Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Salisbury

  • Last meeting

    November 2023

    The November meeting of the Democracy Café was this morning, Saturday 11th as usual in the Library. Two lively discussions and we were pleased to welcome some returning friends and one new member. A write up will appear shortly.

    PC

  • Democracy Café

    Report of the Democracy Café which took place on October 14th, 2023

    It was good to welcome several old friends back to the café and a new member as well. The meeting took place exactly a week after the incursion into Israel by Hamas terrorists with a huge death toll among Israelis civilians. Israel retaliated by bombing Gaza and troops are massing on the northern border ahead of an expected invasion. The use of the word ‘terrorist’ in the above sentence is itself a matter of dispute.

    The first topic we chose was: to what extent are our opinions about the conflict influenced by the media reporting of it? Everything we know about the recent actions is as a result of what we have seen on TV, read in the papers or seen on social media of one kind or another. The point was made that everything we see and hear is affected by the media which was often afflicted by mis- or disinformation. The main TV stations (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are governed by impartiality rules and make great efforts to reflect all sides of a conflict. It has to be noted that not everyone was impressed by this and were not convinced that there was adequate balance in the reporting. Social media on the other hand was not subject to the same rules and were often the source of various conspiracy theories or disinformation. Some thought the coverage by al Jazeera was superior. There was a problem with paywalls: to read what different papers said meant paying to see the content which made commercial sense but did cut people off from accessing a more diverse range of views.

    The BBC in particular had come in for criticism by some politicians (Grant Shapps MP was mentioned) and by GB News for declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe Hamas people who invaded Israel. Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation in the UK and the BBC has used the word particularly in reported speech. In similar fashion, the lack of condemnation was also mentioned as a criticism. The BBC say the word ‘terrorist’ is loaded and they are reluctant to use it. The point was made that people in Gaza might say that the bombing of their communities is an act of terror (because they have been terrorised). I think the point made by several is that the word is highly charged and it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line.

    The BBC was defended by some however and they said that great efforts have been made to be fair in a volatile and fast changing situation. Someone pointed to the interview by Clive Myrie of a Hamas spokesman they thought was was good.

    Several spoke of the history of the conflict going back to the League of Nations and the mandate given to the British to keep the peace in Palestine after the Great War and the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. One speaker had been there in the Army during this latter period so it was interesting to hear of his first hand experience of these historical events. It was suggested that the animosity between Arabs and Jews was centuries old, others pointed out that during the time of the Islamic conquest, Christians, Jews and others continued with their lives as long as they paid their taxes. There were no pogroms. On the other hand it was suggested that the Jews were treated badly in Yemen. One thing was clear however and that was the Palestinians had received a ‘rotten deal’ as they put it following the events of ’48, what they refer to as the naqba (disaster). It was the rapid increase in the number of Jewish settlers after the war which added to the problems.

    Some media commentators had compared Hamas to ISIS and although there were some similarities, they were not motivated by the same things. It was suggested that some think tanks were a better source of information and Chatham House was mentioned.

    It was accepted that there was a lot of history but the fact remains the modern day situation in Gaza was a pressing issue for the two million or so living there. It had been pointed out earlier that Evan Davies on the PM programme on Radio 4 was reluctant to accept the phrase ‘open prison’ to describe conditions there. It was not to excuse their terrible actions but what are they to do? The world had a responsibility to ensure it did not go on and on. It was shocking that in the 21st century, we are witnessing these terrible events.

    There was general agreement that the uncritical and unbalanced support by the US, UK and French governments was to be deplored and offering to provide military support particularly so.

    It was a good debate particularly so in view of the emotive nature of what has taken place in the past week. It was clear that people recognised the historical factors which led to the current conflict. It is probably fair to say that some thought there was bias in the reporting while others thought that the mainstream media had sought, as best they could, to be balanced.

    The second topic was a complete contrast and was a discussion based on what single thing would you change in respect of our government? The proposer noted the preponderance of public school boys (mostly) in our government and civil service. Although only 7% went to these schools, they occupied by some estimates, 40% of key government positions. Eton school had a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons. Another issue was the high level of investments such people had. What was lacking among them was much in the way of ‘ordinary’ experience whether of employment or life in general. Not allowing the product of private schools into government was not agreed as this would disenfranchise large numbers of people. However banning the paying for education was proposed as happens in several other countries.

    The role of the City of London was mentioned along with the need to bring it fully into the United Kingdom.

    House of Lords came in for some predictable criticism. While the need for a second chamber was recognised, the presence of hereditary peers and the huge numbers of peers was criticised. A better method was proposed involving selecting people based on a representational basis. We might have noted the manner of their appointment and ‘cash for honours’ is often highly questionable. The word ‘bloated’ was used to describe the second chamber.

    The issue of how MPs are selected was brought up. A small panel of local party members choose the candidate sometimes from an approved short-list provided by central office. These people, if elected and if their party formed the government, might find themselves a minister of some kind having never managed or run anything before. Was it any wonder we had government mismanagement on a vast scale? Added to which was the rapid turnover of ministers some of whom only lasted a year or so in post. This brought up the question how did you find ‘decent’ MPs (meaning capable and with appropriate experience) in the first place and more women? It was pointed out that the LibDems did not select their candidates this way and held public meetings to do so.

    It was also pointed out that once a MP became a minister it seemed to reduce his or her ability to act as a representative which is why they were elected in the first place. Writing to the Salisbury MP for example would often elicit the response that as he was a minister he was not at liberty to intervene (in another department). It was a kind of circular nonsense: you elect someone to represent the constituency but they become a minister and thus stop being able to.

    Strong views were expressed about MPs having second jobs: representing their constituents which is what they were elected and paid to do and that should be a full-time occupation, not spending time on a second job.

    There was discussion about the actual shape of the Commons with two sides facing each other rather than a semi-circular arrangement seen in many other chambers around the world – Scotland and Wales for example. It invited exchanges which were little more than shouting matches which put off many people. Someone said they could not bear to watch prime minister’s questions for this reason.

    The voting system itself came in for criticism. A constituency like Salisbury for example is never likely to be other than Conservative despite the presence of many who were not Conservative supporters: they were effectively and permanently disenfranchised. This was an issue supported by Make Votes Matter in Salisbury.

    Other points included do we need a written constitution?

    We did not come to a ‘single thing’ as the question asked perhaps representing the fact that the system was so broken at so many points that no single thing would be enough to fix it.

    The next meeting is on Saturday 11th November, starting at 10.00 in the Library.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Information Anxiety, (1989), Richard Saul Wurman

    Chums: How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK (2023), Simon Kuper

    Why we Get the Wrong Politicians (2019), Isabel Hardman

    Not mentioned but relevant: The Palestine-Israel Conflict (2015), Dan Cohen-Sherbok & Dawoud el-Alami. The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and Resistance in Palestine (2018), Bernard Regan.

  • Democracy Café

    September 2023

    Met during a blisteringly hot day, probably a record breaker for September, and we were pleased to welcome two new members to the fold. The most popular topic concerned the state of the prison estate. The situation in our prisons had made the news this week following the escape of terror suspect Daniel Khalife from Wandsworth prison a couple of days ago where he was being held on remand. Coincidentally, he was recaptured while we were meeting. Many statements about our prisons were made which few could disagree with. We were reminded of Douglas Hurd’s comment that prison simply made bad people worse.

    The rapid movement of prisoners around the estate meant training programmes often went uncompleted making rehabilitation largely ineffective. The high absence rate – said to be 30% at Wandsworth – combined with high staff turnover, meant the proper management of prisoners and their rehabilitation was compromised. The language of some of our judges at sentencing drew some criticism. The majority of our prisoners were from poor backgrounds and often had poor literacy skills. This was not to excuse their behaviour but did seem to point to a range of social issues behind crime. Many were ‘damaged people’ someone said.

    The Nordic model was mentioned several times. The example of the Netherlands was quoted and the fact that the country was busy selling off its prisons and reducing the number of prisoners. That has not led to an increase in serious crime levels which remained largely unchanged. This seemed to demonstrate quite clearly that the notion of ‘prison works’ is fallacious. Other Nordic countries were doing much the same.

    So why did we stick to the prison works model and continue to pack our prisons with more and more people sometimes two to a cell? We have just under 86,000 prisoners in England and Wales and the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe (House of Commons statistics [accessed 9 September]). Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Yet we go on packing our prisons. Why is this?

    The role of the tabloids immediately came up and several thought that it was political suicide to seek to reform the system, reduce the prison population or try other sentencing options. Any politician daring to reduce sentences, and hence the size of the prison population, would likely face immediate screaming headlines suggesting the public would not be able to venture safely out of their homes or be murdered in their beds, followed by the swift departure of said minister to the backbenches or Northern Ireland. To spend money on the estate and to replace Victorian era prisons was deemed almost impossible some thought summed up in the quote “you’re going to spend money on the man who robbed me not on my pension”.

    As ever in these debates, the causal factors are what interests. Politicians follow the tabloids and the tabloids follow public opinion. So why do the public adhere to the idea of more draconian sentences and a desire for vengeance? One answer was a need to educate the public. If the facts of prison life and our high rate of recidivism was made more evident then maybe people could be weaned off the kneejerk ‘prison works’ model. That prisons are ‘holiday camps‘ is still a sentiment expressed including by some politicians. All was not gloom however and it was suggested there was a slight shift in tabloid comments towards victims and away from the criminals. The New Zealand model of confronting offenders with victims was mentioned. But changes in opinion can happen and the example of homosexuality was put forward: where once it was a crime and homosexuals suffered persecution and criminalisation, the Sexual Offences Act (1967) changed the climate considerably in favour of toleration. In the context of prisons it was strange that the Howard League for Penal Reform seldom gained a mention.

    Rory Stewart was mentioned in connection with his attempts, as the Minister concerned, at reform by reducing the number of pointless short sentences and introducing more rehabilitation efforts. He did not last long in post. The privatisation of the probation service by his predecessor Chris Grayling MP was a disaster and had to be undone. Why was not more use made of parole? someone asked.

    It was noted that even in Republican states in the US, positive reforms can take place. A cross-party consensus was clearly needed in the UK to ‘depoliticise’ this issue. Select Committees can also be effective it was noted. So this session did end with a soupcon of hope: that the tide of ignorance promoted by the likes of the Daily Mail – seemingly reflecting public opinion – may not in fact be the majority view and with education attitudes might be encouraged to shift. It was perhaps a topic which a Citizens’ Assembly could tackle? Bringing together evidence and experts is just the kind of exercise which a CA could bring about change.

    So overall, a sense of despair mixed with some optimism that things can change over time the key being sufficient numbers of the public to realise that the current system, in addition to being expensive and inhumane, was simply not working.

    Our second topic was something of an abrupt change and concerned Saudi Arabia and the planned visit by Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to the UK. Should we treat Saudi Arabia as a partner? was the question. The proposer listed the problems of the country: the poor treatment of women and gays; the lack of free speech; the war engaged by Saudi in the Yemen and later in the discussion, the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, allegedly on the orders of MBS. It was pointed out that Saudi has now executed 100 people so far this year.

    The reason for this courtship as someone expressed it was twofold: Saudi was a major purchaser of our arms and secondly, they were a major oil producer which, following problems with Russia, was an important factor. Since arms sales were one of the nations growth industries, good relations with countries like Saudi were important. It was not just arms and oil someone said. Saudi was a kingdom and there were close relationships between MBS and our royal family with gifts of valuable bloodstock between the two.

    In relation to the Khashoggi murder, it was pointed out that the CIA had carried out a number of murders over the years so it was not all one-sided. We claim to have a special relationship with the US so how genuine was the outrage expressed about the Khashoggi murder at the time?

    In relation to arms sales, the UK’s role in promoting arms sales at the DSEI exhibition was noted. Also, it was often said that ‘if we didn’t sell arms, others would’ but a recent report by Campaign Against the Arms Trade questioned that. It reveals that sales of arms by both Russia and China have fallen recently: in Russia’s case because of the war in Ukraine which is consuming large amounts of military materiel, and by China because it is building up its store of weapons probably in preparation for an invasion of Taiwan. Further details can be found on the Salisbury Amnesty site in which these issues are discussed in more depth.

    The nub of this debate concerned government’s role in relations with other countries especially those where human rights were weakly observed or not observed at all. To what extent does – or should – morality be a consideration? We need to sell arms it seems if we want money to spend on schools and hospitals. We need oil to run our economy and to enable us to drive our cars. Saudi has a big role to play in each. Can we afford to adopt a moral position is the key question? As with the previous debate someone suggested we needed to look for that small event which might lead to significant change – a hint of the butterfly effect if you will.

    In sum, and not just in relation to Saudi, there was a real risk to democracy someone thought, perhaps a topic for a future debate. We did agree it was a hard subject.

    Finally, with a little time to spare, we briefly discussed the conviction and sentencing of Lucy Letby the nurse convicted recently for murdering babies in a neo-natal ward in Chester. The proposer made the point it was obvious she was an extremely sick young woman. There has been nothing about a psychological assessment or her future treatment. She will have to go on Rule 43 because of the likely risks from other prisoners.

    There was a call for her to be executed as an ‘evil person’ but this was not supported by those present. There was a risk of starting to find excuses for her behaviour: some people were just ‘evil’.

    Someone with hospital experience said that a feature of neo-natal units is that they are based on team working since premature infants needed constant attention. They thought others must have noticed which in fact did happen to an extent. It was noted that the hospital concerned was more interested in their reputation rather than investigating the incidents properly. Although every hospital was different, it was an example of ‘silo working’. Those who had medical friends did sometimes note the hostility that is sometimes expressed by clinical staff towards managers. There did seem to be a gulf between them and the Robinson programme on the BBC some years ago was mentioned where this hostility was amply illustrated.

    There did seem to be a similarity between the NHS and the prison system. Both organisations needed reform and investment yet did not get more than token activity by a succession of ministers none of whom seemed able, or were in post long enough, to tackle the major issues involved.

    Three interesting debates.

    Peter Curbishley

    Note: a claim about how Vancouver sentenced people was made but we have not been able to verify this.

  • Democracy café – August

    August 2023

    These are the notes of the Democracy Café held on 12 August 2023.

    A number of people were away for a variety of reasons so attendance was low.

    Four topics suggested, two (Citizens Assembly, Stonehenge tunnel) were politely set aside.

    We kicked off with What response should we give to our MP John Glen, given his unsatisfactory response to a letter about the pending legislation on Freedom to Demonstrate?

    Unfortunately, neither the letter (written by one of us regulars) nor JG’s reply was tabled. Since we couldn’t read the exchange in detail, it was hard to provide an effective/cogent rejoinder.

    The discussion brought out many concerns, including: foreign policy outside the reach of local constituencies; the UK’s image/reputation abroad; the particular threat to teachers and solicitors who might face the loss of career if found ‘guilty’ of causing public disturbance; UK status/ credibility within the European Court of Human Rights.

    Having agreed we could not prepare a draft a letter to John Glen, we broadened the debate/airing of concerns and opinions, actually encroaching on some of the stuff that would have come up had we opted for the shelved Citizens Assembly theme, and ideas that were to come up after coffee in the National Autonomy.

    Shifting semantics means that the words liberal (Liberal?) and conservative (Conservative?) cannot be tossed around with confidence.

    The second topic, which triggered another wide-ranging discussion (and the voicing of opinions which varied according to individuals’ depth of research and ‘urge to comply’ vs ‘defiance’) was Should we sacrifice national autonomy in – for example – pandemic preparedness as we collaborate with the World Health Organisation?

    The next meeting of the Café is on 9 September.

  • Democracy Café

    August 2023

    To let you know that the next Democracy Café takes place today, Saturday 12 August starting at 10:00 to be held in Salisbury Library (upstairs). It lasts two hours and it is free to attend but if you do have a spare groat or two to contribute, that would be appreciated. You can see write ups of our many previous meetings on this site. Essentially, you are free to suggest a topic for discussion and we then vote on the suggestions. We tend to tackle two topics typically.

  • Democracy Café: July

    July 2023

    A full house at the July 2023 Democracy Café to discuss two topics, both of which are at the top of people’s minds at present: the state of the two party system and immigration.

    The first topic was around the question How do we get out of the two party system? One of the first comments to be made was that we had an adversarial system exemplified by the knockabout prime minsters questions once a week. Surely it would be better if efforts were directed at how to improve matters (the economy and social concerns for example) rather than spend time on this political theatre.

    Some pointed to other countries which had coalitions which of course we had at the beginning of the last decade. Several of the problems the country has faced recently had a cross party feel to them eg, Northern Ireland, Covid and even Brexit. This indicated that problems were in fact bigger than the parties. It was suggested that with coalitions, minority parties assumed disproportionate power. Some disagreed with this assertion saying they thought it was something of a myth. It probably does depend on the numbers.

    The argument was forcibly put for a written constitution. This led on to the need to separate the government from the House of Commons. The present system meant the governing party and the HoC were almost one thus neutralising the Commons and MPs. The result was it almost became a dictatorship (the elective dictatorship we have discussed previously). The sole purpose of the HoC it was argued was to pass legislation and agree the budget.

    The role of MPs in relation to their constituents was mentioned. Those who contacted their local MP – who in the case of Salisbury was a member of government – were met with the response that he could do nothing because he was barred by collective responsibility. Or they got a anodyne response that was simply the party line.

    With emails and organisations urging the public to ‘get in touch with their MP’, can he or she cope with the volume of material? Was it worthwhile doing so? ‘Yes’ was the response and it can work.

    A dissenting voice was the problem with coalitions was that they tended to be slow. The first past the post system (FPTP) did give rise to strong government it was suggested. There was a tension between authoritarianism and democracy and the tendency of governments is towards the former came up several times.

    The prevailing mood of the discussion so far was the feeling that the ordinary voter was overlooked in the system we have. How could voters voices be heard? What mattered in the process was the swing voter who were critical in some constituencies. As if to counter this pessimistic view the role of protest groups in changing the political climate was noted. The example given was the suffragettes which was true to an extent although the suffragists laboured for four decades without success and it took further two decades for the suffragettes to get votes for women.

    The debate was predicated on the notion of two parties being distinct and with little opportunity for other parties to make headway. However, quite how different were the two parties? If the Conservatives were truly a right wing party then government expenditure would be cut and no doubt other typically right wing polices would be enacted. It was in fact difficult sometimes to see them apart. Indeed, a problem for the Labour party was their policy ideas being taken from them by the government, the windfall tax a recent example.

    Which other countries have FPTP it was asked? Belarus was the answer, hardly an ideal exemplar and which seemed to sum things up quite well. We should not get carried away by claims about the authoritarian nature of the government – we do still have fundamental freedoms. The very fact we were able to meet and have a perfectly free debate would not be possible in other truly authoritarian states.

    People fundamentally wanted to see good decision making. The calibre of those going into parliament – and perhaps more to the point – high calibre people not going into parliament, was depressing. It was still difficult for women to make headway particularly in view of the large number of abuse cases (‘pestminster’) currently being investigated. The culture within politics was discouraging it was suggested.

    How to get change? We do get the politics and politicians we deserve to an extent which pointed to making sure people were educated about the system. This included schools but it seems that civics classes are no more. Whether outside people should go into schools was queried – surely they would import bias? The purpose of such talks was about the system of government, not party policies. Groups like ourselves debating these issues was part of the mix it was noted.

    Conclusions? One thought was that many problems came down to one of two solutions which pointed to two political parties. Historically, the Conservatives represented the owners of capital and Labour the wage earners (somewhat oversimplified) which again suggested a two party system. We were depressed by the quality of the people who represent us but, it is we who vote them in. Would a better educated electorate make a difference? Perhaps. Change was possible however and campaign groups can effect change. The FPTP system has hindered change as we have noted before – UKIP with its 3 million votes but had only one MP.

    The second debate was should we welcome migrants or not? A question of considerable political salience at present. The first problem was defining terms – was it refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants we were talking about? The question was left hanging.

    Migration of one kind of another had been with us since the dawn of time, we originated in Africa after all. Many of those in the room will have some foreign blood. The problem today it was claimed was coloured migrants – we seemed to be reasonably unconcerned about people coming here from America, Canada, Australia and so on, but those stepping off the boats caused fury.

    One curiosity was people expressing great pride with their sons or daughters going to foreign climes and doing well there. But people coming here are regarded with hostility by many. What exactly is the difference? We are proud of our emigrants but hostile to other’s immigrants. A question left unanswered was ‘what criteria should we apply to judge if someone was to be made welcome here?’

    Those who had spent time in the USA said the system was a little different and it was important to gain accreditation i.e. the green card. In the UK it was less clear cut.

    Many people leaving their homes were doing so not because they wanted to but because of war, persecution, climate problems and similar factors. If we were so angered by a proportion of them ending up on our shores – literally in the case of the Channel crossings – then we should do more to improve matters where they live. Yet the government has cut foreign aid. In a similar vein, many were fleeing areas like the middle east – places like Syria and Iraq – where western policies, especially those of the UK and France after WWI, were the root cause of problems today.

    The situation in the health service was noted. The service depended on a vast number of overseas staff many of whom left because of feeling unwelcome during the Referendum and latterly, we were losing significant numbers of clinical staff to Australia, Canada and elsewhere.

    The attitude of Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman and Priti Patel, drew almost universal disdain. They were descendants of immigrants welcomed here yet were now vociferously campaigning against those coming after them.

    A view was expressed that immigrants were a cost to the taxpayer. It was pointed out however that if they were allowed to work, they would contribute to the economy and pay tax. So far from being a burden they would be a benefit. There was need of a culture change and to see such people in a more positive light. This might change attitudes. The contrast with Sicily was noted where people buying and doing up properties were welcomed as they were a boost to the local economy.

    We are an island with a very clear border namely the sea. There are countries where borders have shifted considerably especially in eastern Europe for example Poland and Romania. Yet there were still hatreds and enmities suggesting that the problem was connected with culture, ethnicity or language. It was not just an issue of borders and nationality.

    One of the aspects of the political scene was how politicians tried to take the high moral ground: it wasn’t prejudice or animosity towards immigrants they claimed, it was instead a war against the people smugglers. It was a pity more did not recognise this attempted sleight of hand. The smugglers were capitalising on a problem that existed, not creating it.

    Someone had seen a minister claim on TV that we needed immigrants to keep wages down and hence solve inflation.

    On the subject of Rwanda, the country had been used by Israel with the same purpose in mind. They had abandoned it because it just seemed to increase the incidence of smuggling. All those sent there left immediately and attempted to return to Europe.

    To encourage or deter – two opposite policies which mimicked the two party system – which is where we sort of came in …

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on 12 August at 10:00 am and in Salisbury Library

  • Citizens’ Assemblies ‘an investment’

    July 2023

    Another letter in the Salisbury Journal this week (July 6) arguing that CAs are ‘an investment’

    Following on from previous week’s letters to the Journal, this week saw a letter from Mike Hodgson arguing that it was wrong to see Citizens’ Assemblies as a cost.

    “I agree with Dickie Bellringer and his assessment of the benefits of Citizens’ Assemblies. He says that councillors and the political parties see CAs as a cost. I see them as an investment, ensuring good planning results in the effective implementation of schemes; not just assessing them in terms of cost, but also in terms of them being fit for purpose and achieving the desired objectives.

    “With £18k spent on a CA the People Friendly Streets scheme may not have happened as it did, thereby saving considerably more than the £18k [which would have been] spent. CAs are an investment. An investment in doing the job right in the first place and as such, save money not waste it.

    “Councillors seem to assume CA overrides their democratically elected decision-making powers, rendering them redundant. It does not. While councillors fulfil and important elected role safeguarding the people and the people’s purse strings, a CA is an information gathering tool and exercise in understanding the issue in question, the pros and cons,the problems and opportunities.

    “As such it is a democratic adjunct to quality decision-making providing high quality information from informed citizens. The final decision will always reside with the council and the councillors, because they are the elected decision makers and are democratically in control of the budget.

    “However, as Sir Winston Churchill once said, having good quality information is critical to making good decisions”.

    Mike Hodgson

  • Citizens’ Assemblies letter

    A second letter on Citizens’ Assemblies is published in the Salisbury Journal. We also write to the Area Board on this topic

    June 2023

    A second letter is published in today’s Salisbury Journal arguing for a CA to be held to consider the future of the City Hall (29 June 2023). There is also a letter arguing for greater involvement by local people and not for consultations to take place when in fact, decisions have already taken place.

    The first letter from Mark Potts:

    “Dickie Bellringer is right to suggest that the Salisbury City Council (SCC) administration should consider pushing Citizens’ Assemblies back up the agenda [in his letter to the Journal on] 22 June.

    “With the future of the City Hall to be decided, SCC needs to be putting pressure on Wiltshire Council (WC) to involve the people of Salisbury in determining its future through a Citizens’ Assembly.

    “Regarding the City Hall, Ian Blair-Pilling says that WC is focused on bring a long-term solution to Salisbury. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are fully involved in deciding the future of the City Hall and this is best done through a CA.

    “Too often decisions like this that impact on Salisbury have been taken without sufficient involvement of Salisbury citizens. Fully involved does not mean a consultation exercise whereby we are asked what we think about a decision once it has been made. It means something like a Citizens’ Assembly where a randomly selected representative group of Salisbury citizens hear the evidence and make informed recommendations based on the evidence.

    “Wiltshire Council can then say that they have truly listened to the people of Salisbury and made a decision based on their recommendations. This is what many other councils around the country have done on similar issues.

    “At a fraction of the cost of a parish poll, Citizens’ Assemblies give those who are not usually heard a chance to fully engage with the arguments and influence the future of our city.”

    Sentiments expressed in the above comments are repeated in a letter from Anne Trevett. Some extracts of which are:

    “The situation around [the] City Hall is complex and the current proposal by Wiltshire Council to develop a splendid new library and cultural centre is not without merit. It could be transformative for Salisbury as it has in places like Chester. But it is also high risk.

    […] “But there is a very real problem around the decision making process and its transparency. The present decision to explore a new building option has been taken by WC’s cabinet and if the discussion in the Salisbury Area Boards is any indication, does not have the full support of local councillors or the community.

    […] “Meantime, discussion of an alternative solution harnessing community energies in a way that has been shown to be hugely successful by numerous voluntary group in our City, from the Trussell Trust and Alabaré to more recently St John’s Place, are dismissed out of hand. Yet these organisation are Salisbury’s glory – example of social enterprise that have been seen as national exemplars of how to get things done.

    “Of course, the Council’s own solution will be to put up for “consultation” but only after months and years and massive expenditure on the plans. Not for the first time, I and many others are asking for our views to be considered in the drawing up of plans, not at the very end, at the point when decisions are already taken.”

    Both these letters express the concern about the manner of decision making.

    Mark Potts has also written to the Area Board in the following terms:

    “I am writing to you as Chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) to make the case for a Citizens’ Assembly/Jury (CA/J) as part of the process to determine the future of the City Hall in Salisbury.  If you look at social media and read the local newspaper you will know that there is a perception amongst many people in Salisbury that decisions about our city are made by Wiltshire representatives living some distance away from us.

    “Whether this is a justified perception or not, it is prevalent and needs to be addressed. There is a perception that Wiltshire Council (WC) adopts a DAD approach to decision making for Salisbury. DAD stands for Decide, Announce, Defend. In essence, WC decides what it wants to do, announces it and invites responses. Then it seeks to defend its position if there are counter views. The problem is that people do not feel that they were involved in the decision making process and it leaves people thinking that the consultation process is little more than a sham.  EDD by contrast, stands for Engage, Deliberate and Decide. Engagement has the advantage of involving people in the decision making process from the start giving people an opportunity to contribute ideas with some chance that they will be incorporated, or at least considered. This is precisely what a CA/J enables to happen.

    “Many people in Salisbury reference the People Friendly Streets scheme as a recent example of the failed DAD approach. Whilst the rationale behind it had many merits, the lack of involvement of Salisbury citizens in its’ implementation meant that it was doomed to failure. Lessons need to be learned from that. 

    “From previous conversations with councillors, I am aware that there are concerns about the cost of running a CA/J. We at SDA have explored the costs and we are confident that a CA/J could be run at a cost to the Council of around £20k. I can provide more details on this should it be required. When we consider that the recent parish poll cost double that amount, this does not seem a large amount of money to restore some faith in the democratic nature of decision making. 

    “I am sure you realise that the City Hall is a building which is much treasured by the people of Salisbury. Its future use is a topic that is being hotly debated. It is vital that Salisbury citizens are given the opportunity to engage with the evidence, deliberate on it and contribute ideas to determine what happens to the Hall going forward. Of course, the final decision rightly rests with the elected representatives, but I hope that you recognise that engaging citizens in the process through a CA/J will further legitimise the decisions that are made“. 

    PC

  • Letter to the Journal

    A letter was published in the Salisbury Journal on the subject of Citizens’ Assemblies

    June 2023

    Dickie Bellringer of this parish wrote to the Salisbury Journal who published his letter on June 22nd.

    “Ian Curr is right to suggest that citizens assemblies (CAs) ‘may prove the next step forward’ (June 8th). Indeed the current Labour, LibDem and Independent leadership all expressed support for the idea when they were candidates for the election. But then the realities of of a stretched public purse kicked in and CAs have slipped down the agenda, largely because of the cost.

    “As I said in may last letter however, Salisbury Democracy Alliance (SDA) expects to be able to deliver a CA for less than £18,000, with the help of local partners and if we got a firm commitment from Salisbury City Council (SCC), then the SDA would commit to raising a significant proportion.

    “As of March 31 this year the SCC’s readily accessible reserves stood at £2.01 million presumbly less the cost of the parish polls. Those reserves are about £800,000 more than minimum required by the council’s Financial Regulations. No doubt it makes sense to have in reserve more than the bare minimum, especially in these uncertain economic times. Nevertheless, it seems that the council’s financial position is relatively healthy, which is a tribute to the efficiency of the administration and officers.

    “All I ask is that, with £12,000 already set aside in the budget for community engagement and SDA’s commitment to raise money itself, the SCC administration consider pushing CAs back up the agenda.”

    Dickie Bellringer

    (founding member of SDA)

  • Democracy Café

    June 2023

    A small, but perfectly formed group, met in the Library on Saturday 10 June 2023 and two topics were voted for discussion. It was held after the fairly momentous day in national politics when Boris Johnson had stepped down as MP having received a draft of the privileges committee report which is apparently damming of his behaviour. His honours list was also published with various individuals of dubious merit being ennobled or honoured in some way including his hair dresser which might come as a surprise to those who assumed it was mown rather than cut.

    The first topic asked whether Sir Keir Starmer risked throwing out the baby with the bathwater by seeking to appeal to the middle ground. One worry was the decision to deselect the sitting North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll for sharing a platform with Ken Loach the film maker who himself was expelled from the party for his associations with proscribed groups. This worried several people as it seems to be a sign of eliminating anyone who disagrees with the party line.

    One theme, which was expressed at several moments during the debate was the lack of vision by the Labour party. Some also thought he (Sir Keir Starmer) was floundering and that he was not a good communicator. Others also wondered if the policies would in fact be put into practice if and when they formed a government. He lacked charisma and perhaps most seriously, did not give people a sense of hope.

    Others disagreed most particularly with the idea he was floundering. It has to be recognised that the opposition has so much against it. If it spelt out policies too soon they would either be trashed or taken by the government, witness the windfall tax on the oil companies. There is a need to believe in him it was suggested. The difference between the two main parties was noted: the Conservatives for their loyalty (although that was somewhat doubtful at present) and the Labour party where there were often splits or major differences of policy and direction to be seen.

    As ever, we moved on to discuss how the media treat the parties and it was noted that the announcement by Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, that the proposed £28bn spend on green infrastructure would not take place straightaway, was pounced on by nearly all of the media but by contrast, the multiple spending promises dropped by the Conservatives received much less prominence.

    The reluctance of the party to take on the media in contrast to Prince Harry’s battle with the Mirror was commented on. There was a different media landscape now with very few young people buying or reading a newspaper. It was claimed that young people were more idealistic and perhaps the point here was that they were not attracted to the tabloid end of the market with its kiss and tell type stories. By contrast it was claimed that the new TV stations such as GB News with its fairly partisan approach was said to be popular with young people.

    What a lot of the media coverage lacked was nuance. Few issues were black and white, right or wrong and yet coverage was often cast in an unnuanced way.

    To be ‘left wing’ was something of an insult it was noted. A curious observation and poses the question why? It went with ‘woke’ and meant it was an easy insult to throw at someone or a party. Why this should be we didn’t explore and it might be a question for a future debate.

    Can an honest politician survive today? Could someone who ‘told it how it was’ and what is needed to fix our economy, society generally, the need for higher taxes and perhaps a tax on property, could such a person ever be elected? Almost certainly not although Mick Lynch was mentioned (who is not actually a politician). Are all politicians doomed to tell lies to get elected and then attempt to do what they think needs to be done afterwards? Which sort of brought us back to Sir Keir – not the suggestion of lying – but the need to steer a careful course, not spell out policy positions too soon for fear of being attacked.

    The second debate was quite different. This was the question Julian Assange has lost his appeal, should we be worried? This concerns the extended legal battle against extradition to the US which has been trying to get him to trial for a number of years. It came a day after Donald Trump was charged on 37 counts relating to removing top secret documents from the White House and leaving them lying around in various places in his house in Florida.

    The first point was that this was about freedom of speech and the press and Assange has performed a public service by revealing some of the activities being carried out by our governments. He was doing his job as a journalist including revealing some of the appalling activities being perpetrated in Guantanamo Bay. It was not clear if his revelations had done any actual harm.

    It was admitted that he was a strange personality and he had been accused of sexual assault in Sweden, charges now dropped. However, there was a principle at stake.

    A different view was to ask ‘why are we seeking to override the law in America?’ Surely it was up to the Americans to decide his fate? But what about the Sacoolas case and Harry Dunn? She fled the UK claiming diplomatic immunity following the accidental death of Harry Dunn? The extradition treaty was very one-sided it was noted: the Americans can extradite from the UK but refuse to allow Americans to be sent here for trial. Sacoolas will not come to the UK to stand trial.

    Could Assange receive a fair trial in the US? Anyone with knowledge of the American legal system would doubt that.

    Governments want to curtail freedom of the press. Around the world, journalists are arrested, abducted or murdered.

    However, governments were entitled to hold some secrets. However distasteful, our government engages in espionage with a view, partly at least, to protect our interests and to be aware of countries or other entities which might wish to do us harm. The problem was when this spilled over into unwarranted intrusion of private individuals, in short it was a matter of trust. People’s trust in our government was not high and many no longer had trust in the government not hide secrets we should know about. It was observed that we were supposed to be a society controlled by law but the problem was that the vast majority of us could not afford access to it because of the enormous cost. The quality and impartiality of the judiciary was also called in question.

    This led to a discussion of the case of Carol Cadwalladr who had done sterling work in exposing vote rigging in connection with Aaron Bank’s alleged activities and his many meetings with Kremlin officials (which he denies). Outrage has been caused by a judge’s ruling in the latest appeal by Banks that she will have to pay some of his costs which will amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Her journalism has performed a public service yet by some esoteric legal reasoning she is made financially the poorer. Other media did not develop the story possibly because it exposed wrongdoing with the Brexit vote. She was insultingly referred to by Andrew Neil as ‘Carol Codswallop’ among other insults. The judges’ decision was yet another expensive blow to the freedom of the press and the free speech generally.

    Final word: a fair trial for Julian Assange was ‘for the birds.’

    Peter Curbishley