Parliamentary Election Hustings

[Roger Mellie]

Extremely disappointing that it has come to this.

I'm no supporter of Liberty GB, but I would contend if they are permitted to exist as a party in the UK and stand for election then it is not really up to other parties to decide if they are eligible for a platform, rather the public.

[Tim Lund]

Chiming in to agree. Can someone direct our candidates to this thread and the equivalent one on SE23.com to see how their actions have 'impressed' their electorate?

Done what I can with a tweet

[stuart]

May I ask Annabel & Michael to name the recalcitrant candidate(s) who refused to attend the hustings? And why it was not decided to 'empty seat' them. The religious bit was weak - and if real another venue/moderator could surely be found?

To not name is grossly unfair to the other candidates who, as we can see above, are being assumed guilty by association. It really is a disgrace as with David Cameron in the leader debates to use their position to deliberately stifle debate and scrutiny at the one time in five years we have the chance to decide who speaks for us.

George Whale is a joke (OK a very bad one) but if they can't cope with him then how do they expect to stand up and even best experienced and articulate politicians in the House of Commons? Mr Whale's presence, and demolition, would have been a good indicator of the calibre of people with a real chance of being there instead of being frit.

Come on Michael & Annabel, name names!

Stuart

[mosy]

If would-be MPs can so easily dismiss a valid fellow competitor, then it's no surprise that they seem to take little notice of the views of voters at large once in power. As others here have said, refusal to attend or share a platform with Mr Whale says more about them than it does about Mr Whale.

I'd also like to know which candidates declined the debate.

What will happen about the hustings scheduled in Penge on 29th April? Has Mr Whale been invited to that one? I would see religion as a red herring since a Christian church is meant to welcome all comers, but I've no idea if it is the views of the refuser(s) or the venue which brought religion into it - anyone know?

[somerandombloke]

Agreed. Demolishing Mr Whales neofascist views wouldve been prettyy easy for any otehr candidate with half even a quarter of a brain. So now hes a martyr he can claim hes bested them without even having to draw breath. Pathetic absolutly pathetic!!!! Shame on the candidates who wouldnt appear with him however disgusting his views are.

[Robin Orton]

It is very sad that this event has been cancelled. Thank you, FH Soc and SydSoc, for all your efforts. I hope this does not spell the end of the tradition of live, face-to-face public hustings in this constituency. Perhaps, in the light of lessons learned, ways can be found of making it happen successfully in 2020 (or earlier, perhaps?)

[Roger Mellie]

Indication on Penge Tourist Board facebook page re the hustings planned there:

"We are still talking. If it does go ahead it won't be at St John's. That's about all I can say right now"

[mosy]

Thanks Roger Mellie. Look forward to further updates re 29th.

[Tim Lund]

I'm told it was the postion of several candidates.

I also have a tweet from Martin Powell Davies saying he will respond in due course

[somerandombloke]

I'm told it was the postion of several candidates.

Cowards more like.

[Robin Orton]

Leaving aside the question of free speech for alleged racists, I believe that if there is to be a useful interaction between the audience and the candidates, and between the candidates themselves, there cannot in practice be more than about four candidates on the platform. (Cf. 'Question Time', 'Any Questions.') So if more than four candidates are standing in the constituency, one or more of them would need to be excluded. It seems defensible to exclude the candidate(s) with the least realistic prospects of being elected. I believe (and I speak as one who helped to organise the hustings here in 2010) that is perfectly possible under Electoral Commission guidance on local hustings.

I don't believe the leaders of the Trades Union and Socialist Coalition or of Liberty GB were invited to join any of the TV leaders' debates, were they?

[Tim Lund]

Leaving aside the question of free speech for alleged racists, I believe that if there is to be a useful interaction between the audience and the candidates, and between the candidates themselves, there cannot in practice be more than about four candidates on the platform. (Cf. 'Question Time', 'Any Questions.') So if more than four candidates are standing in the constituency, one or more of them would need to be excluded. It seems defensible to exclude the candidate(s) with the least realistic prospects of being elected. I believe (and I speak as one who helped to organise the hustings here in 2010) that is perfectly possible under Electoral Commission guidance on local hustings.

I guess I agree about the usefulness of a live in person event with a limited number of candidates. By implication, Michael & Annabel were wrong to admit the addtional candidates - including the one from Liberty GB.

But I'm still nothing like as outraged about the cancellation of this event than I am by the candidates' systematic refusal to engage with electors publically in any Forums.

[mosy]

My view is slightly different. It's only by hearing extreme outside views that middle of the road politicians wake up from their cosy "one size fits all" agendas, hence complete voter apathy until this last week when the mainstreamers are trying desperately to differentiate themselves, and some of their policies are becoming quite extremist as we move closer to voting day.

As to the form of a debate, surely that's giving each the proverbial 2 minutes and not letting any one debatercommandeer. If debaters choose to snipe rather than put their intentions forward, then they've kinda wasted their 2 mins. That to me says it's easier to knock the other guy down than prove oneself. On today's cancelled occasion, it doesn't seem to be the number of debaters, just one (from the little I know) so perhaps others were hoping he'd be the absent whipping boy to unite against to make themselves look good. The last TV multi-party debate had something of a love-in against Cameron ring to it.

[stuart]

But I'm still nothing like as outraged about the cancellation of this event than I am by the candidates' systematic refusal to engage with electors publically in any Forums.

I don't care how they engage as long as they do. When I were a lad in a land far, far away there used to be public meetings organised by the parties to show off their charismatics from Westminster and be endorsed. I shall never forget a heavily lubricated George Brown mesmerising an audience without being able to stand properly. Oh, we shall never see the likes of them again.

I would like to see the candidates in the flesh both to help me choose and, perhaps, to remind the party selection folk that there is value in choosing candidates who can connect, empathise and explain their policies and personal strategies to people outside the party in plain English. The connection between local MP and electorate has never been worse imho.

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

here's the link - and previous misleading comment removed. Thanks Biscuitman1978 for pointing this out.

http://electmartin1.blogspot.co.uk/2015 ... t.html?m=1

[martinpd]

Thanks to Tim and others to referring me to the debate - I'll try and respond further when I can.

Rather than post at length, I've posted a summary of my take on the debate on my blog (and there's plenty more there besides if anyone wants to have a look). http://electmartin1.blogspot.co.uk/2015 ... orest.html

In brief: "The Forest Hill and Sydenham Societies have had to take into account a range of views, including my own, about how their hustings event originally planned for Friday 24th April, was to be organised. I appreciate the complexities but have differed with the organisers on two issues. Firstly, they should have included me as a candidate on the panel in the first place. Secondly, they need not have cancelled the hustings".

Martin Powell-Davies, TUSC candidate for Lewisham West and Penge

[biscuitman1978]

Sounds as if it was Labour and the Lib Dems taking a principled stand.

http://electmartin1.blogspot.co.uk/2015 ... t.html?m=1

I may have missed something, but I can't see where in this blog post it says that it was the Lib Dems and Labour who objected to the inclusion of the Liberty GB candidate. As far as I can see, the blog post simply says that the Conservative, UKIP and Green candidates actively supported the inclusion of TUSC.

[George Whale]

I am ready and willing to debate any of the issues with my opponents on this forum. But I fear the crybabies will boycott!

Best regards

Dr George Whale
Liberty GB candidate for Lewisham West and Penge
http://www.libertygb.org.uk

[George Whale]

George Orwell - "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

[somerandombloke]

somerandombloke - "I hope they dont boycott. I hope they tear you a new one"