Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: voting

  • Democracy Café

    VE Day celebrations provided one of the topics for this months Café discussions

    May 2025

    Once again we must thank Salisbury Library for allowing us to use their space for our debate.

    The 8th May is Victory in Europe Day and was celebrated this year with a high level of publicity. Only a handful of those who fought in the war remain now. The question posed was should we continue to celebrate VE Day? The first comment was that millions died and the war should never have happened. Politicians knew what Hitler was up to in the ’30s and should have acted sooner not wait until war was inevitable.

    Perhaps we should say ‘commemorate’ not ‘celebrate’. It was important to remember and to learn some of the lessons. A Quaker perspective was that we should remember all the dead of all the wars. It was noted that one of Hampshire’s parks was the site of a former hospital for the thousands injured in the Crimean War. Now all that’s left is small plaque in the ground the memorial having been removed some years ago.

    The claim was made that the celebrations are an ‘unfortunate political act with the purpose of maintaining imperialist and militaristic attitudes’. It had echoes of ‘keep Britain strong’. It fed some of the myths about ourselves someone thought, the erroneous claim that ‘we fought alone’ was strong. The reality that we were helped by many nations who provided soldiers and other support. It was also true that the contribution by Indian and Caribbean people had largely been written out of the histories. We were reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s quote ‘There was never a good war or a bad peace’ (1783).

    The contribution of the Russians to the war was noted who were our allies at the time. They are not invited to the UK celebrations for obvious reasons. How was Germany celebrating these events it was asked? [They do seem to have a modest ceremony]. Germans were present at the Paris events. The EU was sanctioning two European politicians who went to the Russian celebrations in Moscow. The contrast with the Moscow ceremonies was remarked on where the parades consisted of weaponry and had a militaristic theme. Would there be a day when we and the Russians could celebrate together? That seems a long way off at present. Maybe the centenary could be held in Strasbourg with all the combatants there …

    The myths about the war might have contributed to the Brexit decision by those who may not have fully appreciated the role played by other nations in the conflict and the ultimate victory. Some believed ‘we liberated them [the Europeans] so they should be grateful’ was a belief it was suggested.

    There was nothing wrong in being proud of one’s country it was suggested.

    A recurrent theme, stated by several, was the importance of remembering. These terrible conflicts which cost millions of lives and left millions more wounded, should not be forgotten but the precise nature of how they should be remembered was unclear. Several were unhappy at the jingoistic nature of the VE Day celebrations and the ‘capture’ of the event by politicians, royalty and the military. Should we just have Armistice Day? Dunkirk was mentioned which had been a major disaster for the BEF and resulted in a huge loss of equipment and men. Yet somehow it has been transformed into a celebration and the ‘Dunkirk spirit’ was part of the nation’s folk law.

    Finally, the role of the UN was raised as an instrument to act as international policeman. This had been one of the intentions following the failure of the League of Nations. However, it was pointed out that the US which had become the supreme power after the war and did not want a UN able to interfere or ‘police’ its affairs. We do not take international law seriously was a sobering thought.

    In the second half we debated the notion should voting be made compulsory? One of the problems of our debates which are introduced without prior preparation is that most do not know the background facts. There is a detailed discussion of this topic in Wikipedia and since Australia was mentioned, they have had the system since 1924. There are around 20 countries which have it. Chile also has this system it was noted.

    The topic arose because of the recent local elections (and one parliamentary by-election) where it was noted that the Reform candidate won on a 20% turnout in a local constituency. With so few voting was it time to make it compulsory? The point was made that it is our responsibility as citizens to take part in the selection of those who run things.

    The right to vote was hard won over many decades. The suffragists and the suffragettes were mentioned.

    The problem was that many thought that their vote would not make any difference. Although enormous attention was paid to the voting process and elections, we were reminded that parliamentarians and the government itself were subject to sustained and well funded lobbying. MPs were not always transparent about the degree of outside influence they were subject to or represented. All MPs should declare their interests in all debates and not rely on various rules which allowed them not to do this. In media interviews, interviewees are never asked ‘who funds you?’ leaving voters in the dark about the role and influence of lobbying and vested interests.

    The MP for nearby East Wiltshire, Danny Kruger, is currently being investigated by the Commons authorities for allegedly not declaring his involvement and funding by a religious organisation opposed to the Assisted Dying bill.

    It was inevitable it was suggested that MPs came with a set of beliefs and views which they could hardly leave at the door of the House of Commons. Perhaps it was a cynical view but the point was made that any politician bent on a career in politics had ‘sold their soul’ so was there any point in a deep dive into their background and beliefs?

    If compulsion was introduced then various changes would have to be made. What about people who did not have mental capacity? What about people who were living abroad for an extended period?

    It was noted that many did not vote because they thought none of the parties or candidates would make any difference to their lives. So there would have to be a ‘none of the above’ is compulsion was the norm. We should not overlook the fact that low turnouts were a measure of people’s frustrations. The low level of voting by young people was troubling and it was suggested that they felt ‘screwed over’ by the current system. However, voting was one of the few times we could make our views known.

    One issue with local politics was they were strongly influenced by national events. So people tended not to vote for who was the best candidate locally but to express displeasure at what the government was doing. So many may have voted locally for Reform for example with its strong statements on stopping the boat crossings, about which they could do next to nothing locally as it was a national – not to say international – issue. An increase in independent candidates would overcome this in part it was suggested. Frome was mentioned and someone noted that in Cornwall there were attempts to organise locally to solve local problems.

    Many asked what would be the sanctions for not voting?

    The next meeting is on June 14th.

    Peter Curbishley

    A reminder that the third People’s Assembly takes part on June 1st at the Football stadium starting at 2pm. If you’re interested in coming please contact Mark on mapotts53@gmail.com or leave a note here.

    Would you like to join us on the committee? We are trying to improve the standard of political decision making including the introduction of citizen’s juries.

    Latest posts:

  • Democracy Café, December meeting

    The December 2019 meeting took place a day after the emphatic win by the Conservatives in the General Election. Boris Johnson was returned with an increased majority of 80. The Labour party is now engaged in what will be an extended period of soul searching and will in a few months, elect a new leader. The LibDem leader lost her seat and although they increased their vote this was not rewarded with any additional seats

    It was not surprising therefore when the various suggested topics all centred around the state of politics today. There seems little doubt that the main issue in the election was the seemingly never ending saga of Brexit. Boris Johnson had stuck to his key theme of ‘Get Brexit done!’ and this clearly had resonated with the public many of whom are fed up with the whole issue and want it all over.

    The discussion about what happened ranged quite widely. What was the meaning of traditional Labour supporting areas in the north voting for the Conservatives? Many of the traditional jobs in large areas of the north have gone and with it those ideas of collectivism and solidarity. ‘Thatcher’s children’ were now the norm. Many have forgotten the battles of the past such as the Jarrow march it was noted. The achievements of trade unions have also been forgotten.

    What do people mean by ‘socialism’ now? Was it some combination of public ownership and controls on capitalism? Someone argued for the complete absence of private capital. People wanted capitalism but with limits and were happy overall with a mixed economy.

    Mention of a more equal press drew the only applause of the meeting. It seems undeniable that, although fewer and fewer read a newspaper, the relentless bias of the right wing press did have some kind of effect.

    The discussion had focused thus far on the problems experienced by Labour and where they might go in the future to recover. The point was made on the other hand that the Conservatives had their own ideological problems. Their beliefs – dating back to the Thatcher era – were based on small government, low taxes, private enterprise, deregulation, competition and free trade. The effects of these policies were increasingly becoming clear. They have been acutely experienced by the ‘left behind’. To reverse these problems, to retain what Boris Johnson called the ‘borrowed votes in the north, and to rectify a decade of cuts to health, schools and to infrastructure generally, was going to require significant reversal of policy. All this while the next stage of Brexit was in full swing. Will the Conservatives be able to carry out such a change in their core ideology?

    Individualism seemed to be a thing which counts now. Many of the public who are interviewed seem only concerned with their own situation not on wider issues. The ‘aspiration of the individual’ is what counts someone said. Or was it to be a member of a fairer society? Did people understand the difference between capitalism and socialism in any event?

    Inevitably, we got onto personality. It seems that neither of the party leaders was liked nor trusted. At the Salisbury hustings for example, people laughed at John Glen when he referred to trust in Boris Johnson. Studio audiences also laughed when trust was mentioned in the same sentence as his name. Corbyn was widely disliked and distrusted on a wide number of issues. So is the result of this election a one-off and a result of people’s attitudes to these two men?

    An argument developed about immigration – one of the prime political concerns today and one that crops up on the doorstep. Indeed, at the last Salisbury for Europe street event, there were two people with strong and fierce anti immigrant views. The difficulty it was stressed was the difference between genuine concerns about the scale and impact on the one hand and prejudice on the other. ‘White working class people look out of their door and see something completely different’ it was said. It was regrettable that words like ‘swamp’ and ‘flood’ were used however. The point that without immigrants, the health service could no operate, food would not be prepared and vegetables left unpicked was not made. The problem has a long history it was noted, Enoch Powell for example.

    We continued along similar lines after a break and the discussion moved on the nature of the current system – a familiar topic for the cafe. Salisbury is a safe Tory seat which means that someone could live a lifetime in the City and not ever be represented. That an MP represents all the constituents cut little ice.

    One theme was how well can the public understand the complexity of government? This brought up the issue of the Referendum: do MP’s go with what they believe or what the voters told them? This was the difference between an MP being a delegate or a representative. Large parts of the public seem to want the former.

    Proportional representation has its own problems and can lead to a small party wielding disproportionate power. The DUP is a recent example. Now that Johnson has a big majority, he will safely ignore them. But in a sense that illustrates the basic problem: one minute the DUP is influential, a day later, they can be ignored. Whatever one thinks of the DUP – and few this side of the Irish Sea will think favourably of them – how representative and balanced is this system of voting. For three years, the ERG has wielded enormous power and influence over government policy. Now, a day later, they can be largely sidelined.

    The point was made that democracy is about the ability to challenge the government and Gina Miller was instanced. It was about the right to speak. So in a sense, no votes were wasted as it showed the depth of feeling about a subject.

    Conclusion

    No definite conclusion but a widespread feeling that things are not right. The damaging effect of a foreign owned right wing press and its influence on voting was expressed. First past the post might, on occasion, produce a strong government which its supporters claim, but it more usually ends up with marginal government and does not represent actual voting. In Salisbury, some felt that they are never represented nor ever can be.

    Peter Curbishley