Hustings

Last Friday evening, the Students' Union at our University of the Creative Arts organised an election hustings. Which we gave a go, not because we thought it would change our votes, but it would be something we had not tried before and it would be an opportunity to see inside the university, in my case, for the first time for more than twenty years.

Mild, damp evening. Enlivened by discovering that a no longer young man whom BH had thought evil in the Beavers, more than twenty years ago now, was in the local paper for attempting to steal handbags. A parson in the vicinity of the Beavers had thought at the time that she, that is to say BH, was not being very Christian for assuming that he would turn out badly, but so it has come to pass - while BH continues to believe that some people are indeed marked out for such from a sadly young age.

The arrangement at the Students' Union was that there was no charge but one was supposed to get a ticket, with ticketing handled by something called Fatsoma of reference 1. Presumably another operation like Eventbrite, which I got plugged into on account of their being used by the Royal Institution. Eventbrite also send out weekly digests of events, some of which look interesting and at least one of which I turned up for.

The direction to the smart, newish auditorium were poor, but we were taken in hand by a helpful lady in an office. About 60 of the 130 who booked turned up, which was disappointing for them and one can only suppose that most of us, including us on previous occasions, get our elections from the television and social media - with most newspapers being just for entertainment these days. The raked seats were comfortable. The sound systems were not very good and the photographer, presumably a student of photography, was a bit intrusive. On the other hand, the chairman, a senior art college person, was good and ran a good hustings.

We want our hospitals!

The format was short opening statements from the candidates, followed by questions from the audience. These had to be submitted in advance and the half dozen or so which made the cut were probably selected by the number of people asking about the topic in question. I think the chairman said that the local hospital pipped Brexit by a short head, the local hospital being a subject that generates a huge amount of local heat. I don't think the candidates got the questions in advance. My question, about the abysmal standard of public debate about matters of public finance was not called, rightly as it turned out, despite the fact that the discussion which followed about the hospital nicely illustrated this very problem. My question would just not have had any traction and I was not the right person to give it any. Maybe party meetings would be a better place to start, although I don't have the patience for them either. I plead infirmity of age.

The candidates

We have five candidates, including failin' graylin' who did not turn out, sending a substitute instead. The substitute was almost a caricature of a provincial Tory: youngish, overweight, rather loud and very full of himself. For us, he started off badly by pushing his way through the young men checking bags on entry with the loud assertion that he was a very important speaker, certainly far too important to have to bother with identification or anything like that. The five also included two fringe candidates - that is to say independent and green - both mature people, who both had some interesting things to say - but who both seemed rather wasted. At the time I felt that the independent in particular could have achieved more from within one of the other parties. While now I am not so sure: maybe their few hours in the sun were not wasted, their few hours in which they could raise important issues which were certainly not being addressed by the mainstream parties. At least not here.

Brexit came first, with this constituency being remain, although not by a big margin. Nothing much new and I was confirmed in my belief that, given all the circumstances, the Labour line of negotiate then vote, was the right one in the circumstances.

Then the hospital. With the possibility of our local hospital being downgraded or abolished generating a huge amount of heat. Our panel generally made soothing noises about their passionate commitment to hospitals for Epsom, with only the Liberal going so far as to suggest that maybe the planners had a point, that the battle might be lost. While for me, having a local hospital has been a big comfort over the past ten years, but there is little heat. If the civil servants, in their wisdom, decide that one big hospital in or near Sutton is the way forward, so be it. But then I said that about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and look where that got us! All in all, a useful reminder that the politician's lot is not an easy one.

The Labour candidate came across as a good chap. A Labour stalwart since he was quite young, now a train driver, an occupation which carries across to an enthusiasm for all things rail. Like CrossRailTwo - or Three. His union might be in dispute with management, but they all pull together when it comes to promoting the industry. And he got no abuse over the strike on Southwestern Railways. He scored with his evident belief in Corbyn's integrity; a belief which matches my own. You might not like the man, but it is most unlikely that he is on the take or that he is making it up.

The Conservative substitute continued to come across badly. He thought he had landed a punch over tower blocks in the borough - a pop at the Residents' Association rather than either of the major parties - mainly a bunch of crypto-Tories anyway - and no-one noticed. And when the talk was of poverty and food banks, he thought he had landed a punch over the Gini coefficient, but again no-one noticed.

The punch being that the Gini coefficient of inequality has not shifted over the last ten years, so the Tories can't be doing that badly on that front. Checking with ONS in the depths of reference 3, he appears to be right; that measure of inequality has not shifted. But note that it is a measure of income inequality not of wealth inequality. And digging a bit deeper, the figures appear to have been taken from a long established survey, which might once (when I knew about such things) have been called the General Household Survey, now the Integrated Household Survey. A quick skim suggests that the Gini coefficient bit comes from a regular survey of 6,000 households, with the selected households filling in a booklet on each occasion. Which suggests to me that the coverage of the very rich is going to be thin if present at all and that self-declaration of income of the very rich in such a context may not be very reliable. ONS publish all you could possibly want to know about it, and I ought to read some of it, as I regularly assert that inequality of wealth is a major driver of social unrest and indiscipline. In the meantime, the details are not going to fly at a hustings like this one.

For some reason, I did not like the Liberal candidate. He knew his stuff, but as far as I was concerned he was not likeable. Just as well that I had already decided to vote Labour.

I came away thinking that it was a pity that Labour and the Liberals had not managed to do a deal. Perhaps just tossing for one of them to stand down. That way, it might just about be possible to topple failin' graylin'. But as it is, no chance.

Also thinking how little ground one could cover in an hour and a half at this sort of meeting. But it was useful to be reminded about grass roots politics - something we need more of, rather than less. We need more people who are prepared to bother about such stuff, who can stand the never-ending, tedious meetings.

The main entrance we failed to find on the way in

On the way out, left

On the way out, right

The University was clearly a major operation, with a mix of old and new buildings. Banks of big apple computer screens visible through some of the windows. No banks of old-style workbenches, but I dare say they were somewhere. And the students must bring in plenty of welcome money into the town - no doubt accounting for the fine selection of art books in our library and the survival of the artists' materials shop. While this morning a quick look at their website reveals a chancellor who is a lady potter (aka ceramicist) of colour and a vice-chancellor who is a Palestinian. Which is all well and good, but I failed to find if he pays himself far too much, the record of vice-chancellors as a breed being bad. And I believe the vice-chancellor of the next door Nescot does pay herself far too much.

Thought about the Marquis on the way home, but once inside it seemed very crowded and noisy. Far too young for us, and we settled for a little something at home.

PS: from the Lib-Lab failure to co-operate, I associate to President Trump's dislike of multilateral deals. In all bar one bilateral negotiation, he will be negotiating from a position of considerable strength. In a multilateral there is always the possibility that America First Trump will get voted down. Just think of all those Christians from the Bible Belt who voted for him: whatever do they stand for? Or think that he stands for? But nearer home, the failure of decent parties to sink their differences in the face of an indecent one, may prove disastrous. A lesson which we have failed to learn from the Germany of the 1930's.

Reference 1: https://www.fatsoma.com/discover.

Reference 2: https://psmv4.blogspot.com/2019/12/floating-voter.html.

Reference 3: https://www.ons.gov.uk/. Or ask your search engine for 'gini coefficient ons' and take it from there.