I am blogging as I watch the debate on television that I attended in person. Maybe I could write a little less! Other than checking out how chubby I look - should the camera ever pan my way, I'm quite fascinated to see what I recall versus the actual event (albeit edited).
I have already seen a snippet of Mark Reckless defending his calculation of the populations of Bulgaria and Romania on the basis that 2 million of them have already left. I had forgotten that he said that. I was way up at the back, so am not sure if it was a tongue in cheek comment or a barrel scraping one. Telly will tell.
The programme is starting. I remember the man who said local issues take a back seat - they do, and programmes like this play a part in that (so why did I attend?).
That is our clapping - only a few seconds, they made us practice so much for those few seconds. There is a lot to be said for canned clapping.
Polly starts by stating it is only right that constituents get the chance to ask their questions - so why didn't we Polly? The candidates are introduced, Kelly smiling awkwardly, Clive Gregory not smiling at all - is that a green policy? Naushabah looking very polished, Mark looking a little uneasy and lastly Geoff.
The first question comes from an 18 year old - and the question is asking Mark if his defection was a political stunt. Well done young man, the question the BBC wanted you to ask. I remembered Mark's response as being quite reasonable, however he could of course have resigned much earlier, or waited until one month before the election. Polly raises Shapps and Mackness's comments and the issues of trust. Mark again points out he stood down, he didn't stay on. Polly then raises the issue of Lodge Hill - a housing project originally supported by Mark Reckless. Mark says his support was on behalf of the council, and now he thinks we shouldn't have these housing targets. Implausible but very reasonably put.
Polly moves on to Kelly. Kelly says 'you know' a lot. Kelly reminds Mark of some of his pre-defection statements - comments which are going to haunt him either for two weeks, or for six months should he win. Kelly reminds us how much the election is costing, and asks if it is about the people of Rochester and Strood or Mark just wanting to stay as an MP. Mark points out he has resigned. Far more importantly, we still haven't seen me. Polly says maybe the door is open for UKIP because they are disaffected with the other parties. Clive and Kelly have a little spat about whether debt is growing or the economy is growing. Kelly then drags Labour into it, blaming them for debt. Polly moves to Naushabah, asking if she thinks 13 years of Labour and Labour spin led to disillusion. Naushabah raises the points that schools and health were better and that it comes down to trust, pointing out that both Kelly and Mark have changed their view on Lodge Hill. We applaud. Naushabah states that Mark could have stood against the privatisation of the NHS many times, but chose not to.
The debate goes over to Clive. Clive says he respects Mark for standing down, but thinks it is a stunt designed for maximum publicity for UKIP, to much applause. Clive says UKIP are the same old, with the Greens being the opposition and all other parties are just a faction of the Conservatives. Polly then turns to Geoff Juby stating that LibDems used to be the none of the above party, but now they don't seem interested, none of them have been here. Geoff Juby says that VIPs pander to media needs with nobody getting the message across and he is sure someone will visit soon - I do remember feeling really sorry for him at that point, as you would for the child in your class whose parents never take an interest. Geoff points out that UKIP didn't stand against Mark in 2010 and it is cynical ploy now, furthermore it will result in only 2-3 months work.
Polly takes a question from the audience. The audience member, quite agitated, asks how we can trust UKIP and says Mark has stepped down into the gutter. Polly asks him if he is a local conservative, which he confirms Polly goes to Mark who denies that UKIP are racist. Mark states he doesn't align with Britain First, Clive points out his team did. Mark says he wasn't aware of what a loathsome outfit Britain First were, which I find hard to believe, the rest of us knew.
Polly takes another question - do we let immigration go on without hindrance. Rather than ask the panel for an answer, Polly asks for more comments. One claims that Kelly lied saying she wouldn't be the candidate. Kelly asks to be allowed to point out she had just come out of hospital and was called by UKIP, trying to find out what the Conservative party were up to. A constituent, Samantha, gets to ask her question, she points out that immigration is low in the area, so wants to know why is it a topic. Well put Samantha Polly says given that this is 90% indigenous population, why is it at the top of Kelly's agenda. Why is it at the top of Polly's? Kelly says it is about fairness and it is right we have control. The debate moves on to Naushabah, with Polly quoting Miliband saying Labour got it wrong, asking if it is Labour's fault. Naushabah disagrees saying Labour wants a clear and deliverable policy and that they want to take control of our borders and have fingerprints, and gather numbers of those coming in and out. Kelly asks why Labour didn't do this when they were in power and states that the Conservatives have got it down by 25%. Naushabah says this isn't true. It isn't an attractive discussion between the two, but at least Naushabah remains far calmer than Kelly. Naushabah stands up for immigrants and what they have contributed, to applause. Ohhh - I can see me! Naushabah is on a roll, showing a leaflet, which is frowned upon by Polly. Naushabah makes the very valid point that the population of Bulgaria and Romania is 2 million less than Mark claimed would emigrate. M seriously states that this is because 2 million have already emigrated. Clive says it is a two way street.
Polly quotes Mark to Mark again, reminding him that he said that only Tories could deliver an in-out referendum. Mark says David Cameron was not serious and Angela Merkl said it is not up for negotiation. Mark states the main issue is the number of people who can come and work - and we have had no wage increases because of that, a comment which is received with much heckling by the audience. Kelly asks how UKIP will do this. She also quotes Mark to Mark, this time on UKIP, and asks why has he defected. Mark states that the Conservatives are not credible on Europe and UKIP will apply an Australian style scoring system.
The debate moves to Geoff - with Polly asking how Geoff's claim to count everyone out and in, but Labour and Conservatives have failed to do that. Geoff asks if the Spanish will send all British people back and if our MEP won't vote on European issues they are not representing us. Geoff says he has met people who will vote UKIP but who don't like Mark. Nobody is too sure what that point was leading to, so Polly moves on to Clive.
Clive says parties have been whipped into taking up immigration by UKIP, citing that the reason for drop in wages was caused by the banks crashing the economy and the biggest issue is allowing the 'too big to fail' concept, causing the scam of austerity, the banks crashed the financial system. Clive gets a lot of applause.
Polly asks Samantha in the audience if her view has changed. Samantha says that it hasn't and that immigration is not the main issue and that the issues that matter to Rochester & Strood are not being address, to much applause. The young lady who was seated near me gets to asks her question: she points out the benefits of EU immigration to the UK and that the average age of EU immigrants is 24 - which suggests that they are healthy, educated so why would Mark object to them. Luckily for Mark, who may have struggled to put forward a reasonable answer to that, Polly isn't looking for answers, she is looking for negative comments. The next person agrees with the young lady. He says that we need well paid staff, motivated industries, affordable homes and people before profit, citing the benefits of immigration. He says constituents should look at the smaller parties, i suspect he is a supporter of the people before profit party - whose policies seem quite reasonable to me.
Another constituent agrees with the points system and immigration being tightened. He asks why if he has paid in for 20 years, how do immigrants contribute. He didn't quite say 'coming over here, taking all our NI', but you got the impression that he wanted to. Polly thanks him for phrasing it as a question and asks for people with similar views to him. The next person is the man in the striped shirt who had approached us before the debate, he says asylum seekers are not benefitting the economy and asylum needs to be tightened up. because people are taking advantage of the UK by traffiking. Polly goes to Dr Spinks. He mentions the Medway Maritime which is in special measures for the second time. Polly lets Naushabah answer who says that when Labour were in power you could get an appointment with your GP and treatment within 3 months. Naushabah sets out Labour's policies, Polly asks where the money will come from - tobacco and taxing the very wealthy. Naushabah will vote to stop privatisation of the Maritime. She points out that Mark voted for privatisation of the hospital 18 times. But Mark has seen the light and says that he now agrees with Labour's bill. Naushabah asks why he didn't do it before. Polly saves Mark from having to address this inconsistency by asking him not to talk in jargon. Kelly said that Nigel Farage said he would cut spending on the NHS. Mark cites his parents careers in medicine, but Polly notes it went into special measures twice whilst Mark was an MP. Mark wants everyone to support the Chair of the hospital and he wants to see GP practices improved. The attention turns to Kelly and the restructuring of the NHS, a Conseravative policy which has been much criticised. Kelly says that the NHS needs to be effective and efficient and that Conservatives have protected NHS funding. Kelly mentions the hiring of 100 extra nurses at the Maritime. She notes again that Medway hospital saved her life. She states that she wants to work with neighbouring MPs, administrators, regulators and, lastly, the doctors.
Polly turns to Geoff, who says the flaw in the NHS is the lack of training carried out under Labour. GPs are retiring without anyone to take over their practice, which goes back to Labour's GP contract. Geoff points out that the catchment area is bigger than Medway. He then moves on to point out it is an issue for Kent. Polly is having none of it, we are sticking to her issues, she wasn't going to let the constituents raise any and she definitely isn't letting the candidates loose on the agenda.
Clive then gets another say, he says the Green party will raise funds via wealth tax, Robin Hood tax, as well as alcohol and tobacco. He says that the Maritime has been abandoned and needs additional funding and established management. Clive stresses the source is privatisation of the NHS. Mark jumps in noting administrators who have done nothing for 10 years, and we should have a board - a single elected authority, which can deal with these problems. Another constituent said GPs struggle to get around the town due to traffic jams. Polly says that we will get to that later. We don't. A young man at the back says that high death rates and immigration is a priority so how can Kelly prioritise immigration over people dying. Kelly says health is one of her priorities too. Another man mentions that the EU won't renegotiate, so we need to audit the EU, we will keep the money and spend it how we want. This is the man who was a floating voter who says all he has heard is back-biting an negative campaigning and the green party are ahead in his estimation, we all applauded.
A lady asks Kelly why she is backing Rochester Master Plan and not a new hospital building. I can't remember if Kelly had to reply to this or not, but in the televised debate, it was ended there.
Polly ends the debate there and names the other eight candidates. The booing for Britain First is far shorter than I recall. I am pretty sure that it has been recorded over. As I suspected, the poor man who lost most of his pension in the Standard Life pension problem, was edited out.
Having rewatched much of the debate, Naushabah comes across as very poised and prepared, but they don't seem to be her policies. Mark was also calm and quite well prepared but will struggle to overcome the difference between what he says now and what he said for the last 4.5 years - undoubtedly he will still win, but I suspect his past will very much inhibit his future, he will find his previous comments being dragged up at every opportunity. Geoff had some good points, but suffers from being a LibDem which is no longer popular. Clive was very well received and would not jump on the immigration band-wagon, he won't win, but it will be interesting to see how much of the vote the Greens get. Kelly I suspect is an unwilling candidate and isn't entirely at ease. She has been well coached, but possibly too well coached and instructed not to digress too far from the path set her because her points are limited and therefore she comes across as repetitive. I have heard good reports of Kelly locally, Mark has more popularity amongst the electorate than either Labour or Conservatives would like to admit and Naushabah is backed by a very supportive and well-respected local team, so in theory it could be anyone's victory, but I still think it will be a UKIP win, It possibly won't be the landslide it might have been a month ago.
If Clive picks up more votes than the Greens are expected to get, many of those votes may be on the back of his performance in this debate - and very well deserved. It is time the BBC reviewed their policy of giving so little time to minority parties and independents. If an election has 13 candidates, our public broadcaster has a duty to give each the same amount of coverage.
About Me
- Vivienne
- The older I get, the more cynical I get. It is not a fact I am proud of, but it is a fact. I disbelieve just about everything the establishment and the media tell us. I am convinced that we are manipulated into being the submissive, law-abiding robots that we have become. It grieves me greatly.
Tuesday 11 November 2014
Monday 10 November 2014
Tower Poppies
I have been meaning to go and see the Tower Poppies for weeks. I work a 30-minute walk away - or a few minutes on the tube. I didn't try at the weekend, news reports of the crowds proving a significant deterrent.
As tomorrow is the last full day they will be on display, I took the early train to work and walked across London Bridge and up to the Tower. There were quite a few people there for the hour, just before 8 a.m., but nothing like the crowds that the last few weeks had seen.
I spent 40 minutes walking round it, wishing I had taken the time to bring my camera and taking a few snaps on my mobile which fail to do justice to the display. Much has been written about them, so I won't wax lyrical here. I am glad I finally got to see them. We read how many British and Colonial fatalities there were in the war, 888,246 and agree it is a large number. Seeing that many poppies really brought it home. Every single poppy represented the life of a young man, drafted into the army, living in hell in the trenches and then killed so the allied forces could gain a few feet.
It was incredibly to see and very poignant. Do we 'remember them'? I don't think so. If we did surely war pensioners, widows and the seriously injured wouldn't be relying on charities such as The British Legion and Help for Heroes. If we did, our defence budget would be a fraction of its current level as we avoided sending our troops to die on foreign soil for battles which achieve little and solve less. I was in the armed forces and am really glad I joined up. If I had a child, however, and they told me they wanted to enlist, I would talk them out of it, because one day we will run out of towers for all the poppies we are creating. I have a lot of sympathy with Sheila Hancock's suggestion that the poppies are mown down by a tank, "have the beautiful thing, and then destroy it" (article here). If we really want to 'remember them' we must remember the destruction.
As tomorrow is the last full day they will be on display, I took the early train to work and walked across London Bridge and up to the Tower. There were quite a few people there for the hour, just before 8 a.m., but nothing like the crowds that the last few weeks had seen.
I spent 40 minutes walking round it, wishing I had taken the time to bring my camera and taking a few snaps on my mobile which fail to do justice to the display. Much has been written about them, so I won't wax lyrical here. I am glad I finally got to see them. We read how many British and Colonial fatalities there were in the war, 888,246 and agree it is a large number. Seeing that many poppies really brought it home. Every single poppy represented the life of a young man, drafted into the army, living in hell in the trenches and then killed so the allied forces could gain a few feet.
It was incredibly to see and very poignant. Do we 'remember them'? I don't think so. If we did surely war pensioners, widows and the seriously injured wouldn't be relying on charities such as The British Legion and Help for Heroes. If we did, our defence budget would be a fraction of its current level as we avoided sending our troops to die on foreign soil for battles which achieve little and solve less. I was in the armed forces and am really glad I joined up. If I had a child, however, and they told me they wanted to enlist, I would talk them out of it, because one day we will run out of towers for all the poppies we are creating. I have a lot of sympathy with Sheila Hancock's suggestion that the poppies are mown down by a tank, "have the beautiful thing, and then destroy it" (article here). If we really want to 'remember them' we must remember the destruction.
BBC SOUTHEAST TODAY BY-ELECTION HUSTINGS
The by-election hustings which took place this weekend was billed as 'The Battle for Rochester and Strood'. Everything in modern life is a battle or a war, because that makes it so much easier to pretend we're all fighting the good fight, when we're just pawns in large corporations personal pension plans. All the candidates and most of the audience wore poppies, you know the kind that we all proclaim make us 'remember them'. If we genuinely remembered them, we wouldn't trivialise the hell that they went through by referring to a small town political debate as a battle.
Having applied online, I was called by BBC Southeast to offer me a place, after checking my voting tendencies – flip-flop would be a fair summary of those. The email encouraged attendees to submit two short questions prior to the event: “Make your questions short and provocative. …Issues likely to be covered are Trust & UKIP; Europe & Immigration, NHS and the Economy”. I didn’t quite understand how having UKIP as a topic in a debate for a by-election in which UKIP were standing fitted in with BBC’s remit of not showing bias, but maybe my lack of an Oxbridge education just prevented me from such insight. I also wondered at the time if expressing a different voting tendency would have ruled me out, but decided that may just be me being ultra-suspicious of the BBC.
Having applied online, I was called by BBC Southeast to offer me a place, after checking my voting tendencies – flip-flop would be a fair summary of those. The email encouraged attendees to submit two short questions prior to the event: “Make your questions short and provocative. …Issues likely to be covered are Trust & UKIP; Europe & Immigration, NHS and the Economy”. I didn’t quite understand how having UKIP as a topic in a debate for a by-election in which UKIP were standing fitted in with BBC’s remit of not showing bias, but maybe my lack of an Oxbridge education just prevented me from such insight. I also wondered at the time if expressing a different voting tendency would have ruled me out, but decided that may just be me being ultra-suspicious of the BBC.
I turned up on
time with my photo ID, which was checked twice, just in case between the front
door and the desk I turned into one of the eight candidates not allowed into
the debate. Once inside we were invited
to drink tea and coffee and had the opportunity to mingle with other attendees,
who were a mixture of those who had signed up much earlier in the week and last
minute additions, rumour having it that the BBC had struggled to fill the
debate.
I chatted to a
woman who agreed with me that immigration was the scapegoat of choice and how
unfair it was. Then we moved on to the parlous state of the National Health
- we were warming up well for the debate. Another audience member came
over to chat to us - and quickly moved on to what a huge problem immigration
was, I studied the carpet, it being more interesting, and wondered how many other
attendees actually did think immigration was THE big issue. We were
there for about 45 minutes until the debate chair, Polly, came to greet us and
warn us that although she would like as many of us as possible to ask our
questions, it would not be possible to get to all of us. We were then very
slowly placed in seats. I wondered at the strategy - aesthetics, balance
of gender, age etc. I had been pleasantly surprised to see so many
younger people there, particularly young women voters.
A man sat in
front of me was wearing a t-shirt over his shirt with a slogan on it – which I
think was ‘glass half empty’. The
producer asked him to take it off saying no advertising, political or
otherwise, was allowed. The man was
clearly unhappy about this, but did as he was asked. The warm-up man asked for five volunteers
were asked to sit in the place of candidates for light and sound checks. We had clapping drill with instructions to
clap for 20 seconds at the start and 40 seconds after the introduction of the
candidates. It turned out that we were
quite poor at clapping so we had to have quite a bit of practice. Warm-up man advised us that the camera could
be on us at any time, so could we all try and look as though we were watching –
not sleeping or yawning etc. We were
also strongly encouraged to shout out comments and to boo candidates if we
wished. Boo candidates? Why ever would they want us to do that? Could it possibly be because it was a BBC
televised debate with a UKIP candidate?
Once the
candidates came in, Polly then started off the debate with a practice question,
the debate not yet being televised. A
member of the audience was asked to read out her question, which was asking each
candidate if they didn’t win, which candidate they would be least unhappy to
see win instead. Clive Gregory, the
Green candidate, stated that if it couldn’t be him, his choice would be anyone
other than UKIP, which was echoed by Kelly Tolhurst – so there are at least two
votes for Britain First! Geoff Juby and
Mark Reckless were the only ones who could bring themselves to be least unhappy
with any of the other candidates, choosing respectively the Green candidate and
the Conservative candidate and Naushabah Khan, the Labour candidate,
categorically stated she didn’t want anyone to win other than her.
Then we were
off …. to a false start, flunking clapping school was beginning to show because
we had clapped for far too long for the first round of applause, so we had to
start again. Then we were really off, finally
having mastered the concept of ‘only 20 seconds’. I didn’t take notes after the candidates
came in, so I am now trying to remember which questions were asked and in which
order. I am pretty sure Polly went for
the jugular with her first question, citing Mark’s defection and asking Mark
about Grant Shapps’ comments about him lying.
We didn’t get
much opportunity to ask questions. Polly
led the focus on immigration with a short section at the end on the state of
Medway Maritime. When Polly asked for
comments from the audience she said she was not seeking questions but comments
– and would state what kind of comments, i.e. after one gentleman stated his
views on immigration asking for comments from others agreeing with him. At one point she asked for a comment from
the gentleman in front of me, who stood up to ask his question – with his
t-shirt now hanging from his waistband (he was wearing a shirt). He was actually protesting about having lost
three quarters of his pension due to the Standard Life scandal. Polly thanked him and moved on, back to
immigration. I doubt very much that his
comment will be shown. At the time I thought
she should have made the candidates give him a response. Looking back I think we, as an audience,
should have insisted on it. It is our
town, our by-election, our questions, why did the BBC think they should limit
the debate to the anti-UKIP angle and not actually give us the opportunity to
hear what the candidates had to say on the issues that affect us, the issues
that deprive us of affordable housing, decent healthcare and hospitals, that
leave us with sub-standard public transport, that can allow huge companies to
plunder pension pots. We get the
politicians we deserve, so I regret sitting there and saying nothing. Polly moved on to the EU referendum, a young
lady very near me had an excellent question which she put very well, Polly
wasn’t interested in getting the candidates to answer, she just moved on to
another question. I felt that was very
dismissive. The young woman’s question
and composure were impressive. Polly’s
dismissal was not a way to encourage the young to take part in political
debate.
One surprising
and unscripted outcome of the debate was the support for the Green candidate,
Clive Gregory. He came across as more
sincere and more passionate about his beliefs.
He also pointed out that immigration and people on benefits had not led
us into a state of perpetual austerity (albeit austerity only for some), the
banking scandal and allowing debt to be such a huge commodity, were the
cause. We mastered applause perfectly
in agreement – you see, all the stats in the world won’t give people an
education, but a committed teacher who believes in their subject will.
One audience
member was asked whom he would vote for.
He replied, to much applause, that he was a floating voter but based on
that evening’s performance he would probably vote Green. Clive’s comments and the audience’s response
seemed the least contrived part of the entire debate. When Polly had told us at the beginning that
she wouldn’t be able to get to all our questions, we assumed it was due to
time, but really it seemed that the BBC weren’t interested in getting the
candidates to answer. They had set the
debate, we were there merely to clap and boo, our clapping had been
sub-standard and I really think the BBC had hoped the entire debate would be
the candidates and the audience turning on the UKIP candidate. In truth four out of the five candidates
didn’t come across well, and I recall both Kelly and Naushabah also being
subjected to the audience’s derision, although not as often as Mark was. I felt very sorry for Geoff Juby, the Liberal
Democrat candidate. He has had little
support from his party and the lack of campaigning suggest that neither he nor
they expect him to get many votes and his place on the election is seemingly paperless.
The event was
interesting, even if the debate revealed little. Only having five out of the thirteen
candidates does seem biased and unfair on the remaining eight. At the end of the debate, Polly did read out
the names, parties and policies of the other eight – so two seconds of airtime
each. The audience booed so loudly at
the mention of Britain First that we didn’t hear the next candidate. At mention of the Monster Raving Loony Party
we all cheered. There is something very
comforting about them taking part in elections. Our politics may deliver little
at times in terms of democracy, but we can always hope one day the OMRLP will have
its day. It is already responsible for
getting the voting age down to 18 and passports for dogs, so I don’t see that
they could make a worse job of governing than the out-dated and corporate
friendly two / three party system we currently suffer.
Another aspect
of the debate that intrigued me was once it had finished, seeing the candidates
chatting and laughing with each other.
Even in local by-election, we get so used to their political personas
and attacks on other candidates / parties that I forget they are people, it was
good to see a brief snippet of camaraderie.
I want to see
how the televised show, going out later today, matches up to my memory of the
event and which parts have been edited out.
I don’t understand why the BBC asked us to
pose questions but then stuck rigidly to only two topics, both the BBC and the
candidates seemingly oblivious of the questions the audience really wanted
answers to. The Westminster bubble must
have quite thick walls for the mood of the audience not to get through.
I would like to
see a list of all questions submitted by the audience as well as voting
tendencies of the audience. I bet the
focus of the debate, immigration, was not the most popular question posed by
the audience. Also UKIP didn’t have much
support in that debate – and that isn’t representative of what I hear and see
locally, neither does it reflect the polls.
The bookies, never ones to lose money lightly, put UKIP’s odds at 1/33,
so it seems odd that out of 150 constituents the BBC couldn’t find more than a
handful who supported UKIP. I don’t
want a UKIP MP. I particularly don’t
want another victory for Nigel Farage to take credit for; when I suspect that
it is more down to voters tiring of the same old parties failing to deliver on
their promises. But, even more
importantly, I don’t want a biased BBC and tactical voting by Conservative and
Labour supporters to deny other candidates and other constituents a fair
vote. It will be very interesting to see
how the Green candidate fares in the election.
The Green party has long protested about the inequality of coverage for
their candidates. It will be truly
ironic if the media and the establishment obsession with UKIP actually work in
the Greens’ favour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)