Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: Salisbury

  • Second Talkshop

    Second Talkshop held in May 2023

    The second Talkshop was held on Saturday 27 May in Brown Street with two hours spent on debating a variety of issues.  The event was run by dividing attendees into groups of around half a dozen who were given a variety of cards upon which were described successful projects that have been run elsewhere in the country or indeed the world.  The result was three ideas which could be applied in Salisbury.  If there was a common theme it was the need for improved involvement in decision making. 

    SDA has been promoting the idea of a citizens’ assembly for some time now so far without success.  The idea of an assembly is to invite a carefully selected and representative group of people – who are then sorted for demographic balance – to debate, with the help of experts, a problem or proposed policy with a view to arriving at an informed result or recommendation.  It has the advantage of involving local people in decision making and in subjecting a proposal or policy to some kind of rigorous analysis before it is put into effect.  It has been successfully applied in a number of locations usually with beneficial results. 

    Cost has been one of the arguments deployed against using the assembly technique and it was coincidental that a row erupted in the City Council concerning a parish poll it held in March this year and there is an article on the subject in the Salisbury Journal (Parish poll will cost city double projected figure, June 1, 2023). The poll is likely to cost £40,000 against an original budget of £18,000.  Very few people took part and it is unclear what value was derived from the exercise. 

    A citizens’ assembly by contrast would cost less than this (and SDA will engage in fundraising to lessen the burden on the Council) and is almost certain to achieve positive results.  One of the factors which emerged in the Talkshop, which all authorities have to recognise today, is the high degree of scepticism and cynicism concerning politics both nationally and locally.  To an extent, local politics has been unfairly coloured by the goings on in Westminster which hardly needs any explanation here.  Scarcely a day passes without some new example of poor policy making, corrupt dealings or serious misjudgement.  ‘A plague on all your houses’ is a familiar refrain from many which as I say, unfairly tarnishes the work of local politicians.

    Involvement

    Part of the problem centres on involvement and participation.  There is also an issue when the local authority does engage in consultation about how real that is.  There are two forms which have the acronyms DAD and EDD.  DAD stands for Decide, Announce, and Defend.  In essence, the local authority decides on 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 the quality of the original decision and whether it has looked at other options.  It frequently 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 at the start which provides an opportunity for people to contribute ideas with some chance they will be incorporated or at least considered. Of course, no method is perfect and policy makers may say it can be difficult for people to contribute to policy making if they are not provided with options and suggestions to begin with.  Community events can end up with arguments over small details and an avoidance of more strategic issues. Deliberation is important because it gives participants an opportunity to consider the evidence for and against different options before deciding on the recommended ones.

    Talkshop

    But back to the Talkshop.  The three topics which emerged were: making a more concerted effort to involve those who, for one reason or another, are disengaged with local politics; participatory budgeting and finally ‘forum theatre’ – using the arts as a way to engage local people in decision making.  We hope to work on these ideas over the coming months and we are setting up a second event in the autumn to take things forward.  We were delighted to welcome three city councillors who took an active part in the morning and the discussions.

    Those we spoke to after the event felt it was worthwhile.  It was a pity the sudden arrival of warm weather and a bank holiday weekend, reduced the numbers attending.  A deep frustration was evident concerning how we are governed now: people do not seem to believe we are best served by the current system. 

    SDA believes there is a better way and it is within our grasp to make it happen.  At least locally, and here in Salisbury, we can do something to get better decisions and demonstrate to residents that they have a role – a real role – in the management of the city’s affairs.  There will however, have to be a culture change.  Involvement has to mean something tangible and a move away from the DAD (see above) approach we have now.  The councillor who proposed the parish poll is quoted in the Journal as saying “you cannot put a price on democracy”.   Quite so. 

    Peter Curbishley

  • Citizens’ juries

    Exchange of correspondence on the issue, and cost, of Citizens’s Juries

    If there is one thing that is guaranteed to get people agitated is the issue of tax and its related topic, community charge. A key promise by politicians of all shapes and sizes – almost always broken – is that they will keep such taxes low or at least not raise them. They also promise to do this and that policy to improve our lives which usually requires, in some form, er … tax. We will tackle waiting lists (but not raise your taxes), we will sort out the pot holes (but not raise your community charge), we will improve … well you get the idea (but not …).

    I claim no scientific basis for the following but it seems to me that people respond to this issue in one of three broad ways. Firstly, there are those that say ‘they don’t mind paying more tax as long as it’s spent on X’ where X is something they favour e.g. the health service. This is the hypothecation view and it has many problems one of which is different people favour different things they want taxes to be spent on. How do you decide?

    The second group is ‘I wouldn’t mind paying more tax but they only waste it’. ‘Waste’ here can mean many things but it often means, on enquiry, money spent on things they don’t approve of: in the current climate that will be hotel accommodation for the boat people.

    Finally, there are those that believe that lower tax means everyone is better off. It overlooks the simple fact that yes, you can buy some new clothes or go out for a meal or two with the money saved but you can’t buy yourself better roads, a health service, defence and all the other things that make life bearable. Some things just have to be done collectively or they won’t get done at all. Tax is our contribution to a good society.

    So this is part of the backdrop to an exchange of letters in the Salisbury Journal. The Parish Poll conducted by Salisbury City Council recently has produced a huge amount of correspondence and in turn led Cllr Charles McGrath (Con) to write on 27 April, complaining about the conduct of the poll which voted for a cap of 5% on the precept. He then says “This is the administration that pledged to make ‘Your voice Heard’ in their Strategic Plan for Salisbury City Council, and once supported the concept of of self-selecting Citizens’ Juries which have cost some councils £40k – over twice the amount of a parish poll” (our italics).

    This week (4 May) Dickie Bellringer, a member of SDA, replied […] “I would like to correct a piece of misinformation disseminated by Cllr Charles McGrath in last week’s postbag the citizens’ juries are self-selecting. This is untrue. Citizens’ Juries are examples of deliberative democracy for which residents are selected randomly in order to deliberate on important local issues.

    “They can draw on, and interrogate expert witnesses who will provide information.

    “[…] Cllr McGrath writes that Citizens’ Juries have cost some councils £40,000 but Salisbury Democracy Alliance has been campaigning for Citizens’ Juries for many years and, by working with local partners, should be able to produce a Citizens’ Jury for less than £18,000”.

    He finishes by referring to the Talkshop event mentioned in our last post, which takes place on 27 May.

    The idea of letting people’s voices to be heard is a familiar one but few are in possession of the time or expertise to make significant contributions. There is a need for advice, and time for people to digest and understand the complex issues around a local economy. The Strategic plan – referred to by Cllr McGrath – is my view flawed in many respects. See the link above. I wonder how many will have read all the reports and supporting material? Whether it’s £18,000 or Cllr McGrath’s exaggerated £40,000, isn’t it better to find a way to sound and achievable solutions than following the path of a somewhat flawed plan?

    But the backdrop is always the issue of tax and how much we should pay. Politicians are never able to say that lower taxes do not automatically make you better off. The years following austerity has seen spend on a wide range of public services and local authorities decline precipitately with the results we are now witnessing.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Talkshop: UPDATE

    This is the second post about our second Talkshop due to take place today, 27th May starting at 10:00 at 29 Brown Street Salisbury finishing at 12:00 prompt. Most of the places are now taken so if you are interested in coming and taking part, you do need to book straight away. It is free but we ask for a parting collection to help with our costs.

    The event is run in partnership with the RSA and we are grateful for their help. This is our second event of this kind and the first help spawn the EcoHub project which is now doing well and has a site in the Market most Saturdays.

    The event is part of the Alliance’s efforts to see citizens more involved in the politics of our community and to try and get a higher standard of decision making. We are pleased that some councillors are planning to come which might help secure ideas such as citizen’s assemblies become a feature of how decisions are made locally.

    The event will be run much as before. We assemble in small groups of around 6 each and examine a range of cards with ideas where citizens have been involved in the democratic process. After discussion, each group will select 2 or 3 which they think might be of use and relevance locally. During a break, we look at other team’s efforts and come up with some final ideas. It’s both fun and has a serious intent.

    One of our aims is to move away from so-called ‘consultation’ exercises where plans and policies are presented for us to look at but where in fact decisions have largely been taken and other options may not even have been looked at.

    Interested? Then you need to book up using the following link:

    https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/new-local-politics-involving-citizens-in-local-decision-making-tickets-597656295067

    May we please ask that if you do book and are unable to come, to let us know so your space can be offered to someone else. Thanks. See you there.

    Photo: SDA

    We also run the Democracy Café which meets once a month in the Library. The next one is May 13th and starts at 10:00 am and finishes at noon. If you scan this site you will find reports of our previous meetings and the sorts of things we have discussed.

    PC

  • Second Talkshop event

    We are please to invite you to the second of our TALKSHOP events in collaboration with the RSA at 29 Brown Street between 10am and noon on Saturday 27 May. Last year’s event was very successful and resulted in the creation of the Eco Hub who have a presence in the Market Square.

    This time we will exploring how we can do politics differently in Salisbury and how we can engage more citizens in our local democracy. Participants will be given examples of how politics can work differently both from the UK and throughout the world and select some ideas that are achievable locally. You can find out more by clicking on the link above.

    More details will be provided soon.

  • April meeting

    Completed.

    Our next meeting of the Democracy Café will be this Saturday, 8 April at 10:00 as usual finishing at noon. It will be in the Library (upstairs) as last time. Look forward to seeing you there.

  • Democracy Café, March

    March 2023

    This was the first meeting in our new home at the Library. It turned out to be a good location with no distracting noise and of course it is central.

    The first topic was almost a forgone conclusion: namely, Gary Lineker who was the subject of a major row. Gary is the presenter of the BBC’s Match of the Day and following the announcement of the latest bill by the government to deter refugees travelling by boat across the Channel, declaring them automatically illegal, had tweeted “An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” This had prompted his suspension from the programme and as the other presenters decided not to appear meaning the programme would have to be aired without a presenter at all.

    A large number of points were made in what turned out to be an interesting debate. The first point was that he was freelance and not a BBC employee. As a sports presenter, he should be free to express his political views as a matter of free speech. If he had tweeted his support for the government’s proposals, what someone wondered, would have been the reaction?

    The view was expressed that celebrities from other realms of work should not be allowed to express their political views (this did not receive much support).

    The BBC’s view was even though he isn’t a political commentator, he has an enormous following and is thus influential.

    An important point was made that this whole row had acted as a distraction to the real issue namely the immigration and asylum system itself and the failure of government policy to tackle this issue adequately. Was the bill merely theatre someone wondered? The government knew it wouldn’t work it was suggested but just wanted to show that they were trying to do something knowing it had little chance of becoming law. Someone who had met the local Conservative MP in the past few days reported he did not think his party to be in power after the election which might support this view. Greg Dyke, former DG of the BBC, was quoted as saying in an interview that he thought the BBC was mistaken as it gave the perception they had bowed to government pressure.

    A feature of the debate – and a key element of Lineker’s tweet – was the issue of free speech. It was noted that Lineker did not use the word ‘Nazi’ that some commentators and politicians had accused him of. Was the range of recent bills inhibiting protest and limiting access to judicial review, together with attacks on the BBC in general and Lineker in particular, signs of growing authoritarianism a la Germany in the ’30s? Was the reported decision, also by the BBC, not to broadcast the final episode of the forthcoming Attenborough series because of a fear of a right-wing backlash, a further example of a creeping curtailment of free speech?

    It was noted that over the past few weeks, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and Lee Anderson, all currently serving as Conservative MPs, had been given their own shows on GB News. They will be free to air their views every week yet there has not been an outcry about their appointments or conflicts of interest. We were also reminded of the scandal surrounding the appointment of Richard Sharp as chair of the BBC following his substantial contribution to the Conservative party and his failure to declare to the selection board his role in securing a major loan for Boris Johnson, prime minister at the time, who subsequently appointed him.

    The debate moved on to the issue of impartiality and was true impartiality ever possible anyway? There is a legal case at present where the views of Fox News presenters appeared to different from those aired during the Trump era. This aspect of the debate arose around the question of ‘balance’ which sat alongside ‘impartiality’ at the core of the problem. Climate was an example where the BBC balanced reporting of climate change by inviting speakers who did not accept global warming to debate with scientists who did. This resulted in a false balance since the ‘deniers’ had little science to support their views. After a prolonged outcry, this no longer happens. On the other hand, employees of local government, government departments and agencies are not allowed to engage in political activity or air their views on these matters in public.

    Linked to this was the failure by broadcasters to ask who was funding some of the people they interviewed. Some contributors were funded by fossil fuel interests which was not declared to the listening or viewing public.

    Hard to sum up but there was a feeling that it was important for commentators to be free to air their views. There was a simmering sense that with the foreign ownership of our media and with hostility towards the BBC (and we might have added Channel 4) we were at risk of losing key elements of free speech and a slow drift towards a one party state was not impossible. The first thing the BBC should do someone suggested is not follow what the government says.

    In the second half we attempted to tackle the question who runs Britain? You cannot say we lack ambition.

    The first theory out of the blocks was it was all rooted in money. The City and other interests were focused on this aspect. It was money which gave you power someone said. Second was the influence of public schools and their desire to maintain their influence in society and, it was claimed ‘to keep at all costs, the socialists out [of power]’. They devoted great efforts to maintain their role in society.

    The media was mentioned on the basis of ‘who controls the media controls the message’. Whether that is so true today with such a diversity of platforms is to be questioned. We were then introduced to the Beckhard and Gleicher’s change formula – which is probably the first time a formula has been introduced into our proceedings – and that is (D x V) + FS > C where D is dissatisfaction, V is vision and FS, first steps. Latterly, the C component has been replaced by R representing resistance to change. If the first set of factors is greater than the second, change might happen. To note is that if any of the left hand terms are zero, there will be no change.

    Corporations were another source of power and the multi-national ones in particular. Not all were venal it was pointed out and some did want to improve the lot of their fellow man.

    China was mentioned and the role of Deng Xiaoping who, following the death of Mao, told the Chinese to ‘go out and make money’. This led a discussion of the seemingly impregnable one party states like former East Germany and Romania which, despite having formidable security apparatuses, collapsed quickly following modest protests. Would China be like that despite their highly sophisticated surveillance system? Their swift change of course on Covid lockdown in the face of protest was noted. However, the failure of the Arab spring demonstrated that not all protests and uprisings led to happy results – look at Egypt.

    One of the paradoxes of politics today in relation to who runs the country, was the fundamental belief of the current government in less government following the neoliberal agenda. They believed in freedom and the ebb and flow of markets to decide matters, not government interventions. Well that was the theory.

    Two debates which circled freedom of speech and good government. The first focused on a specific incident and a tweet by Gary Lineker, the second on the more general issue of where the power lies in our country. The support Lineker received, while we were debating this issue, and resulting in the disruption of the BBC’s sports coverage, perhaps demonstrated that power can often be illusory and hard to control.

    Peter Curbishley

    Book mentioned: Another Now, Yanis Varoufakis, 2020, Vintage

    Of relevance:

    Who Governs Britain? Anthony King, 2015, Pelican

    Posh Boys: how the English public schools run Britain, Robert Verkaik, 2018, One World

  • Next Democracy Café

    Next Café and note change of venue to the Library

    Today!

    Following the closure of Progress café we have relocated Salisbury Democracy Café to Salisbury Library. So, the next café on Saturday 11 March between 10am and noon will be held in the Portico Gallery on the first floor at the front of the Library. We will normally be in The Lounge area but, unusually, this is occupied on Saturday. Tea and coffee will be available and you are welcome to bring your own mugs if you wish. However, biodegradable paper cups will also be available as well as the library’s own mugs. Hope to see you there.

    DB

  • Democracy Café, January 2023

    The first café of 2023 was held in our new venue – the Progress Café in Endless Street, Salisbury. Mark, the chair of Salisbury Democracy Alliance, welcomed everyone and explained that the Café was part of SDA’s activities which was to promote deliberative democracy, an issue which surfaced coincidentally in the second topic we discussed.

    The first topic which won the vote was about the conflict in Ukraine and how people thought it might end. The proposer of the topic quoted an article in the Global Policy Journal. The background to the conflict it was suggested is that the US wanted to draw Russia into a war in Ukraine which would drain it of resources over time and weaken the perceived intention of Putin to recreate the Russian empire, thus reducing its chances of becoming the dominant force in Asia. The US was also worried by the Russia/China link.

    Similarities were drawn with the war in Afghanistan where America and other western countries supplied weapons and military equipment sufficient to keep Russia bogged down there for years. The point was made that these wars are often testing grounds for equipment to see how well they perform on the battlefield. In Afghanistan, the Stinger missile was a crucial weapon which destroyed many Russian helicopters.

    The Ukraine war produced two surprises: first the tenacity of Ukrainian resistance and secondly, the weakness of the Russian military. It had been assumed that Russia’s military might would enable it to sweep through the country but the opposite had happened and its gains were limited. Although their army was strong in numbers, it was a conscript army and had weak NCO leadership.

    A key point was the actions of the West in the post Gorbachev era. It was suggested that Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan both failed to respond to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Instead of developing something like the Marshall Plan, it gradually expanded NATO eastwards, taking in more and more members, up to the border with Russia. In other words, the invasion was a kind of reaction to this eastward push by NATO.

    Another point was that Putin saw how the US and other NATO countries abandoned Afghanistan in some haste. They also failed to respond to Russia’s original invasion of Crimea and were largely mute with its support for the brutal campaign by Assad in Syria. They are likely to have concluded that the West were unlikely to do much if a full-scale invasion of Ukraine was undertaken. In this connection, we were reminded that the Crimean Oblast was handed over to Ukraine in 1954 by Khrushchev.

    How will it end? One suggestion was that the voice of the people (by which it is assumed the Russian people) must be heard. How? was the question in a state where opposition is not allowed and the media was tightly controlled. How long the western public will put up with the expenditure in view of other well-known pressures on the public purse at present? Will anyone be held to account for the war crimes?

    A theme, which was a kind of leitmotiv to the discussion, was that the media tended to underplay the role and responsibility the US has had in the current war. The deliberate confrontation with Russia particularly with the eastward push of NATO, and the desire to weaken the state and to depose Putin and the policy of giving just enough weaponry to the Ukrainians but not (it is alleged) sufficient for them to win it are all aspects of note. This is not to downplay or excuse Russia’s actions nor the war crimes which it is alleged they have committed.

    The second half discussion was on the suitability of our MPs and how they are selected. It would be fair to say that variations of this topic have been debated over the years reflecting, perhaps, the disquiet over poor decision making and some disastrous policy mistakes. The introducer gave a tour d’horizon of the problems as he saw it. He gave examples including the Iraq invasion and gambling legislation by Blair; the referendum by Cameron and more recently Johnson and Truss. In his view, MPs should be properly paid, truly independent and provide evidence and reasons for their policies and decisions. He also suggested their should be regional assemblies although he was reminded there were proposals to introduce these around 15 years ago and the legislation was never proceeded with.

    Some suggested that PR was a way forward as this might help smaller or newer parties gain seats. We were reminded that UKIP secured nearly 4 million votes in 2015 but gained not a single seat. Not everyone was convinced by PR however claiming that it risked have candidates who were party hacks and it might prevent independents getting elected.

    One problem was that MPs were expected to be all things to all men. One minute they were in their surgery dealing with a constituent worried about a pot hole outside their house, and the next expected to deal with affairs of state.

    On the question of pay, the issue of second jobs was mentioned. Some MPs have significant commitments, and sizeable earnings, from this activity and this raises the question, where do their loyalties lie (and when do they get the time to do the job they are elected to do?)? Linked was the question – some might say scandal – of lobbying which was on a huge scale. Isabel Hardman’s book ‘Why we get the wrong politicians‘ which painted a fairly grim picture of life as an MP.

    The legal system was mentioned and the jury system where a group was selected more or less at random, to hear a case and decide on guilt or otherwise. Could this not be a model for politics? We were reminded that one of the objectives of SDA is just such an idea – a citizens’ jury. This would review a problem in detail, using experts as necessary, and recommend a course of action. We had tried to introduce this idea with WC and Salisbury City Council, so far without success.

    One telling point was made however. We can talk about selection of MPs; lobbying; second jobs, and the poor quality of so many MPs, but the fact remains that it is we who select them at election time. Do we not get the MPs we deserve? How do we encourage the electorate to vote for the right person, although as Hardman points out, we are all too often presented with a candidate already selected by the local party?

    We were reminded of Walter Lippman and his phrase ‘the Bewildered Herd’. Lippman had a low opinion of democracy and assumed many people were too disengaged to understand the complexity, made worse by poor journalism.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Why we get the wrong politicians, Isabel Hardman, 2019, Atlantic Books.

    Putin’s People: how the KGB took back Russia and then took on the West, 2020, Catherine Belton, William Collins.

    Mistakes were made but not by me, 2007, Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson, Harcourt.

  • New Year, New venue!

    SDA kicks off the New Year with a new venue in Endless Street. Today

    As we enter what I think may be our seventh year, we do so in a different venue in Endless Street in the Progress Café. We must thank Amanda enormously for allowing us to meet in Brown Street for the past few years which did also have the advantage of being able to meet outside during the pandemic.

    The meeting is on 14th January 2023 starting at 10:00 as usual and finishing at noon. What to talk about? Whether it’s local or national, democracy seems to have taken a bashing over the last 12 months and the prospects for 2023 do not look too promising either. But you might be an optimist and can see brightness where others see gloom! Whatever your political bent or outlook, you will be welcome and we look forward to welcoming you at our new venue.

    For those not familiar with Salisbury, Endless Street is in the north east corner off the Market Square.

    Peter Curbishley

  • Democracy Cafe: November

    November 2022

    We had two lively discussions at our meeting on 12 November 2022 and it was good to see a higher level of participants again following the dip in numbers after Lockdown. The first topic was around the Stop Oil protests who had caused disruption to the M25 recently. The question was around protest and breaking the law. The proposer of the question said there were two main responses: those who were sympathetic or empathetic to the cause (and one assumes the protest) contrasted with those who didn’t who thought they were pathetic people and ‘snowflakes’.

    The discussion started off with a debate about climate change itself and the statement that ‘feelings are not facts’. Gas was essential, it was claimed, for the production of fertilizer, the lack of which would result in the deaths of millions for want of food.

    We returned to the issue at hand and the fact that if we feel those in power are not listening then we are entitled to take action. However, it was argued, we have to accept the penalty for any civil disobedience involved. In response to the charge about ‘feelings not being facts’, we operate on an emotional level as well as factual and that this was a legitimate part of our response.

    Civil disobedience was the cornerstone of our democracy. The series of bills the government was currently pushing through parliament for example the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill, represented it was claimed an attempt by government to curtail such protest. The act when it becomes law will mean lawyers and teachers for example, taking part in demonstrations, risked losing their jobs should they be arrested. One person thought that we were slowly moving towards a totalitarian state especially when the new Justice and Courts act has made challenging government decisions a lot more difficult. There were many restrictions in place around Westminster which further prevented the show of dissent.

    The point was made that the media are particularly bad at reporting peaceful protests. It was also pointed out that whereas there was considerable coverage of the highly visible M25 protests, the daily ‘under the radar’ lobbying by corporations which takes place in parliament – but which was extremely effective in securing for them advantageous treatment of one kind or another – was seldom reported. Another example of peaceful protest was a visit to the local MP by a group of local Amnesty members to raise concerns about the collection of bills which will have the effect of curtailing or inhibiting protests. It was doubtful if this had much of an effect. The role of the media was stressed because only if they were concerned did the public become aware of the problem.

    It was noted that the suffragists formed in the 1866 with the specific aim of campaigning for votes for women peacefully or ‘respectfully’ as they expressed it. Their campaigns yielded nothing and in 1903, the suffragettes were formed who campaigned, sometimes violently, to get them and this was agreed in 1928.

    Back to global warming and it was claimed that people concerned about this were not able to come up with the relevant facts. To claim that ‘scientists say’ was not convincing since many of them depended on commercial funding of one kind or another which called into question their impartiality. It was also pointed out that it will be the poorest in the world who will pay the price not the affluent West. Claims of climate disaster of one kind or another have been made for many years it was said but they seldom happened. An example was that Manhattan would be under water by the year 2000.

    The role of economic ideology was suggested as a reason for a reluctance to act on things like climate reforms. The prevailing ideology was neoliberal, and protests were seen as a cost to doing business and thus damaged the economy. It was claimed that our local MP, Mr John Glen, as a treasury minister, was dictated to by commercial interests. It was pointed out however that he was the MP for all his constituents.

    Finally, the ‘straw man’ argument was noted namely, M25 protests preventing ambulances getting through. This was often claimed but protesters specifically allowed emergency vehicles to pass.

    These highly visible protests raise great passions and many are angry at the disruption caused to daily life. People wanted protests to be other than disruptive. The problem was that they then became invisible and the media would take no notice. Since government was in hoc to business and commercial interests and lobbyists, was this the only way to make the voice of protest heard? Demonstrations were not welcome by the current government hence the slew of legislation designed to outlaw any form of protest seen as a nuisance or an inconvenience.

    Our second topic was whether the idealism of post war in connection with the NHS and education been overtaken by capitalist thinking? Education for many decades after the war was free but in recent years it has been replaced by fees certainly at the university level. Free education for adults has gone. Chunks of the NHS are being privatised. It was claimed that these services were being ‘contaminated’ by the profit motive.

    Why do we have education (for the masses) at all it was asked? The answer, it was claimed, was because the industrial and commercial world needed people for its workforce. This was part of the answer it was true although the push for better education came sometime after the height of the industrial revolution. Increased concerns about superior education – particularly technical – in Germany and USA was also of concern to governments of the day. Another factor was the after-effects of the Great War and the depression. There was a wave of social welfare reforms after WWII with the creation of the health service following the Beveridge Report and the 1944 Butler Act (Education). While it was true there was a fear of civil disturbance by government, there was a number of research and other reports published concerned with how people could lead better lives and fulfil their potential. It did seem that there was a degree of idealism in those post war years.

    The debate moved on following a challenge that the premise of the question implied that capitalism was a bad word. The problem was not that capitalism was bad per se but that it was focused on the profit motive. Money dictates what happens someone said. The problems arose if profit became the sole driving force. There was the neoliberalism belief that the private sector was superior to the public and this has led, in education, to the academy movement. It was the profit motive which made them superior it was claimed. The proposition was difficult to test however since few statistics or analyses were available. Academies did not have to follow the national curriculum so comparison was difficult. Nor did academies have to employ qualified teachers.

    Britain’s education system was once admired around the world which was not the case today. Finland was mentioned as having an excellent and much-admired system. There were no private schools there and all teachers were highly qualified.

    The problems of capitalism was highlighted by the privatisation of the water companies. Little investment had taken place and instead high dividends had been paid out. Rivers had become polluted by sewage discharges and vast quantities were poured into the sea. But, many of those self-same dividends went to pension funds etc so we all profited to an extent. Unfortunately, the activities of a few rogue enterprises tainted the whole sector – not all firms behaved like the water companies. There was a spectrum of companies from the ‘toxic’ to the ordinary firms.

    It did seem to be agreed that something had been lost. The idealism of the post war years has been replaced by a focus on private firms and commercial interests whose pursuit of profit was not always for the benefit of the citizen. There was, in a sense, a link to the first debate and the influence corporations have in the parliamentary process. Private firms had been able to influence policy across a range of areas. People were becoming more and more concerned at the lack of progress on climate change and there was also considerable disquiet at the state the NHS was now in. Was the introduction of laws to inhibit and criminalise protest because government was beginning to realise that corporate led policies were no longer working nor popular? A debate for another time perhaps.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books of interest relevant to the discussion:

    Taking Rights Seriously, Ronald Dworkin, 1997, Bloomsbury

    23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang, 2011, Penguin

    NOTE 1. One of the proposed questions we did not debate was the claim that Pfizer did not test its Covid vaccine before release. This was apparently based on a European Commission hearing on 11 October involving the firm. The claim is misleading it appears and readers may like to read this report by Full Fact which explains the context.

    NOTE 2. We may be changing venue in the future but our next meeting on 10 December will be in Brown Street at 10:00 as usual. Details in due course.