The videos below show the full event, broken into parts of approximately 20 minutes viewing each. Description of the format of this event – see below.
This video is of the opening speeches by the leadership candidates from the Waltham Forest hustings in London, Old Street, 29th August 2017
This video shows the first 20 minutes of the questions and answers from the Waltham Forest hustings in London
This video shows the second 20 minutes of the questions and answers from the Waltham Forest hustings in London
This video shows the last 20 minutes of the first round of questions and answers from the Waltham Forest hustings in London
Post-Break Q & A and closing speeches:
This video is of the 1st part of the Post-Break Session by the leadership candidates from the Waltham Forest hustings in London
This video is of the 2nd part of the Post-Break Session by the leadership candidates from the Waltham Forest hustings in London
This video is of the final part of the Post-Break Session by the leadership candidates from the Waltham Forest hustings in London
Full description of the format for the London Regional Hustings on the 29th of August 2017
Pre-Start
Random ordering of candidate seating – candidates to see for themselves that the process is truly random.
Approval by Returning Officer of all non-members in the room.
Start
7:15pm sharp (due to local parking restrictions being lifted at 7pm). Candidates free to be there up to an hour earlier.
Introduction
Brief outline by Chair. Parliamentary language only – no to “Liar!”, yes to “You may or may not know this, but that is simply not true”. Except for in speeches, reasonable interventions permitted.
Mid-Hustings Cull (Not done)
Now that the candidate count is thinned down to 7, AMW, AP?, DK, HB, JC, JRE, PW, there’s probably no need to offer the audience (at the start) an option of a mid-hustings vote to decide which candidates should continue for the second half, thereby allowing more questions and or more detailed answers.
I did (August 29 hustings = 10, with BW, DC & MM also there) and, as expected, the audience decided against it (about 60:40).
In the IMO unlikely event you decide to get it down to say 5 (6 is too obvious and too much work for little reward), then the “logically best” method is, during the mid-hustings coffee break, to give every attendee (including candidates) 5 votes each. Doable with:
– Imperial Mints in glass jars, one jar per candidate, or
– queuing past a table where three or four people take down the votes, ensuring no double-voting
– collated paper votes
(whatever is fastest else the event gets bogged down. Should be able to be completed during the coffee break)
Rules for Cull (admission to hustings is not balanced, so audience bias must be presumed):
The voter:
- can use all his 5 votes, or none at all, but nothing in between, and
- must distribute the 5 votes between 5 different candidates of his choice
This gets around the problem of one or two candidates being over-represented in the room.
Again, this wasn’t used, because the audience voted to keep all 10.
Opening Speeches
Order of seating, 2 minutes each, bell at 1:30m, again at 2:00m, gestures at +5 secs, overtalk candidate from about +10 secs.
Independent time-keeper – Chairman can’t do this as well. However, Chair should be mindful that the timekeeper can make mistakes, so needs to keep track of it himself too.
Q&A (Pre- and Post- Break)
Questions presubmitted/submitted from the floor in writing, or SMSd before/during session to the Chairman, whose mobile number is there for all to see. Chairman’s choice. Q’s selected which are pertinent and which will permit candidates to be differentiated between. Some are clearly intended for one candidate (either Pro/Anti) but if so Chairman is selective so that no candidate gets lots of these.
Occasionally Chair acknowledges where on the floor a question originates, adding legitimacy.
Each candidate given 10 tokens, 1 to be spent per substantive answer. No credit account. “Yes/No” type answers and rebuttals do not cost tokens.
This means “Me Too” type answers are discouraged by the rules (“spend your tokens wisely)
Candidate raises hand if he/she wants to answer
Y/N type of answer, order chosen either L->R or R->L at random by Chair
Candidates shown how many tokens they’ve used part of the way through or on request (tally sheet maintained by Chairman)
Chairman has an unlimited number of wildcards to compel a candidate to answer a particular question. I used it once only at the July 18 pre-hustings. The threat is mightier than its execution – I never had to use it at all at the August 29 regional hustings. Wildcard answer does not cost a token (debatable but shouldn’t be relevant).
Answers limited to 1 min. Similar overshoot protection as with opening speeches.
Mild heckling allowed but candidate then allowed a little extra time. Cross-table (i.e. between candidate) repartee allowed as long as order is maintained.
Rebuttal rights (30 secs) and – used only once, HB vs AMW – re-rebuttal (30 secs).
Break
Imperial Mints (which would have been the “votes” in jars if a mid-hustings cull been opted for – audience member has the choice to vote or suck) distributed throughout, allowing the “We’ll leave the Humbugs for the candidates” – haha.
8:50pm – announced as “let’s stop the Q&A and just have an open fight, alternatively take a break” – haha and 5 mins, then Q&A resumed by 9pm
Closing Speeches
9:50pm – 45 second “Why vote for me”, usual prevention of time overshoot. Order chosen among the candidates to amuse audience as candidates jockey for who to be last.
Thanks and End
10 pm Announce number of candidate answers/speeches (including rebuttals) – in our case 103 plus Yes/No type answers. Not bad going but relentless pace throughout.
Vote of thanks to both audience and candidates; about half depart for pub across road for the real hustings.
Leave a Reply
17 Comments on “Videos of the London Regional Hustings, 29th August”
> It is unfortunate that John Reese-Evans was not there.
But John Rees-Evans was at the September 4 hustings (i.e., last night), as were all the other surviving candidates, which was live-streamed and whose footage will soon be online.
I was the chap asking the questions.
Acoustics were an issue – too hot for doors/windows to be shut; open results in lots of ambient traffic noise.
Below, I’ve explicitly named candidates whom Roger mentions; referring to (say) the chap in the middle in a dark suit is little help to folks faced with a ballot paper.
Otherwise, the post is entirely Roger’s.
Thanks Freddy for the interpretation,
Now I can put a face to your postings on here.
On reflection I am pleased you had made and posted these videos on UKIP Daily, as you are quite right, a general member faced with a voting paper with six names on it would have difficulties in candidate identification. never mind knowledge of any of the policies they were advocating.
I don`t know if any of the other hustings are going to get similar video treatment and posting on the Tube, but if not a great opportunity is being missed
We’ll post any of the hustings videos which we get sent, Roger. Please remember, doing them up and posting them online does take time for the members who have taken on that task – UKIP Branches don’t have the technical staff available that the BBC or ITV have …
I’m with you CK.
Stuart Agnew has nailed his colours to AMW’s mast, and I’m going to do the same.
My teenage children will NOT live under Sharia, over my dead body would that be.
Let us pray that enough people with a backbone in this country will WAKE UP.
A good few points in your two postings Freddy. Many thanks.
Whoever wins there will be storm clouds for UKIP. Some members appear to think that JB will miraculously rescue UKIP from a media onslaught. It will not be like that if only because the criminals posing as Hate not Hope and ‘antifa’ have now decided we are fair game IRRESPECTIVE OF POLICIES.
Interesting.
First of all, very well chaired by Freddy. Absolutely impartial and to the point.
Two things struck me.
The first was the appearance and delivery of each candidate. There were 3 clear winners. There were some outright failures. No potential leader can lead unless they are presentable and can present.
And yes, it REALLY matters.
The second was the question regarding Keynesian economics. Any leadership candidate should know at least the basics regarding economics.
Only 1 understood and 1 almost did.
There are now, IMHO only 3 credible candidates left.
Freddy certainly worked up a sweat. I agree that he is very good.
Great comments citizenkain and agree with you. Exciting times ahead.
The rest of the candidates are a complete joke and really need to rethink their careers