Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Salisbury

  • Democracy Café: March

    March 2024

    A dozen members of the group attended this meeting and, after a slightly faltering start, two topics were, as usual, chosen for discussion.

    The most popular choice was consideration of the implications of a Trump win in the American presidential election in November. Concerns were expressed about his possible foreign policy (with regard to Ukraine, trade and Taiwan among other issues) and domestically, particularly his hostility to green matters, and the question of his willingness to leave office.

    The fossil fuels issue was brought up more than once, as was Trump’s attitude to women and worries about how his policies on immigration might turn out. On the other side, it was pointed out that Trump had ejected fewer people than Obama, presided over the lowest inflation for 45 years and the highest employment levels ever. Insofar as there was a debate on his merits or demerits, the prevailing view was that his unpredictability was a problem (a surprising link to Jeremy Corbyn). There was discussion of the polarisation of U.S. society that Trump embodied, notably the weaponisation of general disaffection (that Biden had not managed to utilise) and the fear of the white population of becoming a minority. Observations were made about the possible causes of Trump’s behaviour, as well as disappointment that he had not controlled big business when in power.

    The second topic of the day was “What are British values?” It was generally agreed that there was no answer to the question that would be meaningful, but rather there was an implication that our values are by definition better than anyone else’s. This could be attributed to having had an empire (or mere snobbishness). Our island history meant that we were less affected by neighbours (though it was noted that we were “perfidious Albion”) and more likely to want to be different. It was suggested that one of our virtues was an ability to fix things (notably when in Europe) and a pragmatic approach. We take the emotion out of things. This led on, though, to a debate on the post-imperial development of the UK as a financial centre (with questionable activities) – secrecy became a value along with duplicity. We were brought back to a consideration of the Enlightenment ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity as a code of values, if not specifically British.

    Andrew Hemming

    The next meeting is on Saturday 13th April starting at 10:00 in Salisbury Library. We are grateful to the Library for allowing us to use the space for our meetings.

  • March Democracy Café

    March 2024

    The March edition of the Democracy Café will take place on Saturday, 9th March starting at 10am upstairs in Salisbury Library. Come along for a drink and some stimulating conversation about issues that you deem to be important. A summary of the conversations from the February Café are available to read on our website – Democracy Café – Salisbury Democracy Alliance

    As a postscript to the first topic that we discussed at the February café, Mark Potts, the chair of SDA, is expecting the Salisbury Journal to publish a letter regarding the issues around John Glen in next week’s paper, or on their website. Discussions with the editor have been ongoing.

    Just a reminder that our partner organisation, the RSA, are holding an event in Salisbury Library this coming Thursday, 7th March, to mark World Book Day. Details of the event and registration can be found here – RSA Salisbury: World Book Day – RSA (thersa.org)

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    A good turnout for two debates as usual the first being a bit of a surprise. The New Statesman in its 2 – 8th February edition had made two serious allegations concerning the MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen, in a piece entitled: The Rotten State: How corruption and chumocracy are pulling the British Nation apart (subscription needed). The first debate centred on these allegations and what it meant for the future of the MP and the constituency in the forthcoming general election. 

    The two allegations were as follows: ’[…] the Future Fund, established in 2020 by the then chancellor, Rishi Sunak, at a cost of £1.1bn to support British start-ups. The taxpayer has lost almost £300m on the Future Fund, which has given money to the businesses of centimillionaire wife, Ashata Murty, [and] the cabinet office minister John Glen […]’. Mr Glen has shares in a sub-Saharan African mining firm. The second allegation was that Mr Glen attended meetings (which he probably chaired as the City Minister) with the banks to arrange £71bn in loans as part of the Covid recovery. The article suggests that £17bn of this has gone missing according to the Public Accounts Committee. When attempts were made to provide details the journalist was told by the Treasury ‘we do not hold minutes of the meeting’. 

    The proposer of the topic has written to Mr Glen but his answers were somewhat vague. It was up to the Treasury to keep minutes he said. It was quickly noted that this was becoming part of a pattern with large numbers of WhatsApp messages being deleted both in Scotland and in England in connection with the Covid enquiry. It was simply not satisfactory for the business of the country to be run this way with politicians able to delete the records at will or, in the case of Mr Glen, for their to be no record in the first place.

    It was suggested that Covid was an event to enable a large sum of money to be transferred to a small number of people. It was not clear if everyone agreed with this point. The same speaker mentioned Walter Lippmann who spoke about how people were deliberately distracted from the main issue. 

    The fact that there was no mention of these allegations in the Salisbury Journal was a surprise it was suggested. They do not seem to have asked any questions of him or sought a response. Maybe we should all write to the Journal and ask ‘why not?!’ Did it matter who was the MP? someone said. Yes it did and we right to expect a certain standard of honesty and integrity from those who represented us. 

    One speaker said she always got a response when she wrote but many others said they did not. They only got a reply if it was a ‘standard’ one they said. One member had written to him about matters in the Maldives for example which Mr Glen has said he has a special interest in since there was a group of Maldivians who lived in the City. No reply has been received**. Another response was to say as a minister he was unable to interfere in another department. 

    Back to the Journal and it was asked how influential was it? Difficult to answer but it did have a much lower readership which was true of all newspapers it was noted. However, it did give Mr Glen a column each week in which he can tell us what he is doing and as such was a ‘mouthpiece’ for him. 

    There was a brief discussion about the need to improve local journalism and the Trust News Initiative was mentioned.

    The second debate centred on Palestine and ideas around creating a state. The war in Gaza was in full spate at present with a reported 27,000 dead and many thousands missing. The proposer noted that Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, had mooted the idea of a separate Palestinian state. But who would fix the boundaries especially as the Israelis wanted to take more land? Would not be better if the countries of the Middle East held centre stage rather than ‘outside’ countries such as the US?

    One speaker noted that Palestine had been offered statehood in 1948, again after the Yom Kippur war and also after Camp David talks. Each time they have refused. At elections they have voted for Hamas who murdered the opposition and who’s only motive is the extinction of the Jewish State. It was also noted the leadership lived in Qatar. While this may be true, it was noted that Hamas had also been supported by Mr Netanyahu partly to destabilise the Palestinian leadership. 

    This narrative overlooked the significant role played by the US in the region and the powerful influence they had on Middle Eastern politics. The real issue is the relationship between the US and Iran which was a key driver of the politics of the area.

    Several speakers referred to outside influences over history – one even went back to the Romans! Perhaps they might ask in the area ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?’ More recently, Britain took a keen interest because we wanted a secure route for Persian oil through the Suez Canal. Mention was also made of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the role of Lloyd George in seeking Jewish support to get the US into WWI. We played a role in the UN Mandate in what was then called Palestine. There was also the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between France and Britain concerning post-war and post Ottoman spheres of influence in the area. One comment was from someone who served with Army in the area in 1948 in an attempt to keep the peace. He referred to the 900 or so British soldiers who were murdered during this time. Wounds run deep. 

    Latterly, the Americans have held sway. A solution can only come it was said if there was a regional deal. To achieve this some of the Palestinian leadership needed to be released from Israeli gaols. 

    But the overriding series of comments centred on the role of outside influence of one kind or another. The selling of arms by several western countries particularly the US and Britain although Russian and China are involved, can only inflame the situation. The Abrahamic Accords in 2020 were mentioned and the commitment to recognise both sides diplomatically. They were called ‘Abrahamic’ because they recognised Abraham as a common link between the two religions.

    South Africa was mentioned who had launched the case against Israel in the International Criminal Court accusing them of genocide in Gaza which Israel has denied. Could they be mediators? The crucial point someone said was what was needed was a country which didn’t have history in the area. This would rule out USA, Britain, France and some others, all of whom have meddled or had a role in pursuing their interests over the interests of the people who live there. A related factor is possibly a sense of collective and almost atavistic guilt in some of the powers involved especially their bad treatment of Jews over the centuries: their expulsion from York in the twelfth century for example, their expulsion from Spain and so on, not to mention the Holocaust itself. 

    Northern Ireland was mentioned and the decades of the ‘Troubles’. It was eventually resolved by negotiation, pressure on the UK from the US, and a Canadian negotiator. These things can be resolved. In this connection, António Guterres*, the UN General Secretary was suggested as a possible mediator.

    As a final note, the practice of calling someone ‘anti-Semitic’ when they criticised Israel was deprecated. 

    For once, two unrelated debates as different as chalk and cheese (a good Wiltshire based expression). The next meeting is on Saturday 9th March, same place, same time.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Guterres is Portuguese.

    ** Correction 16 February: a reply has now been received and Mr Glen said he will raise the matter with the FCO.

    Books:

    The Palestine – Israel Conflict, 2015, Dan Cohen-Sherbok and Dawoud El-Alami, Oneworld.

    The Balfour Declaration. 2018, Bernard Regan, Verso.

  • Democracy Café

    February 2024

    The next meeting of the café is this Saturday, 10 February at 10:00 as usual in the Library (upstairs) and all are welcome. If you haven’t been before, have a look at the write-ups of previous cafés to get a feel of what we talk about. The meetings last 2 hours with a short break in the middle. We look forward to seeing you there.

    PC

  • Meeting report

    Notes following a committee meeting

    January 2024

    Members of the committee met on 30 January to review progress and discuss future plans. These are notes (not minutes) of that meeting for general interest. 

    We reviewed the Democracy Café which has been running successfully now for several years and is now in its new home in the Library. Attendance is a regular 20 or so with the occasional new member. We were pleased with the venue and how it was going and one decision was to nominate the facilitator ahead of the meeting itself.

    There was a report from a democracy group in Stroud (Glocs) who are investigating a permanent Citizens’ Jury system along side the council. They are trying to develop a ‘low cost’ solution and one idea is to do the sortition element themselves: this is the process of selecting a representative selection of people for the jury. We discussed this and there are problems in ensuring it is not self-selecting. There are also problems with data protection. Further investigation is to take place and we may consider observing their next meeting.

    We briefly discussed Citizens UK and we will investigate further and in particular about training courses. 

    Citizens’ Juries was then discussed with particular reference to SCC and WC. We need a topic to focus on and one problem is that so many projects are decided elsewhere with little local involvement. For example the Fisherton Street works – where we await the benefits to be revealed – are a government funded scheme. We still have to convince councillors and others of their merit. Too many of them seem to see them as a threat it was noted. WC has a citizen’s panel for the climate but how that worked and the degree of genuine influence was not known.

    We went on to discuss the idea of citizen’s involvement in the planning process and this followed correspondence with the director of planning at County Hall following an article on the subject in the Planner, the journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute. The response had not been entirely negative but the process was too far advanced for immediate involvement they noted. After our meeting, we made fresh contact and the following response was received by return:

    The timetable we have relates to our existing (emerging) Local Plan. We expect this Plan to be adopted in 2025. The next round of plan-making will be likely to begin a year or two later as we are required to update the Plan every five years. The timetable (Local Development Scheme) for the next plan is likely to be updated shortly after we have adopted the emerging Local Plan. That will be the right stage to consider different ways of engaging with local communities to inform the new Plan.

    This looks to be some way off i.e. sometime in 2026 or ’27. 

    We are due to have a presence in the People in the Park event on 18 May. We needed to agree a theme and the materials we need etc and a meeting will be convened to discuss this. 

    We had a brief report on web statistics. The number of visits to the site are steadily improving: 3,115 (2021); 2,715 (2022) and 3,628 (2023). The number of visitors has also improved: from 1,061 (2021) to 1,795 last year (2023). Note we are on Facebook. 

    We are always looking for new members who are interested in trying to improve the workings of our democracy and achieve better governance. If you think you might be interested get in touch. One way would be to come to a Democracy Café the next one of which is on Saturday 10 February starting at 10:00 upstairs in the Library. Or come to the People in the Park event on 18 May in Elizabeth Gardens. Or drop a line here. 

    PC

  • Democracy Café: January

    January 2024

    It was probably not surprising that the Post Office scandal should be one of the chosen topics for our first café of 2024. After two decades, the persecution of nearly a thousand subpostmasters (male and female) burst into public consciences with the transmission of an ITV drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office. Despite extensive coverage, someone noted, in Private Eye, Computer Weekly, the BBC on the radio and on Panorama, and the Guardian, the scandal had failed to excite public interest to any degree and certainly not in parliament. 

    The government has suddenly woken up following the outrage highlighted in the ITV drama and was proposing a law to offer mass invalidation of the sub postmasters’ convictions. This will be debated in parliament next week (w/c 15th). The question posed therefore was what are the implications of the government’s proposals to carry this out? Would it set a precedent which might have unfortunate consequences for our constitution? This had generated a lot of concern for example from Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general. 

    One comment was this was an example of ‘heart over head’ and perhaps it would be better to let things quieten down before pushing through legislation which could have momentous effects. To counter this it was noted that the people affected had already waited two decades for justice during which a number have died without having been exonerated and four had taken their own lives. 

    The basic question was ‘what instrument do you use to put things right?’ People were convicted on bad evidence. A problem is that there were some who had defrauded the Post Office who would also be exonerated. It was suggested that the bills of attainder – not used since 1820 – might be a mechanism however, this was used to dispossess (attaint) people of their rights and property not to put it right. 

    The important role of whistle-blowers was introduced. Such people received little support and took enormous risks by revealing corporate wrong-doing. There were several comments which noted the failure of some many elements of the state apparatus to deal with matters of this sort. The judiciary had failed, partly because the corporations could fund an army of high powered lawyers whereas the defendants were individuals with few if any resources, but secondly for allowing the Post Office to sue on the basis of a loss of money but offer no evidence of actual theft. It was simply a system which was hideously unfair and unbalanced. 

    But to the main point of the debate: the dangers of parliament overturning the judicial process. It was noted that we have a dual system and a separation of powers which has been supremely important in protecting our liberties. The example was quoted of Boris Johnson and his attempt to prorogue parliament which was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. More recently, the government had produced a bill to say that human rights in Rwanda were satisfactory and it was a safe country when the Supreme Court had decided that there was significant evidence it was not. Both were examples where the government had acted in defiance of the law and reason. Passing a new law – however well intentioned – risked giving powers to the legislator we may come to regret. 

    Anger was expressed at the ‘system’ as a whole i.e. the entire paraphernalia of governance. Parliament, government, MPs (with a few honourable exceptions), much of the media, the courts and the legal process, all had played a part allowing the scandal to proceed. Putting things right was being done at a snails pace. Someone described the judicial element as ‘rotten’.  Nobody has apologised and nobody has – so far at least – been held to account. It was noted that legal aid has all but disappeared leaving the ‘wronged individual’ powerless against corporations and other well resourced organisations able to swamp courts with batteries of lawyers. 

    Better scrutiny was needed it was suggested and taking the prosecution rights away from the Post Office needed to happen. Independent investigation was sometimes needed. However, this would require the CPS to be better resourced since it would, like the legal system as a whole, be unable to handle the increased case load. Indeed, if the subpostmasters were to continue using the legal route, the under resourcing would result in yet more years of delay. The contrast with aircraft safety was noted. Pilots have long had the ability to report problems (like near misses) anonymously thus avoiding career risks. Also, major accidents are thoroughly investigated independently. 

    Needless to say the Horizon system was mentioned and the fact that Fujitsu has failed to account for itself. This led to a discussion of large IT systems and their part in this scandal. Large IT projects were inherently flawed it was suggested. Specifications were constantly changed. And we have AI to look forward to …

    As to causes, the bonus system for directors and others at the Post Office was a factor. Basically a reluctance to admit problems – especially systemic ones – which might be costly and hit profits and hence bonuses. Also a belief in the infallibility of IT systems. The contrast between commercial and government IT systems was noted. The former were more incremental: they were introduced and subsequently modified in line with consumer involvement and interaction. Government IT projects tended to be huge and introduced in a ‘big bang’ which meant problems and glitches were present from the start. 

    Did we come to a conclusion on the main question? Truthfully, no. The subpostmasters had suffered a serious misjustice and people wanted it to be put right – and quickly before yet more of them die. But allowing the government to side-step the judicial process was a worry. There was an overriding feeling that so many parties to this scandal had been found wanting and had failed lamentably, that to give them yet more powers was a cause for concern. 

    The second half was around the topic of arms sales and why do we continue to sell arms to a variety of countries? [the implication being they were dubious countries]. 

    The introducer of the question noted the sales of arms to Ukraine, and Israel (a large number of other countries could be named) and that these sales seemed to be an accepted fact and no one seems to question it. One person said they were conflicted: although they were against many aspects of arms sales, supplying Ukraine which was under attack seemed different from supplying Israel and their bombing in Gaza. It was noted that an Israeli arms company, Elbit Systems, has a number of plants in the UK, one in Bristol and another in Portsmouth.

    It was pointed out that countries have a need to defend themselves and thus a need to develop arms and armed forces to use them. The issue was about selling them. Campaign Against the Arms Trade*, CAAT has long campaigned on this issue. It was pointed out that the government does have controls on what arms are sold to what states in a system of licensing and end user certificates. However, in recent years, more weapons are being sold under ‘open licenses’ where these controls do not exist. 

    The contrast with Northern Ireland was noted and the prolonged period of violence during the Troubles. Despite bombing attacks in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, the conflict was eventually resolved, not by bombing the Republic, but by negotiation and dialogue leading to the Good Friday agreement. 

    Psychological factors are frequently ignored. For example, the feelings in Russia which has endured a series of invasions from the West over the centuries of its history, about the expansion of NATO up to its borders. This was part of the motivation for the invasion of Ukraine. 

    The paradox of the world’s biggest sellers of arms were also the members of the UN Security Council was pointed out. So while they were debating issues of ceasefire in Gaza in the UN, they were busy supplying weapons to the world. On the topic of weapons, the question of small arms was sometimes overlooked. It was these weapons which caused so much misery in the world especially to women and children who were almost always the biggest sufferers in these conflicts. The problem here though was that control of these sales was almost impossible since there were many producers of Kalashnikovs around the world. So although we might wish to clamp down on UK sellers and brokers, they can be sourced easily from other countries. If we don’t sell them, someone else will. 

    It was pointed out on the other hand that arms sales were part of wider government policy issues and British interests for example oil and arms supplies to the Saudi government. Supplying weapons to the Saudis was it was argued, in our interests. It was noted that arms sales came with conditions. 

    It was perhaps unsurprising that Israel emerged in this context with the war in Gaza in full spate. It was noted that after bombing a refugee camp, it was claimed that the ‘wrong weapons’ had been used. [We did not discuss this but there are a number of articles available on line concerning the use of what are termed ‘dumb weapons’ i.e. unguided munitions which are less precise than the guided ones. It is these which have caused so much collateral damage]. It was also claimed that Israel was using weapons from US stores in the country. 

    How significant were arms sales to our economy in any event? [Comparable figures are quite hard to obtain and what are or are not arms sales is ambiguous. One estimate is £86bn making the UK the second biggest supplier of arms in the world and the GDP (2022) was £2.27tn. So sales are just under 3.8% of the economy. It is claimed that there are 135,000 people employed]. It was suggested that if we ceased to sell arms to the world it would not be of great consequence to our economy.  

    There was discussion about whether international development was a better use of our resources. This was reduced from 0.7% of the economy to 0.5% around 2 years ago. This was part of a wider discussion about removing the anger and helping countries to improve their water supplies for example. It was noted that many countries did not sell arms. 

    The issue of morality was introduced which the subtext to the topic being discussed and that there were people trying to develop a better world. Arguably, we did not discuss this adequately – perhaps a topic for the future. 

    A surprising comment was the fact that Costa Rica has no military force. It is one of only 21 states in the world not to have one.

    Finally, we could not have a democracy café without mention of the media and it was commented that we have need of more neutral reporting. Two sources were mentioned: Bylines and Declassified. 

    Peter Curbishley

    *Disclosure: the writer is a member

    Books mentioned:

    The Blunders of our Governments, Anthony King and Ivor Crewe, 2013, Oneworld. A large section is devoted to IT failures and one of the points made is the irrelevance of parliament in the process. Decisions were made by ministers and civil servants and parliament told later or not at all, p361f

    [Not mentioned but relevant] The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, 2011, Andrew Feinstein, Hamish Hamilton.

  • Democracy Café

    January 2024

    TODAY

    The first Democracy Café takes place today, Saturday 13th January starting at 10:00 upstairs in Salisbury Library as usual. All welcome and you can get a feel of the sorts of things we discuss by looking at reports of previous meetings on this site. The year, an election year, has got off to a tumultuous start with the Post Office scandal filling the airwaves as we speak. So plenty to discuss! See you there.

    PC

  • Democracy Café

    December meeting debated two topics of current interest

    December 2023

    Two topics won through at this meeting: one about how we might fortify the United Nations and the second what are we to do with migrants? Both are in the news at present. The UN has featured in the Gaza situation and the issue of migrants is front and centre with the news concerning the boat crossings and Rwanda.

    Viewing the current state of the world with the terrible events in Gaza following the attack by Hamas on 7 October, the war in Ukraine and other wars taking place in sub Sahara for example, it was natural to ask whatever happened to the post-war hope of a United Nations able to ‘police’ the world?

    The problem it was pointed out, was that the victors of WWII were not keen on providing the necessary powers to the UN for it to carry out a major peace-keeping role. It was clear the major powers were reluctant to give up their power to allow the UN to step in. In particular, the US was a dominant force and many countries were perhaps unduly deferent to it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example, agreed in 1948, was notable for the reluctance of France and the UK in particular to agree to its universality due to their terrible activities and violations in their colonies, Kenya for the UK and Algeria (France).

    The veto of the principal powers: UK, US, China, France and the then USSR, was discussed. They were able to use this veto to maintain their power and initially at least, prevent countries from joining the UN.

    The discussion moved on to look at reform including issues around the veto. Was it right for this small group of countries – who held their position due to their victory in WWII – should keep this power? How could the UN be reformed? There is a process of reform which takes place and the institution has changed considerably over the years [although most of the sites do not appear to refer to the question of reforming the veto powers]. It seems to illustrate the principle that those with power are nearly always reluctant to give it up. It was suggested that reform should come from outside since the organisation was a ‘closed’ system. It was also noted that the world’s biggest arms sellers were the 5 permanent members. So while they were meeting to discuss how to achieve peace and resolve conflicts, they were busy selling arms to the warring parties.

    Should all countries have the same weight? At present it was one vote per country and the inference in the question was the bigger the country, the more votes they should have. However, it was suggested that the smaller less powerful countries should perhaps have more than one vote to ‘even things up’. The problems of voting power and it consequences were provided by the COP system where any one participant could frustrate the will of the majority leading to feeble results and inaction on the climate.

    The focus on the Security Council and the antics of some countries there, drew attention away from the many positive things the several UN agencies have achieved around the world. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has many disease reduction or eradication achievements to its name e.g. TB; yaws, malaria and smallpox. Also on the positive side, it was noted that the Secretary General, António Guterres, has come out of the Middle East conflict well.

    A more fundamental question was posed: what would the world look like if we didn’t have a United Nations? Would it be a Hobbesian world (nasty, brutish and short)? To an extent the question was left hanging but it did focus our minds briefly on the many benefits of the organisation as against the all too visible failings. If we were to start again, would the idea of assembling 190 or so nation states be thought a good idea today? Will the UN ever be in a position to curb the power of a Putin or the Iranian mullahs someone asked?

    We moved on to discuss the issue of power and whether we should have ‘a people’s UN’ to give voice to those who have been overlooked – the aborigines in Australia were mentioned. Should we adopt a citizen’s jury approach where the views of a wide range of people could be taken account of?

    Does the UN Association still exist it was asked? It does.

    The second half debate was on the tricky subject of migrants, a topic of considerable salience currently with the debate over deportations to Rwanda in full flood at present. Next week is the vote to try and set aside some parts of the Human Rights Act to enable them to take place following the Supreme Court’s decision a few weeks ago.

    It would be fair to say the proposer was not an enthusiast for allowing migrants to stay here, claiming that they pose a security risk and are from alien cultures.

    The first speaker said they completely disagreed. Immigrants add considerably to our society and to the cultural mix. They played an essential part in our economy and filled many vacancies for jobs British people seemed unwilling to do. It was pointed out that without them, parts of our economy would grind to a halt: hospitals would would be forced to offer maternity and A&E; many food products would disappear off the shelves and the London transport system would not be able to function. It was also pointed out that our birth rate was dropping and we needed an influx of young people to do the jobs we wanted doing. Immigration was needed to keep the economy dynamic.

    Many people coming here to claim asylum were escaping from terrible regimes. The government’s plan was to deny the right to seek asylum to anyone arriving here illegally – essentially by boat. It was noted however that there were no boat crossings prior to 2016. They started because all legitimate routes had been closed down meaning that immigrants were forced onto the boats as the only way left. An enormous amount of attention was paid to this issue but much less on the tens of thousands awaiting decisions from the Home Office.

    It was noted that the problem was much worse for other countries which had huge immigrant populations for example Turkey and Jordan.

    We quickly got onto why has this become such a political issue consuming huge amounts of political time and the cause of two recent ministerial resignations. One factor was the foreign own media which presented a regular series of negative stories about immigrants accusing them of a range of antisocial activities. It has to said though that they are supplying a market. On that subject was this week’s edition of Question Time on the BBC. It was in front of a strongly Conservative audience being hosted in Petersfield in Hampshire. The Conservative MP did not get a totally sympathetic audience and there were cheers for comments of a sympathetic nature as far as immigrants were concerned. ‘Very heartening’ someone said.

    It was suggested that immigration was a ‘political lens’ for looking at various problems. There has been significant political failure by politicians failing to look at root causes not just with immigration but climate change as well. In the context of Rwanda, the government has created its own problems.

    The way government treats refugees is very instructive – Tony Benn

    A startling comment was made about Rwanda namely it was a contract of exchange. It has been claimed that for each refugee we send to Rwanda, one will come back on a one-for-one basis. [I have looked into this startling claim and it has been scrutinised by Full Fact. It is not totally true. A ‘portion’ of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees may be sent here but the number is not known. A statement given to parliament said ‘it would be a small number’. Small is relative of course but it is surprising in all the fire and fury of discussions about this topic that this aspect of the deal has not been discussed more.]

    The sheer cost of the Rwanda deal was commented on at an estimated £169,000 per person. Millions have so far been spent with more to come (or is it go?) without a single refugee having gone.

    Then there was the cost of housing migrants here while their cases were reviewed. It was claimed that the government was using hotels in marginal seats for political purposes. According to the Daily Mail, the government is stopping using hotels in ‘battleground’ constituencies (in Mail speak).

    It has been suggested that the Bibby Stockholm be moved from Portland and moored in the Thames opposite the House of Commons for the accommodation of MPs thus saving £4m in second home claims.

    Other points included asking how do we encourage a better debate on this subject and get away from what we see in the media today? It was suggested that sorting the problems in the host countries was much the best way to stop the numbers leaving. It was also noted – in the context of medical staff working in the NHS – that we were ‘stealing’ these people from their home countries thus denuding their health services of valuable skills.

    Danny Kruger, the MP for Devizes, was mentioned in critical terms particularly his comments on migrants and refugees.

    We were left with the intriguing question, if we get a new government, will they reverse some of these decisions?

    We wish all our readers a Happy Christmas and we look forward to seeing you at our next meeting on 14 January 2024.

    Peter Curbishley

    Ken Loach’s film The Old Oak was recommended.

  • Last meeting

    The last meeting of the Café was held this Saturday, 9th December in Salisbury Library. If you haven’t been before – and we do seem to get one or two new members to each meeting – the idea is that we ask people to suggest a topic of a broadly political or philosophical nature upon which we vote and the winning suggestion is debated. Typically we debate two topics in a meeting. You can read the reviews of previous meetings elsewhere on this site to give you an idea.

    A report will appear shortly.

    PC

  • November 2023 Democracy Café

    There was a good turnout at Salisbury Library for the November 2023 Democracy Café. The two-minute silence to mark Armistice Day was preceded by a discussion based on the question:

    Do we have the right to protest?

    The first comment was that technically we do not have the right to protest. We have the right to assemble and to express ourselves, two rights which are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, which, according to Liberty, gives us the right to protest.

    Discussion ensued on what is meant by protest? It was suggested that it takes the form of fairly passive forms of action, such as writing letters to the local newspaper or to our MP and more active forms, such as attacking infrastructure. These more disruptive forms of protest are more contentious and it was mentioned that there is a danger that the use of such tactics can turn the narrative away from the issues that are being protested towards the tactics themselves. This could be counter productive for the protestors, especially as the media can play a major role in influencing the narrative as has been seen with Just Stop Oil. The purpose of protest, it was suggested, is to cut through but there is a danger that in doing so the message is lost, which is why Extinction Rebellion have moved away from illegal methods of protest. The counter argument proposed was that illegal protests have in the past influenced important legislative changes. Two examples given were illegal actions taken by the suffragettes and the gay rights movement.

    The discussion turned to the importance of the right to protest in a democracy. It was suggested that it is just as important in a healthy democracy to defend the right of those supporting right wing causes, such as the EDL, to protest as it is to defend those supporting causes which we might be more supportive of.

    There was some dismay about the lack of impact of protests in effecting policy change and reference was made to the march of one million people to protest against the invasion of Iraq in London in February 2003. This protest march was one of 800 held in cities around the world and was recorded in the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the biggest ever held. It did not immediately impact the main protagonist’s approach. However, it was suggested that it influenced government’s future approaches to similar situations as it demonstrated that mass support for invasions could not be taken for granted. Similarly, protests about gay rights took many years to bear fruit in terms of influencing public opinion and eventually law making.

    After the break another topical issue was discussed in answering the question:

    Does a country have the right to do anything in the name of its’ own defence?

    It was pointed out that in the UK before we had a Ministry of Defence we had a Ministry of War, which is perhaps a more honest reflection of the role of the ministry.

    There was some discussion about what is meant by “defence”. One suggestion was that defence is a more passive act whereas offence is more active. Then, it was suggested that attack can be seen as the best form of defence and a military response to a credible threat can be a defence. It was pointed out that if such an attack is over aggressive it can lead to further enmity and spark further conflict in the future. Several references were made to the current conflict in Israel/Palestine in this respect. 

    If a military response as a form of defence is pursued then what are the boundaries within which combatants should engage? The just war theory is a tradition of military ethics, part of which concerns the moral conduct of participants within war. This suggests that there are two main principles which are proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality regards how much force is necessary and morally appropriate to the ends being sought and the injustice suffered. The principle of discrimination determines who are the legitimate targets in a war, and specifically makes a separation between combatants, who it is permissible to kill, and non-combatants, who it is not. Failure to follow these rules can result in the loss of legitimacy for the war.  

    Discussion turned to the framework of international law which limits the actions of a nation state when engaged in its’ own defence. It was suggested that in the absence of an international body capable of enforcing the framework, it was not an effective limit. It was pointed out that the United Nations has been unable to act to prosecute those accused of crimes against humanity in nations such as Syria. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that the state of nature is the “war of every man against every man,” in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. Hence, he argued, in his book the Leviathan, the need for a governing body which would achieve peace through a social contract. Is the UN capable of playing that role, or is it too weak?

    The discussion moved on to consider whether war was always wrong with the view expressed that war can be useful in leading to the resolution of conflict between states, as with the second world war and the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. It was suggested that the current and ongoing conflict in the Middle East may have been avoided if the war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine in the 1940s had been allowed to play itself out. Some questioned the premise that war can be an effective way of resolving disputes.

    Two good discussions which were highly appropriate for Armistice Day.

    Mark Potts