About Me

My photo
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.

Monday 10 November 2014

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.

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. 

No comments:

Post a Comment