This is a list of publicly owned (that means we the public own them) venues which are made available by statute free of charge by the city council for people to hold hustings in. Venues for Hustings – for Candidates 2015
Stewart Jackson, Darren Bisby-Boyd and Chris Ash at Thomas Deacon Academy parliamentary hustings 15th April 2015. This hustings was held in a large auditorium filled with Kings School and TDA sixth formers, but was also livecast internally to several hundred students. I don’t know if the video was recorded as well.
Peterborough’s best hustings are often held in churches or schools. These can be public or closed events. Hustings they can be held anywhere and by any organisation. A school event is particularly interesting: because children often see politics as something which only happens on the television or on the radio. You are never too young to vote. You are never too young to debate a issue.
The person hosting the hustings will probably need a candidate to apply for one of these venues. The legislation (statute) governing this provision is the Representation of the People Act.
This hustings will happen later this week and there are rules (below the picture) about how to ask a question. The organisation of the hustings is up to the host.
Peterborough Parish Church hustings to take place on Friday 24th April at 7:30
Haddon Hustings 18 April 2015 Nick Thulbourn, Nicola Day, George Martin (chairing) & Nick Sandford
I have never attended a hustings which got out of hand (close, but the well behaved sixth formers and their teachers worked hard to persuade candidates perhaps not to resort to fisticuffs). A calm, friendly and firm person in the chair will help ensure a hustings keeps its hair on. However the history of violence and intimidation within and working against the British democratic process is substantial and centuries old. This is well understood by parliament itself. So to help keep things peaceful and calm, legislation makes a police presence available to hustings organisers if they feel they need one. A very important, but perhaps not well understood statutory duty of the police is to uphold the democratic process, of which the hustings form a very important important part.
Spectators Gallery sign in Peterborough Town Hall showing the way up four flights of stairs
Last night I arrived at Council too late to catch the whole debate on the council’s plan to make a £1.2M annual saving by cutting the services it currently provides to Peterborough’s children.
But I was in time for the recorded vote. Our local newspaper has already published this story but has not (so far) provided a list of who voted which way. I suppose this information will eventually be published in the council’s very own minutes, but who ever reads those?
So, since several people have asked for a breakdown, here are my gleanings from the Spectators Gallery:
CON Arculus, Nick ABSTAIN West
CON Casey, Graham ABSTAIN Orton Longueville
CON Lee, Matthew ABSTAIN Fletton
CON Maqbool, Yasmeen ABSTAIN West
CON Simons, George ABSTAIN Paston
CON Sanders, David name heard but unable to hear response Eye & Thorney
CON Allen, Sue name not heard Orton Waterville
CON Cereste Marco name not heard Stanground Central
CON McKean, Dale name not heard Eye & Thorney
CON Walsh, Irene name not heard Stanground Central
CON Dalton, Matthew NOT VOTING West
CON Day, Sue NOT VOTING Paston
CON Elsey, Gavin NOT VOTING Orton Waterville
CON Fitzgerald, Wayne NOT VOTING Bretton North
CON Goodwin, Janet NOT VOTING Orton Longueville
CON Harper, Chris NOT VOTING Stanground East
CON Hiller, Peter NOT VOTING Northborough
CON Holdich, John (OBE) NOT VOTING Ghinton & Wittering
CON Kreling, Pam NOT VOTING Park
CON Lamb, Diane NOT VOTING Glinton & Wittering
CON Nadeem, Mohammed NOT VOTING Central
CON Nawaz, Gul NOT VOTING Ravensthorpe
CON North, Nigel NOT VOTING Orton with Hampton
CON Peach, John NOT VOTING Park
CON Rush, Brian NOT VOTING Stanground Central
CON Scott, Sheila NOT VOTING Orton with Hampton
CON Seaton, David NOT VOTING Orton with Hampton
CON Serluca, Lucia NOT VOTING Fletton
CON Stokes, June NOT VOTING Orton Waterville
CON Thacker, Paula NOT VOTING Werrington South
CON Todd, Marion NOT VOTING East
CON Over, David NOT VOTING Barnack
LAB Forbes, Lisa FOR Orton Longueville
LAB Jamil, Mohammed FOR Central
LAB Johnson, Jo FOR East
LAB Khan, Nazim (MBE) FOR Central
LAB Knowles, John FOR Paston
LAB Martin, Stuart FOR Bretton North
LAB Shabbir, Nabil FOR East
LAB Shearman, John FOR Park
LAB Thulbourn, Nick FOR Fletton & Woodston
LAB Murphy, Ed FOR Ravensthorpe
LAB Sylvester, Ann FOR Bretton North
LD Fower, Darren FOR Werrington South
LD Sandford, Nick FOR Walton
LD Shaheed, Asif FOR Walton
LD Davidson, Julia name heard but unable to hear response Werrington South
PIF Miners, Adrian declared interest, so unable to vote Dogsthorpe
PIF Ash, Christopher FOR Dogsthorpe PIF Fletcher, Michael FOR Bretton South
PIF Fox, John FOR Werrington North
PIF Fox, Judith FOR Werrington North
PIF Harrington, David FOR Newborough
PIF Saltmarsh, Christabel FOR Dogsthorpe
PIF Sharp, Keith FOR North
PIF Swift, Charles (OBE) FOR “but confused” North
PIF Lane, Stephen name not heard Werrington North
I found it very difficult indeed to pick up the voices of the Conservative councillors last night. It was a very muffled vote. I was unaware that “NOT VOTING” was an available option. I wonder whether or not the Conservatives on the council understand what “ABSTAIN” means? If they do, then why did they choose to say “NOT VOTING”? The Chair announced that 23 people voted FOR and that 29 people abstained and that nobody voted against the motion.
I haven’t caught everyone’s response so I know there are errors and some omissions in this list. Please feel free to correct or explain these if you can (comments are open). The sound system available to councillors is so bad that many struggle to make it work properly. People in a meeting may feel confident to signal their vote to the chair, especially if their views are already very well known.
According to the newspaper “a motion to defer closing the centres so that alternative proposals can be considered was carried following a vote and the issue will now be decided at the next meeting of the council’s cabinet.” But the motion, as I understand it, was proposed by Cllr John Shearman (LAB) and he made a point, immediately prior to the vote, that the motion was to “recommend that Cabinet defer any decision until alternative proposals are proposed, considered and consulted on.”
Well done Peterborough’s opposition. Last night “spectators” had the pleasure of witnessing over a quarter of Peterborough’s councillors actually holding the executive to account. I have never seen this before.
