General Election hustings on Cambridge – can we do things differently to 2015?

Posted byCambridge Town OwlPosted inUncategorized

An additional constituency, boundary changes, new communities with new households in, and the reallocation of an additional city council ward (Cherry Hinton) from the Cambridge City constituency to the re-oriented South Cambridgeshire constituency means dozens of city centre debates won’t serve the public interest – or the interest of the public!

Image: Cambridge Electoral Services on Twitter

Back in 2015 I was busy filming lots of hustings and public debates. In Cambridge, there were over 30 hustings and public debates – such was the demand from residents, business associations, campaign groups and academic organisations. I filmed several of them – such as the Environment Hustings at Anglia Ruskin University’s largest lecture theatre (capacity around 400) on East Road. (See some of the video clips here).

I recall talking to Julian Huppert – the incumbent MP who lost out by 600 votes to Daniel Zeichner of Labour in that intense campaign. He told me that after a while the hustings got a little tedious for all of the candidates because after so many debates, everyone was familiar with each others’ answers. He made the suggestion that someone or a collective of organisations should co-ordinate the organisation of hustings and debates for future general elections – if only to reduce the duplication of questions and increase the variety of policy issues discussed.

The Cambridge of 2015 is not the same as the Cambridge of 2023/24

You don’t need me to give you chapter and verse of the changes we’ve experienced in national politics, along with the various collective catastrophes. Furthermore, I’m not going to go into detail about the debates on governance structures of our city. (See previous blogposts). What I’m looking at in this piece is how the technological, physical, population, and constituency changes since 2015 mean that we cannot repeat what we did back then and think that it will suffice. It won’t. The main reasons include:

  • Population growth – the census figures showed Cambridge grew from just over 123,000 to just over 145,000 between 2011-21. So between 2015-25 we could be looking at an increase in the population of our city [within its 1930s era boundaries] of around 150,000 people.
  • Constituency boundary changes – and the addition of a new constituency of St Neots and Mid-Cambridgeshire. Furthermore, the reallocation of Cherry Hinton from Cambridge City to a reoriented South Cambridgeshire means that at least 10% of Cambridge’s population within Cambridge City Council’s boundaries are *not covered* by the city’s parliamentary constituency. Therefore any debates about ‘Cambridge’ for parliamentary purposes will automatically exclude residents of Cherry Hinton as well as Queen Edith’s. This matters.
  • New communities have formed following the completion of major housing developments – and they have higher population densities than some previous generations of housing growth. Therefore they will have every right to demand a public debate/hustings in their neighbourhoods that are accessible to their residents. Thus organisers *must* account for this when selecting venues.
  • Technological changes – Instead of one-man-and-his-camcorder (whether me, Richard Taylor, or anyone else around a decade ago), we are now in a situation where live-streaming is the norm, and that various venues have the capabilities for facilitating this. Therefore organisers – especially corporate ones, should be expected to live-stream their events and upload videos online. There should be no ‘members only’ private debates with invited senior VIPs because everyone’s vote should count for the same. There is a *huge* public interest in hearing the questions put from wealthy economic sectors to candidates, as well as the responses from the latter. That outweighs any ‘commercial-in-confidence’ issues they may have.

There are a host of other things I could add – not least around the Greater Cambridge Partnership and Michael Gove’s ambitions. But looking at the specifics of co-ordinating hustings and public debates, these for me are the top four I can think of.

Co-ordinating events across up to four constituencies rather than just one

One of the things I found was the most enjoyable about filming general election hustings was getting out of Cambridge and heading out to villages in South Cambridgeshire and South-East Cambridgeshire. These included:

Given the far fewer events and the reputation of being ‘safe Tory seats’ that both constituencies had, I wanted to make sure that there was at least some additional scrutiny for the candidates where the voters could hear everyone in their own voices.

Co-ordinating does not mean ‘imposition by a central committee’

Let’s be clear: This is about ensuring the most number of people can put the greatest range of questions and hear in their own words the responses from the candidates campaigning for their votes.

Furthermore, this should not be about market towns having to seek some sort of permission from a exclusive Cambridge-based committee for permission to have an event. The only authority that could intervene is the Electoral Commission – which has published guidance for anyone wanting to organise an election hustings. If say, a prominent civic society in Ely, or St Neots has got together and organised an event which all candidates have been invited to, and all of those candidates have responded accepting the invitation, that’s that. It might be convenient/courteous/helpful to let any co-ordinating group know what’s happening – if only to help publicise the event, but there’s no compulsion. Places like Ely and St Neots have their own local issues that have little to do with Cambridge but which a critical mass of residents will want answers from candidates.

Constituencies

You can see how Cambridge will relate to the new South Cambridgeshire constituency.

Above: Detail of southern Cambridgeshire from the large boundary review map. Boundary Commission 2023

The labels are as follows:

  • Cambridge City – 8
  • South Cambridgeshire – 46
  • St Neots and Mid Cambs – 53 (in sky blue)
  • Huntingdon – 25
  • East Cambridgeshire – 15

Note the Mid-Beds constituency is just south of Bedford at 2. Hence explaining why several Cambridgeshire Labour activists were able to make the relatively short journey by car to help defeat the Conservatives in last week’s by-election – a seat that they had held since 1931.

You can also see that St Neots & Mid-Cambs covers two district councils – Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire. The same goes for the new East Cambridgeshire Seat, with covers East Cambs and South Cambs District Councils.

“Having events in the city centre means you can get lots of people using public transport to get into big halls to ask lots. of questions, doesn’t it?”

How do you avoid the risk of the same groups of connected people turning up to successive hustings to ask questions? How do you ensure people who normally don’t get the chance to speak to a politician or a candidate get the chance to do so?

By all means have the big set-piece debates at the likes of The Corn Exchange, the Cambridge Guildhall, or a university lecture hall, but don’t expect to have them all there.

New community centres have been built since the 2015 general election. Why not make use of those new facilities in residential areas where more locals can walk to the events? New centres include:

  • Clay Farm / Eva Hartree Hall in Trumpington
  • The Marleigh Centre in East Cambridge.
  • The Meadows Community Centre in Arbury
  • Storey’s Field, Eddington

Of the above-four centres, The Marleigh Centre sits just over the parliamentary boundary currently in South-East Cambridgeshire, but soon to be in South Cambridgeshire. Yet alongside the residents of Cherry Hinton and Queen Edith’s, chances are you’d find more than a few residents who would take issue with being excluded from debates about the city of Cambridge given they live within the urban area. Thus we come to the challenge of issues that cut across constituency boundaries (but are not necessarily national ones)

Can Cambridge host debates on regional or national issues that involve representatives from political parties who have more specialist knowledge?

I shouldn’t see why not. Which then brings us to the question of format. You can have the traditional BBC Question-Time-Style format – and there is a place for that. The problem is that’s too restrictive for too many people. As a result, we lose the benefits of having multiple conversations in the same place. Not least because those not comfortable standing up in public to ask a question seldom get to speak to candidates.

What alternative event formats are there aside from BBC Question Time?

Sticking with whether Cambridge can host events on issues that cut across boundaries – such as our regional water crisis, to the booming sub-regional economy, there are alternatives.

The University of Cambridge hosting a panel debate on the challenges of local economic growth – in particular covering:

  • Town planning policies
  • Transport planning policies
  • The Green Belt
  • The Water Crisis

The format could have pre-submitted suggested questions to formulate discussion issues *which the candidates are shown a few days in advance because you want informed answers*. Then you invite the political parties from across the four constituencies in/around Cambridge to nominate a spokesperson most expert in and/or most comfortable debating those issues. The debate is then live-streamed and a video put up online. The last 20 minutes can be used to collate comments/follow-up questions with one-or-two questions being put to each candidate; short questions, short answers. Furthermore, you would have this event early on in the schedule of public debates, so that local residents. can follow up any issues with their candidates at neighbourhood-level hustings.

Topic-themed debates convened by alliances of campaign groups – for example as we have seen with the Environment hustings in 2015 at ARU. These could cover some of the major Whitehall policy areas:

  • Schools/education
  • Hospitals and healthcare
  • Foreign policy / defence policy
  • Economic policy

Or they could cover specific incidents/events in recent political history such as:

  • Brexit
  • The pandemic
  • The integrity of our political and electoral systems
  • Mis/disinformation and communications technologies
  • The Climate Emergency

Round table group discussions at neighbourhood events as an alternative to panel Q&A

Instead of theatre-style seating, have classroom/round table-style seating. Use post-it nots for people to suggest up to three topics they want to discuss – colour-coded in order of priority, and see which ones come up. Pick the most popular ones and allocate each topic to a table, and invite the public to go to the table on the issue they are the most passionate about. Give each table 15-20 minutes per candidate, *and rotate the candidates*. That way the public get more of a chance to put their main concerns to each candidate, and compare the responses.

The same round tables concept can be used on themed events. For example in those places where large new developments are proposed, people may want to raise different specific issues such as:

  • provision of healthcare facilities
  • local public transport infrastructure
  • quality of house building and construction
  • provision of open green spaces
  • house prices

Community ‘watch-alongs’ with existing local councillors or party representatives taking follow-up questions.

Not every event will be happening at a time that people access. Given the growing number of community venues with audio-visual facilities, community groups can host collective broadcasts of the larger events at more convenient times. For some this might be an evening, for others it might be a weekend. It might also be at places where creche facilities and childcare provision can be easily arranged – for example at the Romsey Mill where there are rooms already equipped for the purpose next to the main large hall.

Following the watch-along, people can then either discuss amongst themselves and/or have representatives from each of the political parties represented (for example local councillors in or from the nearest council ward) to respond to questions arising.

Supporting the chairpeople, facilitators and organisers – and other event volunteers

Don’t think that such events happen by magic. They happen because people care. Furthermore, putting on a successful event takes a huge amount of effort, knowledge, and skill. It’s not something that people get paid for either – and at the same time the hosting of such events is not free. There is always some sort of financial cost – whether from hiring an event to paying for any refreshments, to paying someone to film/livestream the events.

If filming and live-streaming is to work for the viewers watching online, then the people inside the venue must know what they are doing in advance.

I learnt this the hard way over many years. Given how important the next general election is going to be, it is essential we get this right. This means:

  • those chairing events must be alert any microphone issues, and also ensure that at the start they are able to do a sound-check to ensure people following online can at least hear, of not see what is going on. Watch the Rev Bruce Waldron of Sawston Free Church in 2017 giving a masterclass of how to manage audience expectations at the start. This was from the mayoral hustings of that year – note the guidance he also gives to the candidates regarding length of answers!
  • Clearly-visible event volunteers – this is important because many people will not be familiar with the event you are running. In a way it’s crowd dynamics – we behave differently in a room full of people we may not know and at an event we’re unfamiliar with. Having people who are visibly part of the organising group (Whether wearing big badges to the same colour t-shirts (as the Queen Edith’s Community Forum does)) means it’s much easier to guide people towards the front or to where there are available seats.
  • Provide options for those who either don’t want to be filmed and/or who may need to exit the venue briefly without disrupting the event.
  • Book time for after the event for post-event conversations. So if your event is due to finish at 9pm, book the hall/venue until 10pm because people *always* want to stay behind and grab the lapels of a candidate!
  • Have contingency plans for incidents. It doesn’t need to be full-on, but things like what to do if someone in the audience becomes uncooperative or disruptive. Even having a handful of people designated to deal with such cases to provide a ‘group presence’ can go a long way. Don’t be afraid to call the police either. I’ve not actually seen this happen at any of the dozens of hustings I’ve been to / filmed / taken part in but it’s useful to know that there are people who can deal with such things.

Finally, celebrate after the event and after the elections are over. Because it will be intense.

“Who should do the co-ordinating?”

In the first instance, the oversight of all of this should come under the the remit of the most senior representative of our city – in our case the Mayor of Cambridge – who is also our city’s returning officer. That does not mean the Mayor has to do all of the work – rather the Mayor can use their convening influence to bring together those willing and able to help co-ordinate the events, and resolve any major issues. Those groups that have held events in previous elections – especially those in the voluntary sector as well as established business sector representative organisations that have paid staff, may be able to provide the administrative capacity and the facilities to process payments to help meet the financial burdens of hosting events. This matters because it’s the economically-deprived wards that tend to get overlooked as venues for debates. This needs to change. Furthermore having that organisational capacity in support means that finances need not be a barrier for those communities. Again, in our unequal city, this matters.

Election events for the disenfranchised?

I think we should have at least two events,

  • A debate for the under-18s who are barred by law from voting
  • A debate for residents who are disenfranchised on grounds of nationality

Ideally we should have more than one event to ensure we get geographical and demographic coverage. For example migrant workers on minimum wage jobs may not have the same issues as the post-graduate student who has just arrived and started a PhD here, to the highly-remunerated sci/tech executive who has just moved into a five-bedroom town house.

Again, the same principles could apply in co-ordinating across constituencies. For example some of the private schools are likely to want to have events. Yet if a critical mass of their students commute in by train (meaning they live outside Cambridge) then would it make more sense to have candidates from the surrounding constituencies taking their questions? See Cambridge Station in the morning and you’ll see what I mean by the thousands of commuting teenagers.

Given how important the next general election will be, I believe it’s essential that as many voters as possible get the chance to meet the candidates and put their questions to them. If voluntary co-ordination can help with that, then let’s do it.

Food for thought?

If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to:

Leave a comment