Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: tax

  • Dissatisfaction with our politicians expressed at latest Democracy Café

    That and tax were the two topics discussed

    A recurring subject of our Cafés is the dissatisfaction both with our MPs and the political process generally. This is clearly becoming a matter of national concern with low voter turnout at elections, falling membership for the main parties and a rise of what were once called ‘fringe’ parties.

    The escape of various prisoners that week from Wandsworth Gaol was the focus of our first topic: not the escapes themselves but the unedifying debate which took place in parliament particularly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Two prisoners, Brahim Kaddour-Cherif and William Smith were released mistakenly and there ensued a major political row with the Conservatives blaming Labour and Labour blaming the Conservatives.

    The question which won the vote was How can we encourage more cooperative working [between the parties] in Parliament? The proposer was motivated to pose the question by the debates about relatively petty issues and insufficiently on the big ones. The slanging match which took place between the parties overlooked the years of underfunding of prisons which had taken place under both parties. Prisons were unpleasant places said someone who visits one regularly and they too little time was spent on things like behavioural change. No party was willing to tackle the system or the huge investment the estate needed.

    A lot of theatrics we saw was around PMQ and this often got televised. Many politicians were playing to the popular press. Would it not be an idea to stop televising parliament it was suggested? We did not pursue that thought and it would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Another thought was Eton. The school has a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons and boys practice the skills (if skills they be) of debating. Since Eton has provided a preponderance of ex-pupils to become MPs and ministers including many prime ministers, could this be a contributory factor to the public school raucous style of debating?

    The need for a constitution was suggested. However, the US has a constitution and it hasn’t ruled out bad politics. Could not the Speaker control things better?

    It was noted however that the Select Committee system works well where party members do work together on them. This system has been a success especially after control of the selection of members was wrested from the whips. But how often do people follow select committee debates? People watch the spectacle of PMQs are less inclined to follow the dry stuff of a select committee even though it was often more consequential. As we have noted in these debates before, do we not get the politics we deserve?

    Back to PMQs. Was it not absurd that the prime minister was summoned each week to answer what can be trivial or detailed questions? The session was dominated by point-scoring and appealing to the gallery not discussing matters of strategic importance. Imagine for example if the boss of M&S was asked each week why one of their stores was out of a particular size of trousers say. Would you run a major corporation that way? Probably not.

    One of the shifts which has taken place in recent times is the way all parties now have focus groups and fashion their policies around what these and other sources of public opinion thinking. They were no longer leading but following. But what many are crying out for is leadership. The election this week of the charismatic Mayor of New York was mentioned. What we seem to be getting is followership.

    The quality of our MPs was mentioned. Do we need to know more about candidates? Should there not be some kind of minimum standard? What that would be and how it would be enforced was not discussed.

    An interesting point was that we elect our MPs but have no say over who gets into the Cabinet or goes onto the government payroll. Since it is the latter individuals who exercise the power it does seem anomalous that we spend all the time selecting someone to represent the constituency who then may well go onto become a minister of some kind. Rory Stewart discusses this in his book Politics on the Edge (Jonathan Cape, 2023) where no interest is taken by selection committees in someone’s policy making experience or management skills in the selection process. It suggests large numbers of people being elected with no regard at all for the skills they’ll need to run the country. And we wonder why we’re in a mess.

    Back to the public school system and whereas it was true that such schools provided a disproportionate number of MPs and hence ministers in the past, a Sutton Trust study in 2024 shows that just one member of the current cabinet had a private education. This contrasts with the last Conservative government where just 19% of ministers did not have a private education.

    Another feature of Stewart’s book was the practice of ignoring expert advice. There was a suggestion that there should be more in the way of expert input into decision making. One said their experience of meeting civil servants to convey expertise or knowledge was met by the response ‘this is what the minister wants’ with little or no interest in whether it was practical or workable. Another said there was no shortage of reports, McPherson and Louise Casey into the Met for example. Most ended up ignored. The problem was a ‘we know best’ attitude not a lack of informed input.

    Was our government a product of the class system? Perhaps we should debate this as a topic all of itself in the future. As noted, the role of public schools has lessened in recent years.

    We digressed somewhat to talk about the removal of power and money from local authorities.

    As a kind of summing up it was thought that manifestos should be more visionary and not the product of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The lack of interest in the political process was also noted and we will not get improvement or change unless the public presses for it.

    On to our second topic which was Should the wealthy pay more tax? It is only about 2 weeks until the Budget around which there is already considerable debate. The Chancellor gave a speech a week or so ago which was widely seen as a hint that there will be an increase in income tax. The immediate answer the proposer noted was to say ‘yes’ but in fact the system already enabled sufficient tax to be collected the problem was all the loopholes. [Official statistics show it stands at 5.3% of theoretical liabilities i.e. £46.8bn (2023- 24 tax year). Experts say this figure is an order of magnitude too low].

    The major problem with the system was it was concentrated on earnings not on wealth. Considerable wealth was in the possession of those who paid little in the way of tax on that wealth. Land for example was not taxed (but rents would be). However, it was noted those who owned property did pay tax on any rents. Major estates could gain exemption from Inheritance tax by opening their homes to the public once a year or more. It was stated that art did not attract tax [This is incorrect. Works of art are subject to capital gains tax when sold subject to current rules and exemptions. So if you are thinking of selling your Rembrandt, be careful].

    One of the things not mentioned in the debate about tax is the moral question. It is frequently said that the rich would leave if taxes were too high. Taxes paid for the things we need in our society. It was pointed out (from the perspective of a wealthy person) that they might say they do not need many of the services. They pay for their own medical treatment, they educated their children privately, they live in gated communities and do not need police protection and rarely use roads on the way to the airport to board a private jet or helicopter. Why should they pay tax certainly a higher rate? Why should they pay yet more to keep individuals who were too lazy to work? They might even use the word ‘feckless’.

    However, they lived in a society which is getting ever more unequal. Placing the burden of higher taxes on the poorest in society risks bringing the whole system down. A recent BBC programme on inheritance had noted that inequality was embedded in the system. As some people got wealthier, they were able to pass on this wealth and its attendant advantages to their children thus further increasing inequality. Home ownership for many was but a dream but those who had access to the ‘bank of mum and dad’ ‘could achieve this. We should think more about what to do with our wealth it was suggested.

    There was some discussion on loopholes which is where we came in. The role of the so-called ‘treasure islands’ as discussed in Nicholas Shaxson’s book Treasure Islands: Tax havens and the Men Who Stole the World (Bodley Head, 2011) is key to the system of avoidance. He estimated around £12 trillion was stored in them (2011 figures). These havens were a relic of Empire.

    Part of the discussion about tax was based on the notion we were better off with lower taxes which is why politicians constantly promised that they, and their party, were dedicated to lowering them. Would any politician who said we needed to pay more tax if we want the services we expect ever get elected. Almost certainly not. As we have noted before, lower taxes will enable you to buy some more consumer goods or services but it will not buy you a road system, a health service, schools, defence and so on: all the things which gives us our society.

    Which led to the notion that we should be proud of paying tax and such individuals should be admired. Paying tax should be seen as a duty.

    It was noted that wealth also gave power. So we would not see changes in the tax havens for example because many of those who use them possess the power to stop change. On the subject of loopholes, Eton cropped up again and that it, along with other public schools, did not pay VAT or business rates until this year. They were regarded as charities going back to their foundations but were far from charities today.

    I suppose there is a theme linking both debates and that is our role as citizens. It is surely up to us to demand better service from our leaders, to take a closer look at those standing for election and to enquire about their ability to lead, manage or develop workable policies, to take a closer look at those policies and promises made and to be realistic about things like tax. We cannot have something for nothing. The focus should be on making sure that the tax system works as it should but how many people know of the tax gap or how much it is? Two interesting debates which raised several interesting questions.

    Peter Curbishley

    Next meeting on December 13th

    Thought of becoming a subscriber?

  • Selecting the new prime minister

    Is the current system fit for purpose?

    To which, many would answer ‘no’. The prime minister is the prime minister for the whole country. Although he or she is the leader of the party able to form a government, they are running the country as a whole for the benefit of the all the people. Yet the selection process starts with only Conservative MPs making the choice.

    I am sure we can all be confident that the MPs are doing that on the disinterested basis of who might be the best candidate to carry out that extremely important role. There may be some however, just some, who are voting for the candidate who has promised them preferment in some form: maybe even that treasured cabinet post with its car and chauffeur. That is a choice based on personal ambition not on who might be best for the country.

    Next comes the vote of the Conservative membership. A self-selected group of trusty souls who live mostly in the south or home counties: around 200,000 of them it seems (since membership of the party has dropped dramatically over the years). How many will have experienced the effects of policies carried out by their party? They read about them in the papers and see interviews with various folk but direct experience? Limited.

    And how about the selection process itself with the candidate interviews on television? A great deal of the first session on Channel 4 was taken up with trust issues. A rather pointless exercise in my view which seemed to lead nowhere. Then there were the spats about tax reductions or no tax reductions. Setting aside the nonsense as I have argued elsewhere, that it is a myth that we are automatically better off with lower taxes if services are reduced or are non-existent: the arguments themselves were no more than cursory. It was almost pantomimic ‘oh yes you can!’ ‘oh no you can’t!’ they cried – all that was missing was someone to cry out ‘look behind you’. Only Sunak stood out reasonably well as someone who seemed to know what was actually possible.

    In the week when temperature records were broken – and not by just a fraction of a degree – it was chilling to listen to their desire to carry on with fossil fuels.

    So we will have just Conservative MPs selecting the two candidates, from an altogether lacklustre field, who will go forward to the final vote of a tiny and extremely unrepresentative part of the kingdom.

    And, a factor that does not seem to have occurred yet to the commentariat, is the continuing presence of Johnson. Like a wounded beast, raging but not yet dead, he will be a continuing presence on the backbenches. As a narcissist, he does not, and will not, have any grasp or acceptance of his role in what is to come. As the new PM struggles with the mounting and quite frightening crises which lie ahead, he will be there to jeer and be a focus of discontent. ‘What have you done?’ cries the Mail. Others, such as supporters sent to the backbenches with him will say the same before too long. Neither Sunak, with his history of curious tax arrangements, who will have a great deal of difficulty showing that he has any kind of understanding of how ordinary people live, nor Truss who will quite simply be out of her depth and I think, is a bit delusional, will be able to rise to the challenges. They will also have a great deal of difficulty in distancing themselves from the policies which have led us here and which they so vociferously supported all these past years.

    Locally, John Glen MP is supporting Rishi Sunak and he is another one who has relentlessly supported government policies and paraded that support week in and week out in the Salisbury Journal, who must now try and pirouette to a completely new position. What were they debating on Channel 4? Ah yes – trust, that was it.

    Altogether, it is simply no way to run a country or to select its leader. Every element of the chain has serious weaknesses and shortcomings. In all the press and media excitement and breathless interviews, it is sometimes difficult to see the overall picture of a failed system guaranteed to produce a failed result. It is just not a way to select our new leader.

    Peter Curbishley

    CORRECTION: There are 160,000 Conservative members, not 200,000 as stated above. Apologies for the error. PC

    UPDATE: Liz Truss was appointed Prime Minister on 7 September 2022

    [A personal view not necessarily reflecting the wider membership of SDA]

  • Chalk and Cheese, and Save our Salisbury

    February 2021

    In this month’s Democracy Café we debated the question of a land tax a proposal which has appeared from time to time – most recently in the 2019 Labour Party manifesto – but it never lives to see the light of day.  Part of our discussion was taken up with how the Normans established the pattern of ownership in England following the invasion.  Some families who own estates, can trace their lineage back to the Normans even today.

    I was reminded during the discussion of a book published in 1979 by J Martin Shaw (not the actor) entitled Rural Deprivation and Planning, who used to be the County Planning Officer for Norfolk (where coincidentally the actor comes from) who wrote a book about shire county councils and how they worked up until quite recently.  Unfortunately, I lent the book to someone and I cannot find it or its title on the internet.  He described how shire counties like Norfolk used to be run essentially by its landed interests.  For them, a rural county was an ideal form of life.  They had the time and money to be able to take part in local politics and from their ranks, many county and district councillors were elected.  Those who worked the land could not get, or afford, the time off and so the whole issue of rural poverty and disadvantage never got a hearing.

    Wiltshire was similar in many respects.  Wiltshire is unique in that it is the only county not to have a university except for tiny Rutland.  What is now the University of Bath was intended for Wiltshire.   Someone close to the negotiations at the time said the idea of a university was not universally welcomed by those in power in County Hall.  Likewise, the dire state of roads in the county was also as a result of the landowning interests not wanting or needing to improve communications.  They believed in small government, long before the phrase became popular, and county council meetings started at 2pm with the intention of ending by 3pm at the latest.  After a good lunch of course.  As the main aim was to do little and invest even less, this was not difficult.  A senior highways engineer told me they did not want improved communications or roads because it would encourage their workers to look elsewhere.  I have no way of knowing if this was true but it was said with feeling.

    I can see echoes of this thinking in the decisions of county hall even today.  A kind of remoteness and an approach based on ‘we know best’.  When a group of us met the leader of the County Council at the beginning of austerity, their easy acceptance – relish even – for cutting funds in the county was very evident.  There were words of regret but the readiness to cut funding was easy to see.  They talk ‘consultation’ but this is more ‘this is what we plan to do, do you like it?  No?  Tough, that’s what’s been decided.’  When the idea of citizens’ assemblies is put to them, the idea is politely received then during a public meeting in the Guildhall, it is nowhere to be seen.

    There is now a move to get more independents elected onto the City Council.  I suspect this is born of a frustration with continued mismanagement, not especially by the City Council itself, but by their paymasters in Trowbridge.  Will this succeed?  As a Scottish colleague of mine used to say ‘I ha’ ma’ douts.’  One problem is a collection of independents is not a party almost by definition.  Will they be able to collaborate sufficiently to counter the established parties?  Maybe, maybe not.

    Secondly, the City Council is a parish council.  This is really an absurd state of affairs.  I was never a fan of the district council but at least it was local.  A city whose administration is a parish council: bizarre.

    Chalk and Cheese?  This is probably a Wiltshire saying coming from when, in the immediate area of Salisbury, they could only rear sheep on the chalk.  West and north they could raise cattle and produce cheese.  Hence in Salisbury market there were two parts and the cheese was sold outside what is now HSBC bank.  It seems to be a metaphor for the state of affairs we have in the county today with decisions taken in the north of the county and often seem divorced and irrelevant to the south.

    Perhaps we need to think differently and divide Wiltshire into two counties: North Wiltshire and South Wiltshire?  North would continue to run from Trowbridge – after all they seem to have spent millions on the building there.  The south would need to be decided and not necessarily Salisbury.  Save our Salisbury could perhaps direct part of their efforts to this endeavour.  It is likely to reap better dividends and more locally based local government than we have now.

    It leaves the baleful influence of the landed interests still quietly evident.  They can continue, behind the scenes, to select their own.  The only way to counter this is to enliven local democracy.  More independents in a South Wiltshire County Council which has the powers of a county, could make a real difference.

    Peter Curbishley

    Updated 10 March

  • Democracy Café – February

    Two very interesting debates at this month’s Democracy Café meeting held via Zoom

    Two topics won through this month: one on privacy and the other on whether we should have a land tax.  At first sight unrelated but, read on …

    Privacy and the news this week of a legal victory by Megan Markle against the Mail on Sunday who had published letters she wrote to her father.  It raised the question of how much should be in the public domain for us all to see.  There was a lot of interest by the public of things to do with the Royals (as in the Royal family not the TV family of the same name!).  More openness in politics however is a feature of Open Democracy.

    There was general agreement that it depended on what the content was.  Letters between individuals should remain private but if the content was about matters of public concern, then there might be a case for publication. The fundamental distinction was between ‘in the public interest’ and ‘of interest to the public’.  It was noted that we have some of the most restrictive set of rules preventing publication in comparison to other democracies.  Things like Cabinet minutes were kept secret for 30 years when many of the participants would be dead and the matters discussed long since over with.  It was pointed out that SAGE minutes are now published without, it seems, the ceiling falling in.

    Would we risk being overloaded someone asked?  If all sorts of government papers were published, could we be drowned by it all?  Another point: would publication inhibit civil servants, experts and others giving frank advice to ministers?  The problem – which seems to be increasing – is that many decisions are being made behind closed doors without either the public or parliament knowing what is going on or being able to discuss them.  Was the Windrush decision for example ever discussed in Cabinet?  Who said what in the lead up to the Iraq war?  This increasing secrecy has almost certainly led to the rise of the ‘chumocracy’ with hundreds of millions of pounds in contracts being issued to friends, cronies and party supporters without proper oversight.  Good old fashioned corruption in other words.  The opposite of public interest is private interest it was noted.

    A fundamental assumption was that decisions were made competently after a careful assembly and consideration of the facts and opinions sought from  those who know.  The reality is that decision making is chaotic with the actual decisions made in private rooms and the Cabinet simply assembled to rubber stamp what has already been decided elsewhere.  Decisions were made on the basis of political expediency.  If there was more openness, the likelihood was that actual decisions would shift elsewhere.  A film of the G7 summit was mentioned, attended by President Trump, showing him casually deciding whether to pull out of NATO and subsequently pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

    The whole concept of privacy has been questioned recently in a book Life after Privacy.  We have been willing to give away our privacy for the benefits of shopping on line.  Sites like Amazon and Google collect huge quantities of data about us which we seem willing to give. Does it matter? 

    In the Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt discusses loneliness and distinguishes it from isolation.  We chose our privacy she claims. 

    The second half moved onto a discussion of land tax a topic we have discussed before.  The topic arose from a recently published book, The Book of Trespass by Nick Hayes.  There was firstly, an economic argument since a major slice of the price of a house is the land it sits on.  The supply of land and hence its price was a key factor in the economy.  Yet land itself is largely untaxed.  Thomas Picketty argues in his book Capital in the 21st Century, that there should be a shift away from taxing earnings to taxing wealth which was in many respects unproductive.  It would also enable the elimination of other taxes such as the community charge.  Developers for example, had collectively around 5 years supply of land with planning permission, and they were able to build as an when it was profitable for them, not when houses were needed.  Taxing the land would act as an incentive to build. 

    However, could such a tax act as a disincentive to develop?  It was indeed one of the problems of the Betterment Levy – one of the attempts to tax land and development – that landowners simply declined to sell and waited for the tax to be abandoned which ultimately it was.  This led onto the question of taxing land which was for the benefit of the community or was not earning income, for example, wildlife habitats.  This need not be a problem since there was already a system of grants to encourage this activity and such uses could be zero rated.  The tax could also be used to incentivise the use of land for solar energy or wind farms for example.  

    Letchworth Garden City was mentioned which is managed by the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation the income from which is invested in the community.  This could readily serve as a model elsewhere. 

    It was noted that all land is owned by the Crown which introduced the notion of stewardship.  The second point was that we have got used to the pattern of land ownership a system introduced by the Normans.  William the Conqueror simply handed out parcels of land to his barons and dispossessed the English.  This pattern of ‘land grabs’ has been the case through history and fuelled the Empire.  In this connection, the lack of footpaths in Ireland was noted and almost certainly this arose because the country was once part of the Empire and there would have been little interest in the needs of Irish peasants.   One participant found the signs put up by local landowners – saying PRIVATE, KEEP OUT – to be needlessly aggressive.  Should we rethink the whole basis of the ownership of land?  We have somehow accepted the current pattern established by the Normans and have never really challenged it.  

    How will it benefit society?  A difficult question but at least it will make things a little fairer with wealth paying its share.  Tax based on land would be very easy to collect since it cannot be concealed that easily (although perhaps it should be noted that what Britain’s largest landowner – the Duke of Buccleuch – owns is unknown even to some of his tenants.)  One of the most efficient taxes however is Stamp Duty: easy to collect and hard to avoid.  

    There was a brief discussion about criminal trespass which was an act introduced to protect ancient monuments.  This was about the time of the infamous ‘Beanfield Massacre‘ incident near Stonehenge in 1985.   

    Will it change?  The idea of a land tax was suggested in the Labour Party manifesto in 2019 and was successfully characterised as a garden tax by the Conservatives.  Politically, it seems a toxic idea that will need a lot of work to sell and to explain the benefits of to the voters.  Another point is it was revealed this week that the Queen sees all bills for vetting before they come to Parliament and has amended or squashed a number of them before they have seen the light of day.  A land tax will hit her estates and those of other royalty with higher taxes so such a proposal would find difficulty getting debated.  Then of course there is the House of Lords …  Hence we came full circle with privacy and secrecy linked to the taxing of land.

    An excellent debate and our next is in March.

    ***

    Unconnected with the discussion it was noted that there is an attempt to recruit more independents onto the council in the forthcoming elections.  How Salisbury is managed (or is it mismanaged?) politically has been the subject of several of our debates in the Café over the years and if there were more independents on the council perhaps this would help.   

    Peter Curbishley

     

  • Will our politics change?

    A debate is starting about whether there will be a change in the way politics is done in Britain as a result of the Covid-19 crisis. Will it be a ‘never again’ moment and force some fundamental improvements? I don’t think it will and in this blog I will argue why change will not happen except at the margin.

    It is true that major events such as war or a outbreak of a serious disease does bring about change. I am writing this in English not in some form of French. That change came about because of plague which killed off a lot of the French speaking people at the top of our society and allowed in rough English speaking yocals into positions of power. The war brought about a significant improvement in housing provision.

    The drivers of change

    For change to happen, there has to be a groundswell of opinion – however ill-formed – for things to be done differently in future. People have to feel angry, affronted, or resentful at a political process and its leaders which contributed to the crisis. They argue vehemently for change. They may riot or march or do something physical to express their anger. There has to be anger in the air.

    Another thing which might contribute to this anger is a flow of information which explains what has gone wrong. There also have to be polemics which set out how change for the better can take place. There is little sign of this happening either.

    Ultimately, this anger has to find a voice. Almost certainly via a political party: someone has to set our a vision for a better world and a better run world. A world in which there is more equality of opportunity and where the benefits of our prosperity are spread more evenly. This has to be articulated into cogent arguments, and then simple phrases produced which encapsulate these ideas into ‘soundbites’.

    Will it happen?

    I don’t think this will happen for several reasons. Firstly, the nature and control of our media. That our print media is largely right wing and owned by foreign based oligarchs is well known. They are in a position to control the narrative and stifle unwelcome challenges to their hegemony. Readers of these titles will, for example, be largely unaware of the Paradise Papers and other major stories about the scale of tax avoidance carried out by the elite in our society. By contrast, they can run endless stories about scroungers and benefit cheats – who do exist of course – but are tiny in scale by comparison with the billions funnelled out of the country by the top 1%.

    The broadcast media have been little better. The nightly No 10 press conference is a case in point. Various journalists are given the opportunity to question the minister and the advisers. It is of course difficult to do this properly across a video link. But their questions are over-long and, instead of asking one insightful question, they ask two and sometimes three. The minister artfully – and I suspect they are trained to do this – repeats the question at length, says how important it is, waffles around it and fails to answer the point. The journalist is then invited to respond and bafflingly, then proceeds to ask another, different, question which is also unanswered. The result is that egregious failures of policy and delays in responses to the crisis largely go unchallenged.

    Such investigations which do take place – such as the BBC’s Panorama for example – have minimal viewing figures and are quickly slapped down by ministerial threats and newspaper allegations of bias.

    Another crucial point is that this argument has largely been about facts, numbers and statistics. But none of the journalists or any of the ministers have science or mathematical backgrounds. It is like watching two people who cannot even open the bonnet of a car, arguing about how they might change a clutch. As soon as a statistic becomes uncomfortable, it disappears. So the death toll in comparison with other countries is no longer presented for example.

    Finally, because of the pandemic, parliament is not properly sitting. In one sense that seems to be working for Keir Starmer who is operating in simulacrum of a court room, which suits his background. Early exchanges has enabled him to expose the emptiness of the prime minister. But the theatre has gone which means the exchanges are rather dull and forensic. Consequently, they do not get much airtime. The media wants conflict, anger, shouting and general excitement, not reasoned rational debate.

    Why have we come to this?

    The fundamental issues which have led us to our lack of preparedness and made us the worst in Europe are the neoliberal policies which have informed our politics for a generation. These are a set of beliefs which have dictated policy across a range of areas. Simply put, these are a belief in small government; that low taxes are best to enable people to spend their money how they wish; low regulation because this stifles innovation; that the private sector is superior to the public because they are inherently more efficient, and the best way to allocate resources is through competition. These are deep rooted and show little sign of disappearing.

    Recent events have forced the conservatives to do the opposite. Government is bigger and more intrusive, regulations have increased, money has poured into the private sector to find a cure, competition has fallen away in favour of ministerial patronage and taxes will inevitably have to rise. There are reported to be great tensions in the party as a consequence of this. The right wing, free market and Brexit wing are quiet at present because during a national emergency people ‘rally to the flag’. This will end soon but importantly, it will be an internal conservative party argument which will not affect the state of our politics nationally.

    These neoliberal beliefs have led to increased privatisation being introduced into the health service and the market led ideas introduced by Ken Clarke when he was health minister. Austerity was the cover which enabled Osborne to reduce funding for the service and the Lansley reforms also did more damage (what philosophy was behind those is a mystery, perhaps even to Lansley himself).

    All told, the public sector, including local authorities, were seen as inefficient, cumbersome and of little value. They could be cut with impunity because nobody cared. They were helped by near silence from them as well. How often, even today, when the issue of what LAs are doing and the role they play in tackling the pandemic, do you see a local authority person interviewed? Rarely. They almost never appear on programmes like Question Time. Despite their size and significance, they can be cut, lampooned and denigrated to politicians’ heart content.

    There is no groundswell of anger of people looking for fundamental change. Such anger as there is is about whether people can go out or not or how many people they can meet. The Labour party has to tread carefully because if they criticise the government too hard, they will be called disloyal. So far, there has been no sign of arguments about fundamental change from their people.

    This is why I suggest there will be no fundamental changes. Sure the medics will get a pay rise – even the current crop of boneheads would risk denying them that. But inequality will continue to get worse. The super rich will continue to avoid their taxes. The six or seven posh schools will continue to provide a disproportionate supply of politicians, journalists, media folk, judges et al. Privatisation of the NHS and other areas of public life will continue however corrupt or incompetent the suppliers are. Power will still reside in Westminster and any kind of regionalisation will not happen.

    Covid-19 will not change the fundamental flaws in our society.

    Peter Curbishley

  • August meeting

    Over 20 people attended a lively discussion at the August 2019 meeting of the Democracy Café in the Playhouse. Many familiar faces and some welcome new ones. We are delighted to see new people coming to these cafés which keeps us from becoming stale.

    The topic chosen by vote for discussion was ‘has the Right commandeered the language of Brexit? How can we reframe the debate? This topic was put forward by someone who is reading George Lakeoff’s book one of which is ‘Don’t think of an elephant! know your values and frame the debate.’ Chelsea Green Publishing. Framing is crucial since it is difficult to change the course of any discussion if the agenda has been framed in a certain way. See a blog post from the Salisbury Compass site.

    Recent examples were given. One was the notion that low taxes make us better off. A second is that when we leave the EU we shall be ‘free’. The right in our society have, it was claimed, commandered social media and have successfully promoted a number of soundbites. Some of the language is quite subtle, for example the change from ‘social security’ to ‘welfare’. The former was based on the notion that we all pay into a system which is there for us in time of need, whereas the second implies simple payouts. This language change was crucial in the post 2018 crash austerity period when there was a concerted attempt to cut ‘welfare’ and to (successfully) demonise those in receipt of payments as ‘scroungers and skivers’

    In this context, it was noted that the £850bn (not £500bn as was said) bailout to the banks was not called ‘welfare’. It was given the name ‘quantitative easing’.

    The importance of education and understanding what we read in the press was important. A book on how to read a newspaper is RW Jepson’s Clear Thinking: An Elementary Course of Preparation for Citizenship 1936. [1948 version]

    As well as language – as in words – was the fact of presentation and how the politician puts it across. The example of Blair with his easy charm and broad smile was widely believed. Similarly with Boris Johnson with his blond hair and optimistic statements. These attributes were as important as the words used.

    On the media, the fact that substantial parts are foreign owned is a factor it was claimed. The Daily Mail; Daily Telegraph; The Times and the Sun are among those papers owned overseas.

    A big part of the debate was the fact that the Right seemed to be most successful in their use of the soundbite. They were able to encapsulate their ideas into short phrases which resonated with people. In the Brexit debate for example ‘freedom to make our own laws,’ ‘taking back control’ and ‘not being ruled by unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ are all examples of pithy and highly effective soundbites. Similar soundbites were mentioned during the post Reagan/Thatcher era in politics to sell the idea of free markets and small government. The question was raised: why has the Left failed to come up with its own short statements of what it stood for? ‘For the many, not the few’ was the only one anyone could think of. The tendency for longwinded explanations and factual rebuttals do not work. Back to Lakeoff and his argument that facts do not persuade, going for emotional appeal does. Which raised the question, how do you counter lies without lying yourself? People promoting Brexit had been much more successful in pressing emotional triggers, immigration for example.

    This led to a discussion on the need for a debate which focused on nurture rather than competition.

    Walter Lippmann’s ‘bewildered herd’ or ‘bewildered masses’ was mentioned and did rather sum up our debate quite well:

    Bewildered herd is the masses that are tamed through propaganda and mass media in order that the machinery of democracy is kept properly oiled.

    The bewildered masses must be subdued, tamed and injected with the popular opinion of the upper class of politicians, leaders of corporations and others belonging to the elite class of intellectuals and wealthy in order to govern a nation and circumvent any defect in democracy.

    The single function of the bewildered masses is to be spectators, not participants, in the democratic nation.

    Urban Dictionary

    Finally, the Full Facts website was mentioned and asked for it to be linked to this discussion.

    Part two was a discussion around ‘is liberalism dead?’ The debate started with someone who had heard a radio programme in which it was revealed that among the 18 – 34 age group, 20% would not vote. However, this did imply that 80% would which is higher than the current level of voter participation in most elections. Perhaps too many choices was a problem it was suggested. Climate change had generated considerable interest and activity among the younger generation and Extinction Rebellion was mentioned.

    Was activism stronger in the ’60s say? It certainly seemed to be a time of protest and there was arguably a sense of utopianism. The NUS was strong. Now this seemed to be gone, perhaps a victim of the Brexit saga and people feeling drained. It was also noted that life was easier for young people then with no student fees to pay.

    It was noted that social liberalism was quite strong, the acceptance of seat belts and crash helmets wa instanced so maybe there was a need for a more nuanced approach.

    There did seem to be a desire for strong leaders to solve their problems. So it was not a question of being anti-liberalism, more a case of looking for competent leadership. The idea a ‘nuture’ surfaced again rather than looking always for a dominant figure. Dictators start with benign intentions but always end up by being totalitarian. Some said we should worry about any dictator claiming ‘I will save the world.’

    The idea was put forward of ‘freedom under licence’ ie within the law. But this raised the question of which freedoms and who decides? It also gives the impression of freedoms being granted by the powerful rather than being more fundamental. It is surprising that no one mentioned the UN Declaration or the Human Rights Act in this connection.

    The debate got onto the political system and capture by the corporate elites. Millions spent on lobbying and the revolving door corruption was mentioned.

    Two interesting debates without any clear conclusions but a lot of useful points made.

    Peter Curbishley