Musings on the election

Note for sanity - if this ridiculously long post scares you, simply skip to the end for my views on who you should vote for if you live in North East Somerset.

Yesterday, for the first time in my life, I attended a local hustings for the general election. It was extremely popular, and the adage "standing room only" was extremely apt, as that is exactly what we got.

However, looking around there was a marked age disparity amongst the audience. I think you could have counted on two sets of fingers the number of people in the room who were under 30, and I was one of them.

We were lucky to have all candidates standing in our constituency in attendance, although one was admittedly only a representative for his party. They were:

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative

Eric Lucas, Green Party (Eric is standing in Bath, our local candidate Michael Jay was unfortunately ill. But it was good of Eric to stand in and provide the party perspective)

Gail Coleshill, Liberal Democrats

Dan Norris, Labour

Peter Sandell, UKIP

The debate kicked off with a question from the audience, and it just so happened to be the question that I had submitted by email in advance. To be honest I wasn't expecting for it even to be selected, least of all to be first, so when I stood up to ask it I think it's fair to say that it was a bit of a ramble.

The general jist of my question, as emailed, was this:

As someone that was born in Paulton Hospital, grew up in Westfield, went to university in Bristol, got married in Bath and had my son in the Royal United Hospital I am tied to this area, that I love dearly. However, despite supposedly doing the right thing and attending university and starting a career, my wife and I find ourselves unable to purchase a house in our home town because of ridiculously high house prices and deposits that are almost impossible to save for.

This is partly because of the current obsession of using the housing market to prop up the economy and our area now becoming a commuter town.

How would candidates help my family and countless others in the same situation?

Most of the candidates came out with the usual platitudes. We need to increase the provisioning of social housing. More houses need to be built (but not on the green belt). However, nothing really concrete came from it. I was amazed that none of the non-Labour candidates picked up on my mention of my £15,000 university debt. 

Although I tried to remain neutral as each candidate provided their answer, I couldn't help myself rolling my eyes when the UKIP's candidate's response started with "well, the biggest problem we have in this country is immigration".

After all the answers the chair asked if I had heard anything that I'd liked in the responses. I had to be honest and say not really - there's nothing concrete to help someone in my situation, and there is still a fixation in our country on high house prices to prop up the economy, and constant talk of "getting the housing market going again" with no regard for the fact that investments can go up or down... so why is the housing market any different?

As we moved on I realised that Dan Norris, the current Labour MP was definitely experienced in this sort of debate. He seemed to be the only person making a note of the questioner's name and then addressing them directly. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg seemed almost laid back that he was horizontal, although he did come across slightly better than I expected him too (but that doesn't mean he talked sense). I actually made him slightly annoyed at one point - during a question on whether it is fair that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have devolved governments he was complaining that constituencies in Wales are smaller, so MPs in England have a harder time representing their constituents. I couldn't help it, my hand shot up. The chair asked for my point and I made it - "I'm slightly confused by Mr Rees-Mogg's point on constituency sizes. Is it not Conservative policy to reduce the number of MPs?"

"Yes it is, but I don't see why that matters" came the barbed reply.

"Because how will that make it easier for MPs to represent their constituents?"

"Of course you can represent lots of people, it's silly to say you can't".

It was a pretty stupid and silly reply, not to say contradictory. The only reason I didn't labour it was because this wasn't a personal debate and I didn't want to turn it into a ten minute argument at the expense of everyone else in the room. But the tone of his voice was definitely irked that someone had dared challenge him. It was the only time in the whole evening that he became animated.

He also cracked me up talking about Conservatives wanting to give you more liberties and the right to run your life, when he made his anti-abortion stance blindingly clear (basically that if you're a woman he doesn't think that you should have access to an abortion if you need one).

In terms of the other candidates, the Green Party came across more as a lobbying group than a viable political party. Peter Sandell of UKIP seemed to think he was down the pub, wittering on about how Europe was the cause of all ills.

I took a special interest in what Gail Coleshill had to say. In terms of my political leanings, I probably fall closest to Lib Dem policies in most cases. And out of all of the candidates that I have emailed to discover their stance on various issues, she is only one of two to have emailed me back. The other was Michael Jay of the Greens, although it's fair to say we... differ... in opinion on a lot of things.

Jacob Rees-Mogg's office have sent me two auto-replies (one for the original email and one for the reminder that he hasn't replied) to say that he's busy campaigning, and Dan Norris' office has only replied with silence, although he has appeared to show a talent at making celebrities turn randomly up in our area (who have no local ties) to say just what a jolly nice bloke he is. Peter Sandell amazingly doesn't have any contact details on his leaflets.

I picked apart many of the things Gail said on one of her campaign letters - on top of the 14 questions I've asked every candidate - and she took the time to each point in turn, alongside answering all the questions fully.

In the debate, a question was raised about disfranchisement of youth in politics. And whilst the others talked about just how terrible it was, Gail was the only person to point out that the youth are talking politics, they're just doing it in a different way - via social media like twitter, and maybe that's just not being picked up on. Anyone that followed the leaders debate or the story of the digital economy bill on twitter would see that many young people are putting out opinions on politics, and in cases where their political representatives are also using that medium I've seen them take them to task.

Gail was also the only candidate to point out that there was a huge, and apparently, successful drive to get young people to register to vote before the 20th April deadline.

It's up to the candidates to move with the times and engage in new ways. The hustings was interesting and I'm very glad I went, but debates can also be held online. Slightly off topic, but I think that this is especially true of local council meetings, where mysterious things seem to happen between generally (and I know I'm stereotyping here) old councillors debate things in town halls whilst no-one is looking (and in the case of our local area, seem to spend more time writing letters to the local papers to slag off other councillors).

Anyway, enough of that rant.

The other thing that has annoyed me in this election so far is negative campaigning. Our Labour candidate seems to be spending more time attacking the background of the Tory candidate and proclaiming that the Lib Dems cannot win in the area (despite it being a completely new constituency, and therefore previous voting trends aren't entirely accurate). Of course any candidate can win in the area. Even UKIP could. They simply need to get the most votes. But the message from him is that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Conservatives. To me this is insulting my intelligence.

I hope that the youth of North East Somerset vote for the candidate they feel will represent them best in the years to come, one that realises that there are new ways of talking to their constituents. I also hope they realise not to be scared by negative politics. If enough people vote for the right candidate, that candidate will win. I think most youth hate negative politics, and being young they are like most people over the generations when they're our age - pretty ideological and wanting a more positive future. Maybe social media is our method of coming together in this generation.

It's through social media that the papers' obvious bias and political vendettas are being ripped apart by those taking part (perfectly demonstrated by the #nickcleggsfault hashtag on twitter). I only hope that this can be communicated to people who don't take an active role on mediums such as twitter.

I'm definitely rambling now, but I hope people see through the constant barrage of "the Lib Dems can't win" and "only we represent change".

If we want a party to win, we can make it happen. We have had many years of Labour and Conservatives now, so talk of change there borders on laughable. I hope that on polling day, we all help the Lib Dems gain a political foothold (and then maybe proportional representation can follow).

Oh, and if you're in my area, I know my opinion doesn't really hold any sway. But only candidate has really actively engaged with me. And only one party's policies routinely make sense to me.

So if you want my opinion, vote for Gail Coleshill and vote for Lib Dems.

Don't listen to negative politics. If enough people vote the right way, the right person will win. The formula is that simple.