Hustings #8

Tweet There was a good crowd in Tenby on Tuesday for the eighth in the series of hustings meetings. Around 80-90, I reckon.

As a follow-on from the televised debates, the first question asked each of the three London party candidates to explain why his leader should be PM, without mentioning any of the other parties. Nick Ainger just about managed that, John Gossage for the Lib Dems managed to convince precisely no-one that Nick Clegg was even in the running, and Simon Hart failed totally by basing his whole answer on an attack on Brown and Labour. He did, though, manage to fail to mention his own leader at all. Spectacular own goal. My contribution, as ever, was to point out that no-one in the room could actually vote for any of the three men concerned.

The hunting issue came up again, as might be expected. Once again, Simon Hart fudged his answer. Instead of making any attempt to justify either the practice or his own stance on it, he framed his response in terms of standing up for persecuted minorities in society. You could almost read the bubble above some heads - if he's not being straight about his own core issue, to what extent can we believe what he says on anything else?

It was the first hustings meeting at which we were joined by the UKIP candidate, but I doubt that anyone left any the wiser about what they stand for. Apart from being against "Europe" and in favour of cutting fuel duty, which were the only two themes about which we heard anything.

I personally like the question time format for meetings like this with other candidates, and I've enjoyed all eight in the series. They're a useful part of the democratic process, but I'm never sure how many of the audience are not already committed to one or other party. Certainly there have been some at each of the meetings, but never as many as I might have liked. For those who do come, it's a good way to compare and contrast - both parties and candidates.

Hustings #7

Tweet Back to Carmarthen for last night's session - 'Ask the Climate Change Question', organised by the RSPB. Can't say why, exactly, but it didn't seem to have the same spark as some of the other sessions we've had - hope we're not all becoming jaded. One more to go, in Tenby next Tuesday.

Good range of questions again tonight. One was on nuclear power - no real surprise. Nick Ainger inevitably drew attention to the fact that my position doesn't accord with that of the party leader. Can't blame him for trying, but once again, I can only point out that Plaid makes its policies democratically, and I am promoting the policy agreed by the membership and reiterated in the manifesto.

There was also a question on the Severn Barrage. The Lib Dem and I both argued against the large barrage. Nick Ainger wanted to see the outcome of the studies being conducted before coming to a conclusion. Not an entirely unreasonable position to take - pity I didn't find the opportunity to point out that that puts him at odds with his leader, given that Hain wanted to include a firm commitment to the barrage in their manifesto.

The Tory, Simon Hart, could only say that he didn't have a clue what his party's policy is on the issue. Honest answer, but a little bit surprising given that energy policy was always likely to feature in a debate about climate change.

Hustings # 5 and 6

Tweet Monday night saw us all gathered together again at Penuel Chapel in Carmarthen, and last night at Westgate Chapel in Pembroke. Tonight it's back to Carmarthen for number 7, "Ask the Climate Change question", organised by the RSPB.

We've had an interesting range of questions at the six events so far, covering a wide range of topics. Somewhat surprisingly, last night was the first time that the hunting question came up - and following the rota, it just so happened that Simon Hart was the last one to answer.

My response was the one I have given many times on the doorstep - that I fully support actions taken to control foxes where they are causing problems, but cannot and will not support chasing and killing wildlife for pleasure or 'sport'. Which is why I would not vote for the repeal of the current legislation. The Labour and Lib Dem candidates both made it clear that neither of them would support repeal either - so Simon had his chance to express an alternative view and explain why he supported hunting and repeal of the act.

And he fudged it. He made no attempt to justify or support hunting, and didn't even make out any rational case for repeal. All he could say was that in his opinion the act was nothing more than spite in the first place, and that legislation must be evidence-based in future. Given that everyone knows what his real views are, it simply added to the perception of a lack of openness and honesty about the nature of his campaign - an attempt to get all the way to election day without saying anything substantive about one particular issue.