The fifth Hustings Report is from Adrian Owens. Adrian kindly stepped into the breach only an hour or so ago. The volunteer reporter I had expected to file has gone AWOL (at least so far) and noticing Adrian mentioning tonight's meeting on another thread... I asked him for a report. So: "Thank you Adrian!"
"Hundreds of activists descended on the Premier Suite at Bolton Wanderers as the temperatures plunged below zero. The venue was recently used for Amir Khan’s latest fight, but there were no killer punches landed tonight, in an event that will have changed few minds and left the undecided well…. still undecided.
The format appears to have followed those of earlier hustings. Each candidate spoke for 10 minutes. There then followed 12 questions selected from written submissions made by the audience when they entered the hall. Finally, each candidate summed up for 3 minutes.
David Cameron raised the most laughs. A joke about Old Labour dinosaurs was particularly well received, though the joke about civil partnerships is starting to wear a little thin, or perhaps it was always likely to be less well-received in the traditional north.
DC once again spoke without notes, DD only abandoning the lectern for his closing remarks. During the evening the trademarks of the campaign were to the fore: sweeping optimistic statements from DC; tough realism and greater detail from DD.
Some of the questions were predictable enough – how to reverse the decline of manufacturing industry; how to attract young voters to our party; the future for the NHS - and the answers were equally predictable. I lost count of the number of times the person speaking second when responding to audience questions answered, “I agree with everything David has just said”. Unity yes, courtesy yes, but this was simply irritating.
There were however several noticeable differences.
An astute Lancastrian asked the candidates to highlight the most significant policy difference between them. DD was the first to answer and immediately highlighted his tax policy and the emphasis on tax cuts as a means to a strong economy. Interestingly DC did not demur from this in his response, arguing head on that the key difference in policy between the two contenders was indeed tax and restating his view that it was unwise to commit to precise figures at this stage of a Parliament.
On the crime question, DD talked passionately about tackling the social causes of crime – family breakdown, drugs etc, something absent from DC’s reply.
On internal party reform DD made no secret of the fact that he was opposed to the 21st Century party proposals and gave a strong hint that he would handle a Howard Flight type incident differently. The independence of Associations, and therefore as a consequence the independence of MPs was vital, he said. DC wanted a larger, mass membership party and said that where Associations were strong there should be no forced amalgamations. This implied that compulsory amalgamation would be the order of the day for Associations deemed to be struggling.
DC seemed to grasp and articulate some of the issues facing young people in Britain today. Twice, DC talked about the difficulties facing young people in getting onto the housing ladder, but then proceeded to offer no ideas to meet this aspiration except vague talk of “shared ownership”. This is better than DD’s call for a reversal of Labour’s house building programme, but neither candidate is talking about emulating the achievement of the 1951 Conservative government in making a home for all families a reality.
The most interesting difference though arose in the candidates’ answers to a question on whether Conservatives should support Tony Blair in his decision, signalled in the Education White Paper, to introduce by another name, “grant maintained” schools.
The difference was essentially tactical, but it gives a clear insight into the very different approach we can expect to Prime Minister’s Questions from the two of them.
I paraphrase their responses below:
DC - Blair's reforms are timid but they are a first step. Conservatives must be consistent. To oppose reforms that move in the right direction looks opportunistic. So under my leadership the Conservatives will support the Labour education white paper reforms.
DD - Blair's reforms are half-baked. To support these reforms will prolong Blair's grip on power. Moreover, when these "reforms" do not deliver better public services the reform agenda will have been irretrievably damaged. The public will not then “buy” our message that the Labour reforms had failed because they didn't go far enough."
A very clear account. There seems to be a consistent pattern emerging from all the hustings reports. It is going to be very difficult to get something very original from the two candidates. The problem is that they seem to be run on a rather narrow format. Perhaps this is done so that each area has the same experience, but it leads to a very repetitive set of meetings. A little more variation on the theme might inject more excitement.
It is much more interesting, for example, if the questioner can ask a follow-up question, to challenge a weak or vague answer. I believe we may find the Paxman interview tomorrow, or the Jonathan Dimbleby head to head on Sunday will be a stiffer test for them
Posted by: Derek | 16 November 2005 at 23:16
Great report. All reports have had real value in different ways, so I thank the contributors to date for their input.
What is becoming increasingly interesting is the perceived alignment of the candidates as they progress through this stage - the two-horse race to the winning line. Should we draw an analogy with two thoroughbreds running neck and neck along the inside rail at York during the May meeting? I fear not.
Any why? Because it is not widely engaging the party to the crescendo that may have otherwise been anticipated from just two/three days ago. In fact, quite the opposite from many I have spoken to since the Hustings commenced.
What can we put this down to? Is it a 'David Cameron is home and dry, so it doesn't matter?', from a rather deflated David Davis, or 'Don't say too much - it's served me well so far, so why be held to account later for a rash promise I made in Bolton?', from a rather relieved David Cameron.... or maybe a combination of both?
……Or do they both lack the panache that was warmly anticipated by the wider ‘rank and file’ following the excellent, but isolated, speeches earlier in the campaign?
Moving forward and to more positive ground, engaging with anyone under 20 should be the overriding aim over the approaching week – this is the new generation of voters at the next General Election.... few will have previously voted, even if eligible. If the Conservative Party has the attention of this demographic segment, we will have gone a long way to reaching out to the 20 - 30 year olds too.
So far, this leadership contest has made the party feel good. Let’s not deflate the party bubble, just is it starts to inflate again.
Posted by: Simon Dodsworth | 16 November 2005 at 23:50
hustings offer more in potential loss if a candidate stumbles than gain due to lack of TV coverage. so they play it safe.
Posted by: henry curteis | 17 November 2005 at 08:57
Good summary,
I was there and really cannot disagree with how Adrian has summed up.
I felt a distinct lack of energy tonight from candidate or audience. I feel for those at the last hustings, it is going to be subdued!
How anyone has ever judged these events with a winner, is beyond me. It is not really a debate and the issues and questions were not testing.
It was positive for the party that we had two good candidates - but the husting as Adrian notes were unlikely to change minds.
Posted by: James M | 17 November 2005 at 10:21
"How anyone has ever judged these events with a winner, is beyond me"
Through obvious partisanship. Phrases like "Cameron delivered his message of change, optimism and hope" (not in this one!) are subtle clues!
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 November 2005 at 10:25
Just to add - one thing that really interested me was when David Cameron said he felt the party had to be better at "customer relations" - a phrase he admitted he did not really like in this case. He said the party need to improve its communications with its members and improve the quality of information it sends out.
This reall appealed to me. I have often been annoyed and frustrated with how the party often does not even sent courtesy letters back to people who write to them. To me it is polite to do this and if either David sorts this out, it will be welcomed by this member.
Posted by: James M | 17 November 2005 at 10:36
Well James I am glad to be different!
Neutrality - or at least its veener, is my middle name!
Posted by: James M | 17 November 2005 at 10:38
"Through obvious partisanship. Phrases like "Cameron delivered his message of change, optimism and hope" (not in this one!) are subtle clues!"
I think we lucked out with this one in terms of balance. IIRC, John Coulson's pal Iain Lindley (a fully paid-up member of the axis) was going to be reporting on this hustings.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 17 November 2005 at 10:47
Assuming you're referring to my earlier report Mr Hellyer, you might get the quote right:
"Casting aside his notes, he stepped out from behind the rostrum to set out his message of hope, optimism and progress, earning a much-deserved standing ovation from sections of the audience."
Posted by: Cllr Graham Smith | 17 November 2005 at 10:50
"David Cameron arrived to be greeted by a chorus of angels..."
Yes, that would heve been good.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 November 2005 at 10:51
"Assuming you're referring to my earlier report Mr Hellyer, you might get the quote right"
Yes, because that non-partisan excerpt so undermines my point.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 November 2005 at 10:53