Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: SDA

  • Area Board meeting: the follow up

    Group met after the Area Board to discuss future actions

    Last week, we presented the results of the three People’s Assemblies we held over the summer and the response was on the whole, positive. We seem to have the prospect of actual progress now and the group met to discuss next steps.

    The results from our Assemblies will be part of the national response which will be taking place on 20 – 22 of this month in London. Three people will be present from Salisbury.

    We discussed what to do next and the major exercise is the support we can offer to the ‘champions’ whom we hope will lead on the five top wishes coming out of the Assemblies. One idea was to try and ‘match’ a councillor to a champion to try and make sure the ideas don’t get forgotten or sidelined.

    One of the first things we will be doing is organising a meeting of all the champions to plan the next stages and to discuss what offers of help and support they might need. It was emphasised in the meeting that ours is a supporting role but maybe also guiding in some cases.

    We also discussed our own future and the need to consider a more formal structure for SDA: at present we have none. We may opt for a Company Limited by Guarantee or a Community Interest Company and this will be looked into. It will help with the ‘credibility’ issue. We need to be clear about our objectives.

    We looked in general terms about trying to involve others including going into schools if at all possible.

    The idea of a fresh assembly was discussed and it was decided to leave it until the Spring largely because of the amount of time and effort needed to make them a success. One suggestion was for a junior assembly – we’ll see.

    Next meeting is on 15th July at the Ox Row Inn starting at 6:15.

    If you are not a member or supporter of SDA, have you thought of joining us? Best thing is to make yourself know at the Democracy Café the next one this is this Saturday 12th in the Library starting at 10:00. Or put a message below. You’d be welcome.

  • Democracy Café – January

    Elon Musk and hope for the future were the two topics we chose today

    January 2025

    Two good debates today on what at first sight might have been dissimilar topics but turned out not to be so. Elon Musk has been much in the news this past week with a number of what some might regard as outrageous remarks. The first question was How should the nation respond to Elon Musk? It seemed from several of his interventions that people were affronted by them and that he was given so much air time and publicity. It was noted for example that in this week’s New Statesman (10 – 16 January) Will Dunn points out that the BBC has devoted 179 articles to him in comparison to only 33 on Xi Jinping.

    Should we separate the man from the issues? It was noted that he has a prescription for Ketamine, a powerful drug not approved by the FDA. He seems to be up most of the night writing his posts on X. It was suggested he is volatile and was desperate for attention. He has a talent for making the political weather with a global reach on his platform. He has altered the algorithms to enable his utterances to gain global attention. The only way to control him was via regulation.

    Recently, he called Jess Philips MP a ‘rape genocide apologist’ and suggested she be jailed for not holding a public enquiry over the rape gangs in Oldham. It was regrettable someone said that there was not a joint political response deploring these remarks about a British politician. Instead, some Conservatives sought to make political capital.

    Musk’s father, Errol, was quoted as saying that his son wanted to ‘improve the world’.

    It was suggested that one response was not to use X (said by someone who admitted not using social media platforms). However, it was noted that many wanted to hear his views and if he was banned from the UK, they would be ‘up in arms’. There were many who admired his wealth. We were reminded that Brazil did indeed turn X off and forced it to pay fines and make changes. The actual outcome seems uncertain however. But how many knew of the Brazil action it was asked? [The inference was that we were not really informed of this by UK media].

    Was the response just about Asian men involved in grooming someone asked [it was not just about that although that seems to have ignited the current row].

    Would we be better off with a benevolent dictator? The problem with democracies was that there was constant change with governments coming and going. The current Labour government seems no better than the previous Conservative one it was claimed. In their defence it was said that it will take some time to rectify the economy. Back to Musk and his volatility was noted. After all, he was recently a Democratic supporter now he was funding Donald Trump. It was suggested that he did not seem to have any core principles.

    We got onto his enormous wealth. It did not seem to make him happy it was said (back to the ketamine for depression). Why does he do it? It was about power it was suggested, he was not interested in society. It wasn’t just Musk it was pointed out: what about Waheed Ali who gave funds to the Labour Party?

    A problem was the extreme wealth of the oligarchs. This disparity had been allowed to develop with more and more going to fewer and fewer people. We now have a situation where wealth trumps democracy. The solution was to remove money from the election process with only supporters’ money being used by the parties. This did not address the ‘Musk problem’ however since it did not involve money to a party [the rumoured donation to Reform does not seem likely now]. Another suggestion was fixed funding for parties.

    Another issue was the power the likes of Musk enjoyed. It was more than just wild statements on X. The case of Starlink and the war in Ukraine. Musk has allegedly deactivated SpaceX satellite access to Ukraine in the Crimean area thus depriving the Ukrainians the ability to attack Russian warships with drones. This is denied by Musk who said that the links were never activated in the first place.

    Why do people want to listen to him or read his views? One possible reason was that he offered straightforward solutions like all populists. Government was complex and a constant balancing act between different demands for funding and how to raise taxes. Populists offered simple solutions.

    In view of the decision by Meta (Facebook et al) to remove all their fact checkers, as well as Musk allowing people back onto X who had been previously banned, the son of one of those present wanted all censorship ended i.e. complete free speech. Freedom of expression was seen as a kind of ‘God’. We did not debate this further but it was clear that not everyone agreed with this.

    ‘Elon Musk would get less traction if we were more sceptical’

    It was suggested that we (the public that is) are partly responsible and the point was our gullibility. Musk would not have the traction if more were sceptical of his various statements. We fawned over our royalty for example.

    Going back to leaving the platform, it was suggested there were two options: quit, or stay and fight. This was in relation to a Labour MP saying he was leaving X. He was part of government and he should confront the issue head on. He was ‘just being a coward’ by leaving it was suggested.

    A point not noted was that Musk was close (at the moment) to Donald Trump and this meant he was considered more influential. British politicians were reluctant to confront him because of that connection.

    Finally, we were reminded that there were similarities between Musk and the Murdochs of yesteryear. He had had enormous influence with Mrs Thatcher and then Tony Blair, both keen to pay court to him and his papers. Oligarchs and megalomaniacs were nothing new … It was pointed out though that it is different today because of the immediacy of the internet and social media, things not available in Murdoch’s heyday.

    The second debate was around What would give people hope? a worthy antidote to our previous discussion. People needed hope and a constructive vision to their lives the proposer said. Elon Musk was a symptom of a lack of belief and a kind of reaction to capitalism.

    The case of Alexei Navalny was given as an example of hope and belief. He asked ‘what was the worst [the Russian government] can do to me?’ and he accepted that. Despite everything, he held true to his beliefs. [Navalny died in a Siberian prison camp on 16 February last year. The cause of death is unknown].

    One person said that what gives him hope is that more people are aware of how bad things have become for a majority of people. More were ‘awake and alive’ to pain and suffering in the world. This was countered by someone who said ‘do they [really] know?’ and if so, do they care? This was followed by several who remarked on the distinction between the national and the local. There were many examples of kindness at the local or community level. On the matter of ‘care’, someone thought there were those who cared and those who didn’t – a kind of division. This prompted the question ‘has the nation state failed?’ The Democratic system does not seem to be working. Was it to do with political parties and the whipping system? [It was said the LibDems do not have whips: they do]. It was remarked that when an MP first enters parliament, the whips will ask if there is anything about their past they should know about? This acted both ways but it did mean it gave them control over a member by threatening to release sensitive information to the media if the member steps out of line.

    This raised the question, do we vote for parties or candidates? The ability of some candidates (and thus many MPs) did not matter so long as they were representing the ‘right’ party. Parties were very similar it was suggested. Just look at the current Labour government and you still see free market ideas, neoliberalism and only this week, more privatisation of the NHS being suggested. When it comes to it can you slip a Rizla between them? We needed more votes going to people or parties with radical ideas. We needed a clearer idea of what politicians stand for. We cannot see this now. Change came from people caring about things.

    Do we need tighter controls on MPs in particular the number who had outside jobs: some indeed with several. Only this week Nigel Farage for example, was shown to have nine jobs in all. Surely there needed to be stricter rules. Also a need for greater integrity.

    This brought up the proposals for more deliberative democracy and citizens’ assemblies something Salisbury Democracy Alliance is seeking to promote in the area (see below). It would allow a wide range of expert views to be incorporated into local decision making and also improve citizen involvement in the political process. So far the response from the County and the City has been lukewarm. There were moves to reform the House of Lords with greater involvement of ‘ordinary people’ with a range of backgrounds (see an earlier post).

    Another point – echoing something said earlier in the debate – was around populists offering simple or simplistic solutions to complex problems. He saw politics as a kind of circle rather than a straightforward set of divisions. There was often agreement over what the problems were. Do we generalise too much someone asked: the Thatcher revolution had failed many thought but what is being suggested in its place? How do we start a new revolution?

    The Southport riots was mentioned a feature of which was the large number of people who turned out the day after the disturbances to clean up and offer support to those affected. This was a hopeful sign. In the context of Elon Musk we debated earlier, not all wealthy individuals were like that and Bill [and Melinda] Gates had used his fortune to enormous beneficial effect in Africa through their Foundation.

    Someone who has just come back from a long trip to South East Asia said what was noticeable was the generosity of the people they met even though they lived in poor conditions. There seemed to be more hope surrounded as they were by family, community and friends, supported also by faith.

    Finally, it was noted that most MPs go into politics for the best of reasons and with good intentions. Once there they can become ‘lobby fodder’ unless they are ambitious and seek to gain promotion in which case towing the party line is essential.

    Did we answer the question? One theme was the need for a closer attachment to basic values. This was not just for politicians. The distinction between local actions and the national was interesting. Indeed, almost to sum up all the points in the two debates, the Southport riots provided a good example. They were whipped up on X with a variety of false and inflammatory statements but followed up afterwards by scores of local people coming out with buckets and brooms to clear up the mess. We must surely take great hope from that.

    The next Café is on February 8th at 10:00.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t. Ian Dunt (2023). Weidenfield & Nicolson.

    Why We Get the Wrong Politicians. Isabel Hardman, (2019), Atlantic Books.

    Who Governs Britain? Anthony King, (2015), Pelican.

    Salisbury Democracy Alliance

    The Café is one part of the activities of SDA. We are keen to improve the quality of government especially at the local level and as we noted above, introduce citizens’ assemblies into the county. We meet from time to time and our next meeting is on 28th of this month starting at 2pm in the Boston Tea Party (upstairs). If you would like to join us in this activity you would be more than welcome. PC

  • Successful Talkshop held!

    A successful Talkshop was held on Saturday 21 May on the subject of climate

    UPDATE 7 June 2022: a meeting is to be held this Thursday 9th June at 29 Brown St to discuss how to take the idea of an Eco Hub forward.

    A press release about our successful event was sent to the Salisbury Journal but they have declined to publish it in two editions of the paper.

    This was the first such event the Alliance has held and we are naturally delighted it went so well. Nearly 30 attended and there was lively conversation throughout the morning. The event came about as a cheaper means to contribute to the climate debate than the Citizens’ Assembly idea which we are still pursuing.

    Participants were divided into groups of half a dozen or so and issued with cards describing successful schemes established elsewhere in the country and some in USA. These were discussed and each table selected three they felt worth pursuing. We then walked around and looked at all the table’s suggestions and after discussion, formed two, new groups to take things forward.

    The most popular suggestion, attracting great interest, was the idea of an Eco Hub for the city. Essentially, a place where ideas can be discussed and exchanged as well as other more tangible ideas such as an Eco Café. A working group has been formed and will meet in a few weeks to discuss how the idea can be taken forward and made flesh.

    Another group discussed a series of linked ideas to make abandoned spaces into places where wildflowers can grow, trees planted or vegetables grown. It might be part of the Eco Hub in future.

    We must thank the RSA for their help in formulating the event and providing the rubric. We must also thank 29 Brown Street for providing the venue. More will be published about this as time goes by so watch this space. We were delighted that a Member from Salisbury City Council was there and took an active part in the proceedings.

    Pictures showing outside of 29 Brown Street and the Talkshop event about to start. Pictures: SDA

    Peter Curbishley

    UPDATE: 14 June 2022. This is the unpublished press release sent to the Salisbury Journal.

    SALISBURY Democracy Alliance held a successful Talkshop event at 29 Brown Street last week after which plans to form an Eco Hub were agreed. A Talkshop is a relatively new idea involving ordinary people in decision making and is a way of doing democracy differently.

    About 30 people attended and were given cards describing a range of successful environment projects which have been established in the UK and around the world. These were discussed in groups and two were finally selected. One is to establish an Eco Hub which will host practical projects and also to provide a meeting place for ideas and discussion. The second project discussed a series of linked ideas to make abandoned space into places where wildflowers can grow, trees to be planted or vegetables grown.

    Cllr John Wells, Chair of the City Council’s Environment and Climate Committee said “I was delighted to attend this event and found the ideas and discussion stimulating and interesting. I look forward to working with the Hub on projects relevant to the Council’s policies.”

    The Alliance were helped by the RSA, the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce who provided much useful advice.

    Mark Potts, Chair of SDA said ” we were delighted with how the event turned out and it was gratifying to see so many people engaged in eager debate about this important topic.” A meeting has been arranged between several of those present to take these ideas forward.

  • Tackling the Climate Emergency

    Past event
    Event Run by the RSA and Salisbury Democracy Alliance  

    A Climate Emergency has been declared by Salisbury City Council and they are looking for local people to come up with ways of addressing it. We invite you to this event where you will find out what other cities are doing and have the opportunity to come up with ideas that could work in Salisbury or build on what is already here. The resources that we will be using and the methodology have been provided by Talkshop (www.talkshop.org), one of the partners of Salisbury Democracy Alliance. This is a golden opportunity to contribute to an important debate.

    Saturday 21st May 10.00 – 12.30 (Doors open at 9.30)

    29 Brown Street, Salisbury

    This event is being run by the Salisbury RSA Network and Salisbury Democracy Alliance (the same body that runs the regular Democracy Cafe here at Brown Street, part of The Chapel venue).  The SDA website is www.salisburydemocracyalliance.org. The Salisbury RSA website is https://www.thersa.org/fellowship/get-involved/rsa-networks/salisbury-network

    Places are limited and in order to book in to the event go to: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/tackling-the-climate-emergency-tickets-315205386797

    UPDATE: 5 May. Still a small number of places left.

  • Democracy Café – September

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

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

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

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

    Corruption

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

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

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

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

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

    City of London

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

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

    Philanthropy

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

    Conclusion

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

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

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

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

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

    *no longer available on line