its future commercial prospects.

    A key point was the power of the written word: if people see something in print they give it great credence. A counter argument was the power of the spoken word as well and Hitler was mentioned who had honed his speaking abilities acting for a government agency and was able to move large audiences with his oratorical skill. It was pointed out that it was easier to promote disinformation via social media which could be done in an instant, whereas a book for example took a great deal of time and things like references had to be provided.

    Someone thought that greater democratisation of the internet brought with it greater responsibility. It was a complex area and states wanted the companies to moderate their content and hence police them for not doing this adequately. It was also pointed out that ‘moderation’ went both ways: some companies were fixing algorithms to block out mentions of the conflict in Gaza – as well as child porn. The idea of unfettered access to events as they happened without the role of intermediaries and censorship was not being fulfilled.

    The News Agents podcasts were mentioned positively (@thenewsagents) as well as Channel3News the latter which was claimed to have played a key role in the spread of disinformation. It was a convincing and professionally produced site.

    It was not clear whether we were really tackling the question about banning these sites. We were reminded that attempts to ban people or ideas was not always successful or even wise. When the BBC invited Nick Griffin onto Question Time there was a huge furore and press anger. But, exposing his views to public view and criticism effectively ended his influence overnight.

    Peter Curbishley

    The next meeting is on 14 September.

    Guardian piece about children being taught about social media

  • Democracy Café

    Democracy Café this morning, Saturday, 10th starting at 10:00 in Salisbury library. It will last 2 hours and there is a short break in the middle. Lots to talk about with the recent events. See you there.

  • Abolishing the House of Lords

    Seminar by the Sortition Foundation to create a ‘House of Citizens’

    June 2024

    We attended a Zoom seminar run by the Sortition Foundation in which they proposed the abolition of the House of Lords and replacing it with something they call a ‘House of Citizens’. They are calling it the ‘858 Project‘ after the year Henry II created juries.

    Trust in the HoL is low among the public at large. The average age is 71, it is mostly white and 71% are men. The majority are ex-politicians and most vote with their party. We are the only country, apart from Iran, where religious people (bishops) have seats in the Lords as of right. Watching a debate is to witness a slow and ponderous process as one after another elderly person totters to their feet to deliver a homily about some arcane subject few outside would be interested in. They are paid a handsome daily attendance fee and there was a scandal some years ago where it was revealed that many signed in and immediately left thus qualifying for their (tax free) attendance allowance but contributed nothing.

    However, Ian Dunt in his recently published book How Westminster Works and Why it Doesn’t puts forward a different view and claims that on the whole, the HoL does good work by correcting and carefully considering shoddy and ill-considered legislation sent up from the Commons. Despite appearances and of course the presence of a number of charlatans and dodgy characters, there is a significant number of members who have solid experience to offer, considerably more than is present in the lower house. Despite whipping, there is a higher degree of independence and willingness not to tow the party line.

    Since we do need a second chamber, how it should be formed needs careful thought. Sortition’s idea of 300 citizens who would serve for a year and paid what an MP is paid might not be the answer. Even informed by experts, their effectiveness might be questionable. For a start, anyone who watches programmes on television with audience participation will note that their ability to ask fundamental questions is generally limited. Vox pops are frequently embarrassing with participants able to say more than they like or dislike various politicians. The assumption that there is this vast pool of wisdom ‘out there’ whereas the HoL and the Commons is populated by fools and knaves is neither fair nor accurate. There are many hard-working and intelligent parliamentarians who work selflessly for the country and their constituents. Unfortunately, they are not usually the ones who regularly turn up to be interviewed on College Green.

    How long will it be before the established parties begin to get their people elected to the House of Citizens? How many will stay the course once the shine has gone off and the need to plough through reports and research becomes part of their duties? And is a year enough? Ministers complain that the frequent moves mean by the time they get to grips with their department, they are moved on often after only a year or so. By the time these citizens have learned the ropes their time will be up. How many people with appropriate skills will be able (or their employers allow) a year to take part in this?

    So an interesting seminar and Sortition are going out to consultation. Saying that the HoL is non-functioning is not altogether true. Booting out the bishops and hereditary peers would be a good first step. There is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater however. We need a second chamber composed of people with experience and dedication. I am not convinced that a House of Citizens is the answer although all praise to Sortition for starting this debate and trying to force it into the open.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Café: June

    June 2024

    This café took place two weeks into the general election and just after what had become a major faux pas by the prime minister who left the D-Day landing commemorations early to attend an ITV interview. This had produced a blizzard of negative publicity and Rishi Sunak issued an apology. It brings us to our first topic which was what is the purpose of commemorating military achievements and is the purpose achieved?

    Referring to the Normandy landings, it was noted that there are few survivors left and that this was probably the last to be held on that scale in Normandy. How long do we continue with them and what is the aim? One said it was important to say ‘thank you’ to all those who took part and the many who gave their lives. It did also promote the idea of ‘never again’. However, this was also the theme of WWI commemorations – the war to end all wars – yet it did happen again. Incidentally, the invasion planning was carried out in nearby Wilton.

    There were worries about glorification though. There was also concern about only commemorating wars we won, what about the losses and defeats? War was about both. ‘Lest we forget’ is one of the phrases one hears at these events but one speaker noted a memorial to the Boer War in Hampshire has disappeared leaving only a base. This war had a profound effect on British social policy following what was termed the ‘recruits crisis‘ and an initially disastrous campaign yet has now been forgotten.

    One of the central points about the D-Day invasion was that it was a collaborative effort between us, the US, Canada and a host of other nations from what was then the Empire. It was a celebration of what nations did together to defeat an enemy. Referring to Rishi Sunak’s early exit it was noted that in his apology he said “having attended all the British events, I returned home before the international leaders event later in the day”. It was remarked that this had a kind of hint of Brexit to it: the notion of being part of an international commemoration was less important than focusing on the British side of things. This theme recurred later in the discussion with the question on how we get on with our neighbours. We seem happy to celebrate a violent event (however worthy and necessary) but less happy at celebrating peace. Was it because conflicts generally generate media attention? Defeating the Nazis was a simple and easy to understand story.

    On the subject of peace one speaker spoke about peace education and how they had attempted to introduce it into schools. Some schools had agreed but it often didn’t last (parental disapproval?) but they were happy to invite in military representatives.

    The discussion moved on to the question of generational issues. It was suggested that these commemorations are a product of the ‘boomer generation’. Some of them harboured the belief that ‘Britain is great’ and any idea of national service was not for them – the sort of thinking that led to Brexit. In a similar vein, Britain is a much more diverse nation now, how important was D-Day for them?

    There was discussion around the political issues. What did politicians believe? For the veterans it was important to keep the memories alive and it was obvious it affected them deeply. Some became tearful when remembering lost friends and comrades even after all this time.

    We were reminded that WWII was total war and millions were involved on the home front and in factories and other locations, all of whom played a part in the invasion. The commemorations tended to focus on the military side of things.

    But back to the question and whether it has had its time. We tend to skip over the military defeats and it was noted that victors get to write the history. Are we clinging to the wrong things? Part of the answer is that D-Day is still relatively close. We do not remember the battle of Hastings for example yet which had huge implications for the country: a chunk of our language, the pattern of land ownership and our judicial system all derive from that event.

    Surely what was needed was to teach children critical thinking. If more were able to question the background to wars, why they happen and the political or diplomatic failures that often led up to them, then this might lead to greater reluctance by the public for military adventures. We need to understand the politics of war and how they happen.

    The absence of a Russian presence in Normandy was noted for obvious reasons. Yet the eastern front was crucial to the success of D-Day since many German divisions were tied up in the east (or wiped out in Stalingrad) which thus improved Allied chances on the beaches. Despite the problems in Ukraine, there is no commemoration of the Russian contribution which was substantial. There was brief discussion about the numbers and 20 million was mentioned. The figure could in fact be even higher.

    We were reminded by a veteran of the Korean war which followed a few years after the end of WWII yet there was no commemoration of that.

    Finally, despite the solemnity of the occasion in Normandy and the moving speeches, the principal victors of the war who formed the Security Council of the newly formed United Nations, were now the biggest arms sellers in the world, the UK being among them. We cheerfully sell weapons to all manner of states causing untold misery and death around the world.

    We moved onto the second topic is the general election fair? This arose following the row raging during the week about Labour’s tax plans. Rishi Sunak, during the leader’s debate on ITV had alleged that Labour will increase everyone’s taxes by £2,000 and claimed this figure had been produced by the Treasury. It transpired that this was partially true but the figures had been calculated on assumptions provided by the Conservatives and did not make clear that it would be over a four year period.

    One suggestion was that telling lies should be a criminal offence. The problem would be however proving it was a lie and the time it would take to get to trial by which time the election would be over.

    It was pointed out that a lot of fact checking already goes on and this particular misstatement had in fact been quickly corrected. Unfortunately someone noted, the very fact of correction somehow made it more potent in people’s minds – think of the £350m figure on the Vote Leave bus. Untrue but it stuck.

    The importance of hustings was noted the problem being too few attended them.

    The problem of the TV debate was it was about one leader rubbishing the other and the moderator did little to stop them. What did we learn from the debate? The question was asked rhetorically implying not very much. It was suggested that it might be a case of collusion by broadcasters and the politicians. After all, the scrapping made a lot of news which means lots of viewers, never mind the veracity.

    I am not sure we came up with any solutions. We briefly touched on PR but how that would improve the fairness of the debate was not discussed. We also briefly discussed tactical voting and how, for example, to achieve a more ‘green’ set of policies when both parties offered feeble ones.

    Finally, we discussed a third topic because the voting was tied. This was another election issue namely: the advantages of a years compulsory community service for those leaving school. The first point was ‘who pays?’ We could not answer this.

    We quickly got onto Rousseau and the notion of social contract which seems to be lost today in a society more concerned with personal matters. There was value in encouraging community service and the country could not do without volunteers. More young people might volunteer it was suggested but they needed paid work to pay for higher education and somewhere to live.

    Scandinavia was mentioned and the higher tax rates in those countries but with higher levels of social support. Britain was fixated on lower taxes it was suggested and the belief that we were automatically better off with lower levels of tax was widely believed. The connection between low taxes and poor public services did not seem to be understood. Another factor was privatisation and which had eroded the whole system it was claimed. On the topic of privatisation, water was mentioned and that CEOs of these companies should be fined for failing to meet targets not given multi-million bonuses. I suppose we can all fantasise about such things.

    An intriguing suggestion was that all young people should receive training in how to handle a disaster, a fire for example or what to do after a road crash. This could be done by extending the school day.

    One speaker drew on experience of circa the ’80s when we had a variety of training schemes: YOPs; YTS and then young apprentice schemes. Funding – as in the lack of – was a problem and it offered poor education for many young people. It was also a vehicle for mostly poorer children and was not popular among middle class folk. Their children did gap years.

    It might be a good idea some thought but it would need proper funding, and proper supervision by trained people. It would also need a lot of organisation. Previous experience suggests it would be done on the cheap and would offer young people very little of value. Compulsion was not the answer it was agreed. It was also noted that small voluntary organisations are daunted by the bureaucracy of doing things of this nature with all the checks, DBS, and necessary reporting which are costly and off-putting.

    A short debate but it was agreed that more thought was needed and a lot more detail about how it would work for the benefit of young people and also the recipients.

    Three interesting debates all with an election feel to them.

    Peter Curbishley