Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear all


It is proposed that, in light of the forthcoming General Election, a series of debates will take place within the confines of the Drawing Room that each Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) will take part in. I have, in principle, obtained the participation of Tessa Jowell and am currently contacting the other major parties with expectations of their inclusion.


I propose that the debates shall run according to the following guidelines:


1) Questions to be put to the candidates should be PM'd to the Chair

2) Prospective questions will be vetted and a shortlist drawn-up. Expectations are of approx. 6 questions.

3) These (identical) questions will be put to each candidate via a private email and each candidate will be given 3 days to respond.

4) Answers will be posted in a separate thread for each party.

5) Follow-up questions and/or supplementaries can then be submitted via that thread in a free, but heavily moderated, manner.

6) PPC involvement in the subsequent questions will be at their discretion. The Chair asks for understanding that these are busy people with campaigns to run and that they may not be able to dedicate large amounts of time to subsequent debates.


I hope that these debates will be illuminating and educational. We at the EDF have a great chance to participate directly in democratic debate in one of the most closely fought elections in recent history. I hope people will respect this opportunity.


Comments below can be used for discussion of the method of debate but please PM any questions you have for the PPCs to the Chair directly.


Regards.

Whilst I appreciate that some residents of SE22 will be voting in a different constituency, logistically it would be difficult to accomodate another 4+ candidates into the debate. If however any of the candidates for Dulwich and Norwood decline or are unable to take part I will endeavour to invite their Camberwell & Peckham counterparts.


The criteria for vetting the questions is arbitary. I do not have specific criteria other than that the questions are sensible, intelligent and will provoke debate. I have set a provisional limit of six per candidate to try and cover a few topics but to try and keep some degree of brevity. I feel it only fair that candidates are allowed to answer their questions in secret but may consider allowing personalised rather than identical questions for each candidate.


Moderation of the follow-up debates will be more vigorous than normal. This is because I want to ensure that all candidates are respected and that the contributions are valid. This is not Question Time, I am not David Dimbleby and hopefully the readers of the EDF are more intelligent than the average studio audience.

???? - a valid point. I shall try to ensure there is at least a local flavour to the questions submitted. First and foremost these people should be constituency MPs and their work in the local community should not be down-played in favour of national issues.


Silverfox - thanks for highlighting this. To allow for debate afterwards I shall set a provisional deadline of Monday 19th. Should insufficient questions have been submitted this could be flexible.

Questions have now been sent to all four candidates to answer. The questions are:


1) Should MP's live in the constituency they represent?


2) What is the fairest way of capping individuals annual earnings i.e Bob Diamond ?63 million at Barclays?


3) Do you accept that whilst the crime solving benefits of surveillance are considerable, there must surely be a level at which the costs to an individual's privacy and sense of freedom outweigh the potential benefits?


4)Could the candidates please outline how they intend to offer this area (East Dulwich, Nunhead and the wider Southwark/South East London area) better transport links to other parts of London. Although I realise the Mayor has overall responsibility for transport in London, do any of the parliamentary or council candidates have a view/ have plans to propose measures to improve the connections between South East London and the rest of the city?


5)I would like to ask the candidates what they would do to ensure that all local children can go to good local state primary and seconday schools (with the emphasis on good as well as local).


6)Should the government departments treat humanist, secular and religious organisations equally in policy making, funding decisions and consultations?


These are an amalgamation of different questions and themes that were submitted and I would like to thank all of those that did so. Apologies if yours didn't make the final cut.


Let's hope for some interesting answers.


The Chair.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chair - have you given them a deadline and/or can

> all the replies be posted simultaneously?. I guess

> If I was them I might be tempted to wait until I

> saw what others had to say and comment etc. before

> posting my own.


I agree ???? but it's very hard to do otherwise. I have asked all the candidates to try and post by Friday night so hopefully by Monday we should have all four.


As for waiting till the other candidates have been... well shall just have to live with it. I'm hoping we just get their opinion rather than an opportunity for point scoring.


Ho-hum.


And thanks all for the kind words of support.

Ok this is clearly a great idea. But I'm guessing The Chair is not a journalist. Those questions are dire. Particularly the one about privacy and that. It's a closed question. Similarly the one about capping pay. Perhaps one or more canididates thinks there is no limit to the amount of pay one should be allowed to earn.

I'm not giving my view on the answers to the questions, but they are not good questions. There' kjillions of media living in east dulwich these days, couldn't The Chair have asked one or more of them for advice?

er, these arent journalistic questions, they are from the people of the EDF. They're about engagement rather than a quick answer so I don't think we'll get closed Answers. eg the capping they could answer "Well we don't believe that the state should have a say on how much businesses pay their employees etc etc. It's not a press conference...I disagree and say well done chair. They may choose to answer them in a closed manner but don't think they'll get many votes on that basis

The Chair did not write the questions. The Chair's profession is not relevant.


Jamma did not submit any questions. Nor did any "media types" volunteer their free time and energy in setting this up.


The candidates can answer the questions as they see fit and can choose to participate, or not, in the subsequent discussions.


I think that's all that needs saying.

There appears to be a distinct lack of engagement on the edf's behalf.


I'm amazed that given the views often expressed on here about the difficulties of getting children into schools (see family room) and the pros and cons of funding faith schools Tessa's replies have gone unchallenged.


The silence from the edf is a bit of an insult to a busy politician who has taken time out from a hectic schedule to answer our questions.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...