Jim Millen Rotating Header Image

Newbury Elections

Quiz the candidates – open hustings for Newbury

Apr 21st, 2010
by Jim Millen.
No comments yet

There’s an open hustings planned for the Newbury Constituency candidates – it’s being hosted by Christians Together in the Newbury Area this Saturday 24th April, from 1930 to 2100 at St Nicolas Church Hall.  Newbury Weekly News editor Brien Beharrell will be chairing the session.

In a very positive step for a local campaign, the hustings will feature all seven candidates – not just those from the major parties.  I think it’s great that the smaller parties and independent candidates also get the chance to put their views forward!  Having said that I hope Brien will be able to keep things moving along swiftly, so there’s a chance to cover a good range of questions.

If you’re interested and would like to attend & ask a question, CTNA are asking people to email them with your question in advance.  Do get involved – it’s one of the few opportunities we have to ask questions of those who seek to represent us in Parliament!

Newbury Leaflet Update

Apr 21st, 2010
by Jim Millen.
No comments yet

I’ve just uploaded a couple of election leaflets – one from the Lib Dems and one from the Conservatives – to The Straight Choice.  It’s dead easy to do from a scanned copy or just take a picture – if there’s any new leaflets in your area of Newbury, why not add them too?

It’s also worth taking a moment to browse the other leaflets.  Fascinating to see what the parties are saying across the country, and how much their message might differ depending where you live!

Lib Dem leaflet update

Apr 20th, 2010
by Jim Millen.
1 comment

Quick update regarding the Lib Dem leaflet mentioned in the radio debate yesterday.  As I suspected the leaflet is quoting Daniel Hannan on the NHS – I got a copy in my postbox this morning.

The quote in the leaflet is as follows:

“We’ve lived through this mistake for 60 years now…  The reality is it hasn’t worked – it has made people iller…”

It is credited to “Top Conservative Dan Hannan on the NHS”, next to a bullet point suggesting the Conservatives support “Privitisation of some existing NHS services”.

Sounds suitably alarmist doesn’t it?

However, this is misleading.  Hannan is a Tory, but he is a MEP, not a MP.  He is not particularly close to Cameron, and has little input into Tory policies.

Most of all, Hannan does not speak for the Conservative party and does not represent their position on the NHS!

Thus for Rendel to use such a quote to scare the electorate into thinking the Tories would threaten the NHS is pure spin.  He’s not lying – but he’s certainly not giving the full picture.

[Note: post now updated from my earlier version with links and the Dan Hannan quote.]

Newbury parliamentary candidates radio debate

Apr 19th, 2010
by Jim Millen.
No comments yet

This morning the three candidates from the main parties were on Andrew Peach’s BBC Berkshire radio show – you can listen again here – from 2 hours onwards.

It was a lively session, including discussion on Trident, small businesses, maternity care, immigration, and local traffic.  David Rendel and Richard Benyon came across well and did their causes no harm; sadly Hannah Cooper for Labour came a bit unstuck at times.  There were cameo phone-ins from the David Black of UKIP, David Yates of the Apolitical Democrats, and Brian Burgess as an independent candidate.

All three candidates were polite, mostly explaining their own policies rather than sniping at the others.  There was the odd spark though, such as when Benyon accused Rendel of misleading the public about the Tory policy on NHS cuts. Sounds like Rendel might have been guilty there – haven’t seen the leaflet in question, but apparently it’s citing one Tory MEP (Maybe Daniel Hannan?) rather than official party policy.  Benyon rightly pointed out that all parties have some wingnuts on the back benches (not quite in those terms!) and that it’s the manifesto policy that counts.

I was struck by how much consensus there was on Newbury hospital – no real differences between the three parties, all agree that there’s no money to provide a full-service hospital including maternity care.  I was interested to learn that apparently a population of 250,000 is required to justify a major hospital, and West Berkshire is only about 140,000 or so.

On immigration there was another clash between Rendel and Benyon, with the latter criticising the Lib Dem’s plans for localised immigration caps – i.e. immigrants receiving a work permit specific to an area in the UK.  The Lib Dems plan for this to be enforced through the employer, who must ensure that they only employ workers with a right to work in that region.

I must confess I also have some problems with this policy.  It puts a lot of responsibility on the employer and is bound to increase the cost of doing business.  I also don’t understand how it will work for skilled and professional immigrants.  What if a client assignment requires them to relocate for 12 months?  If this policy is implemented, I can see a lot of dodgy dealings with respect to contractural location versus actual location.  And what about working from home?  Will these work permits dictate where immigrants can live?

None of the three candidates really made sense on how to cap overall immigration – there’s definitely some pandering for votes going on with this topic.

There was plenty more – if you’re a voter in the constituency I’d recommend you give it a listen in a quiet hour.  There’s no bombshells in there but certainly helps to understand a bit more about each candidate!

[Update - a good summary of the Trident discussion here.  My personal take is the £100 billion figure is somewhat dicey - there's no way we'd save all that money even if we cancelled Trident today!  Can see both sides of the argument though - what do you think?]

The anti-politics point of view

Apr 19th, 2010
by Jim Millen.
No comments yet

Barrie SingletonYesterday in Newbury I spotted this chap near St Nicolas Church.

“Must be something to do with the election”, I thought, so went over to have a word.

Turns out he’s called Barrie Singleton, and stood for parliament as an independent in 2005.  He’s on the interwebs here.  Had an interesting chat for ten minutes…

Barrie is unimpressed with our political system, suggesting there’s a sickness in Westminster and that it’s “an incestuous distillation” of all that’s bad in human nature.  His “Spoil Party Games” approach is aimed squarely at all mainstream politicians, pointing out how similar the parties are and how little real choice voting really gives us.

Despite the Lib Dems enjoying a sudden surge in the polls, Barrie was equally dismissive of Nick Clegg – reckoning he’s just as much a product of the Westminster system as any of the rest of them!

I enjoyed chatting to Barrie; I didn’t realise he was a poet when we spoke but it certainly helps explain his loquaciousness and snappy turn of phrase.  His website has plenty more on his political views.

Barrie’s view of politics speaks a lot of uncomfortable truths.  But given it’s almost impossible for independent candidates to win elections, is there any realistic prospect of changing the system?

Well, there are reasons for cautious optimism.  All three main parties have promised recall laws, providing measures for constituencies to dismiss MPs who aren’t doing a good job.  There’s positive talk about more open government, devolved power and accountability.  Meanwhile political blogs and social networks such as Twitter give us less biased – and frequently more accurate – information about what’s actually going on.

But behind the facade of parliamentary process and legislation, will anything really change?

Well, not if it’s left to the politicians, no, it won’t.  Unlike some of the more vociferous anti-politics brigade I don’t assume those in politics are especially corrupt or evil – with the odd exception, of course.  But once they’re caught up in the Westminster system – like any human who becomes part of a complex system – they begin to lose track of what is normal, or right, in the world outside that system.

So it’s our job to relentlessly, tirelessly remind our elected representatives that we won’t accept dodgy expenses.  We won’t accept back-room lobbyist deals leading to flawed legislation such as the Digital Economy Act.  And we won’t accept a system that allows MPs to forget who they really work for.

The tiniest of chinks has opened in the closed door of politics; initiatives such as www.mysociety.org and 38degrees.org.uk, as well as many campaigns on social networks, have started to connect the electorate with their MPs in a way that’s never happened before.

Change won’t happen overnight – it will be the work of decades.  And it will only happen if many of us stay engaged, stay involved, and keep letting our politicians know exactly what we will and won’t stand for.

So rather than take the nihilistic disengagement or “protest vote” approach, I’d encourage anyone disillusioned with politics to cast their vote for a party with whose policies they most identify.  But don’t see that as the end of the process – it’s only the start.

Don’t fall prey to the modern curse of apathy.   It might be naive, it might be optimistic, but I honestly think if enough of us listen, educate ourselves and act, then we can make a difference.  Get involved – and stay involved!

Leaders’ Debate – Initial Reaction

Apr 15th, 2010
by Jim Millen.
No comments yet

Well, that 90 minutes went quick!  In case you’ve been under a rock, this evening was the first debate between the three main party leaders before the UK general election on the 6th May.

It was an interesting format; tightly controlled by Alistair Stewart with formal question-answer-rebuttal structure.  At first it seemed artificial but as things heated up, it was clear it would have degenerated into argumentative scrapping otherwise, so a success there.

My first take on the candidates’ performances – very even, actually.  Clegg was probably best in tune with the studio audience and the fact he had equal time and billing counts as a huge positive for the Lib Dems.

Brown came across a lot better than I expected – he was articulate and refrained from the monotonous, staccato fusillade of statistics he’s been so fond of in the past.  He even managed to crack a couple of decent jokes!  He still smirks horribly whenever Cameron is speaking though – not very statesmanlike.

Cameron seemed quite frustrated and wasn’t really able to bring his best performance for the debate.  Not as much enthusiasm, fire and passion as he is capable of.  None the less, he delivered solid answers and held his ground.

With regard to actual policies, the debate was a frustrating exercise.  How can we expect to get a sensible discussion of complex issues in such a short time?  This debate was focused on domestic policy so covered finance, health, policing & immigration amongst other issues.  To do these subjects justice really requires debates measured in days, not hours!

I consider myself to be fairly well-up on most policy issues, but by no means an expert – but even I could tell most of this debate really was boiling the issues down to the most divisive, soundbite-worthy chunks.  Is this really how politics should be?  And if not, what can we do about it?

The most irritating element of the discussion for me was Brown and Cameron on government spending.  There’s so little honesty around the truth of state waste and inefficiency – truly depressing.

So, in overall debate performance terms, I’d call in a score draw – probably with Clegg drawing ahead if I’m honest.

The real question, however, it what difference it’ll make to the votes?

From dipping into the furiously busy #leadersdebate stream on Twitter it didn’t seem to be changing the minds of those who are already party supporters – far from it!  Indeed, it seemed to be reinforcing prejudices.  Bit of a shame, that and depressing to see the negativity, sniping and bitterness being expressed.

But what about undecided voters?  It will be very interesting to see how the polls go.  My gut feeling is that Clegg will benefit most – we’ll see…

Overall it was quite compelling viewing and an intriguing addition to our democratic process.  But I do wish we could get a more rational and less emotive discussion of the issues!

Well, that was quick!

Apr 15th, 2010
by Jim Millen.
No comments yet

After my last post, I didn’t expect Richard Benyon’s campaign to respond quite so soon!  Good start guys, but hope to see info about a few more events between now and election day…

Facebook invitation to Richard Benyon's hustings

An Online Election… or not? Part 1

Apr 15th, 2010
by Jim Millen.
1 comment

OK, time for my 2 pennys’ worth on the impact of Social Media on the General Election.  Whoa, hot topic!

When I started these election posts, I searched at length to find out how the Newbury candidates were engaging with the electorate online.  I’ve already posted some of my findings – would recommend you check out the links there.  But how effective are these online presences for the candidates?

Let’s have a look at usage on the main Facebook groups for David Rendel and Richard Benyon:

Richard Benyon Supporters’ Group – 138 members, at least a year old, 16 main wall posts since the 6th April

Richard Benyon Campaign Page – 38 fans, only created this week, 9 main wall posts

So how effective are these pages?  Well, it was a good start that Richard already had a supporters’ group on Facebook – this has no doubt condensed some support.  Although there are only 138 members, they’ll probably tell their friends and families in real life about the campaign and drive further votes for Richard – all good news.

However, I’m bemused by the decision to create a separate fan page weeks before the election.  Potential supporters may now be split between the two – sure, there are links, but there’s very little to be gained, and much to be lost by confusing your supporters.

Having said that, Richard is now posting some interesting notes & links back to his blog talking about his experiences on the campaign, who he has been talking to and so on.  These help to explain what he’s about and strengthen his credibility.

David Rendel for Newbury – 96 members, not clear when created, apparently not “official”, only 3 wall posts

David Rendel campaign page – 145 fans, at least a month old, 3 main wall posts since start of campaign

David’s campaign page is being used effectively to present information about the campaign, including links to Liberal Democrat leaflets and their party manifesto.  There’s also a powerful video on there about tax policy – all good stuff that helps present the candidate well.

Again, though, there are two Facebook locations.  In this case it seems one of them may have been set up by supporters, and not directly by David’s campaign team – I’m surprised nobody has added a link to David’s official page though.

So both candidates have support on Facebook – that’s good, right?  Well, yes… but it could be a lot better.  What’s missing?

  • Above all else, activity.  Social networking thrives on frequent updates that draw in supporters and keep them coming back to find out more – and when they do, often their contacts visit too.  With 3 weeks to go till polling day, I’d expect at the very least 4 or 5 updates per day from the campaign teams.
  • Interactivity – there’s not much for supporters to do other than post wall messages.  Why not start polls, start discussions, get people involved?  Again, it’s all about pulling people in, engaging them honestly and keeping the campaign firmly in their awareness.
  • Tell people about what you’re going to be doing!  I’m amazed that neither candidate is talking about where they’re planning to be, or what events they’re planning to hold.  Surely if you want to engage with people and encourage their support, they need to be able to find you?
  • Online integration – there are some links to the candidates’ websites, but this could be made much more visible.  It’s also notable that none of the Facebook pages directly explain to people how they can help support – why aren’t there clearer links to donation or volunteering information?
  • Offline integration – it would also help to have website and Facebook group details included with other campaign publicity such as leaflets.  That way people who might not think to search for the candidates can be drawn in and get involved in online activity.
  • A broader spectrum of online campaigning – have a feed on Twitter, have a channel on YouTube, create a group on Flickr – the list goes on.  Facebook is the biggest, but it’s not the only social media in town.  Reaching across as many channels as possible, tied tightly into a coherent campaign, will involve the greatest number of people.
  • It’s a bit late now… but start all this earlier!  Building communities and dedicated support online takes time, and a four-week general election campaign is not long enough.  For next time, I’d hope to see groups supported and grown over several years to really hit the ground running for the elections.

So – that’s my advice for the local candidates, should they read this!  I’d love to hear any feedback or your thoughts on this article – either drop in a comment below or ping me @jimmillen.

I’ll be following this up with further posts about how social media is being used for the national election campaigns, and the contrast between national and local – check back soon!

[Footnote 1:  For more social media election goodness, Nigel Morgan has an excellent post here and also recorded a short interview with Newbury Sound.]

[Footnote 2: None of the other candidates for Newbury appear to have local Facebook groups or other social media presences.  Adrian Hollister of the Green Party has a Twitter feed, but this is not dedicated to his campaigning activities.]

National Party Leaders Debate v Local UKIP Event?

Apr 14th, 2010
by Jim Millen.
2 comments

Tomorrow night is the first televised debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron Nick Clegg as leaders of their respective parties. I think it’s great that these debates are happening and hope it will give us an insight into the character, strengths and weaknesses of the candidates.

Unfortunately tomorrow night is also a “Meet the Candidate” event for UKIP in Newbury, at the same time. My gut feeling is that I should cover this event – after all, these posts are meant to be about local candidates and issues!

So tell me – what would you rather read my ramblings on – the debate or the UKIP event? In the spirit of people power, you decide!

Leave a comment or ping me @jimmillen on Twitter, and I’ll make a final decision tomorrow afternoon…

Parties launch their manifestoes

Apr 13th, 2010
by Jim Millen.
No comments yet

Labour launched their election manifesto yesterday, today it was the Conservatives’ turn.  These are big events for the media and core supporters for the party, with lots of speeches, videos and questions from the press.  They’re obviously then used heavily in the evening news bulletins on both radio and TV.

I won’t go into detail about the manifesto contents – just head to the BBC or Sky News websites for far more information than you’d ever need to know!

No, my point with this post is to refrain from political geekery and question what relevance these manifesto launches have for the average voter, outside the Westminster and national politics loop?  Sure, they say important things about the philosophy and direction of the parties concerned, but do you care?  Do they matter?  Or are you more concerned with what your local candidates think?

The balance of power between national and local campaigning is one of the key themes I’d like to explore as I cover this election.  I think there’s a big disconnect between the two at the moment – it certainly doesn’t feel as though any of the Newbury candidates are really using their national party’s advantages to a great extent.  Although maybe they’re also avoiding being tarnished with the same brush!

I’d love to hear what you think on this, and whether the manifesto launches have made any great impact on your views.  As always, please get involved in the comments!

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →