Guest Comment on Hustings

A correspondent of mine watched the recent hustings online, and made the following comments (see below). I will publish some of my comments tomorrow. I was however more impressed by Francesca Ahier than my correspondent, and even more so when she appeared on BBC Radio Jersey. I would however concur that Inna made the best speech.

One of the stand out moments of the radio lunchtime sessions - but for all the wrong reasons - was Nick Le Cornu and his total failure to either answer the question ("I'm not going to answer your question, I'm going to answer my question") and his butting in again and again when Gordon Troy was trying to answer a question just after he had four minutes of virtually uninterrupted ranting.

It was the lack of an ability to "take turns" in speaking that I found most significant. I've come across that because having children on the autistic spectrum, one of the main social defects is an inability to take turns. It has to be taught and learned by them. 

It is also something that featured strongly in Co-Counselling, which Annie Parmeter told me, and which she had applied as a chairman. For example, a good chairman will ensure that one or two people don't dominate a discourse, but everyone has an opportunity to contribute, while a bad chairman will favour one or two attention-seekers who dominate proceedings.

It involves the mastery of several related skills that are likewise important throughout life. The ability and willingness to take turns involves:

* the skill of waiting (impulse control),
* the ability to read facial expressions and body language (social perception) and
* the twin skills of sharing and conversational reciprocity (the dance of interactions).

I'm very much afraid that Nick demonstrated virtually nothing of those skills on BBC Radio Jersey, and instead came out as extraordinarily rude.

Guest Comment on Hustings

Sat through the video recording. My conclusion is that if the electorate went with the quality of speeches, content and assuredness in answering questions from the floor rather than personality and/or prejudice, the voting would be far different from those suggested by the bookies.

My brief observations are as follows. I have put them order as how they all came over to me…from best to worst

Inna Gardiner: Best speech of the evening - all without notes or reading from a script. Clearly passionate about community issues generally. Answered most questions very well too. Confident. A little ‘mumsey’ which is not a bad thing as I am sure she will attract a many other working mums votes.

Geraint Jennings: Another good speech again with out written notes. He is a good speaker and surprisingly entertaining at times. Very confident and assured; answered questions extremely well and certainly does not deserve to bring up the rear as the bookies suggest. His performance will surely win him some support - but perhaps not enough.

John Baker: Read speech from script, mainly parish focussed. Got a bit lost on some of the questions and did a bit of finger pointing too. He settled in better as the evening drew on, but he was clearly playing to the gallery at times. Overall not very convincing.

Nick Le Cornu. Speech delivered from the hip and well presented as were the answers to questions. A good speaker generally. Unfortunately what he had to say was riddled with his usual lefty rhetoric and prejudice, that whether you agree with him or not, also revealed that he is still a very loose cannon.

Lyndsay Feltham. Speech from script which was delivered with monotony. That followed on with the questions that while she answered them reasonably well were largely regurgitated paragraphs from the Reform manifesto, to which she also referred to several times in order to dodge a question. Not much substance to her. No passion, no drive. In a word, boring.

Ant Lewis. All seemed to be an endless list of what he wanted, but nothing in the way of ideas of how he achieve them. Notwithstanding having sympathy for his disability, I fail to see how he could contribute to debates or engage with the public. He didn’t with the audience. When he did get a clap you felt is was made out of some sort courtesy.

Francesca Ahier. Tried to deliver a speech without a script which is to her credit. However she was rambling and contradicted or repeated herself over and over during the evening - also more ‘ums’ than a beehive! Although she appeared very friendly and approachable, she was clearly out of her depth.

Andrea Mallett: Speech scripted and read at breakneck speed. Impossible at times to comprehend what she was actually saying or what she stood for. Patchy on questions and difficult to gauge what exactly she is about. That hasty delivery was in evidence all through the evening. Hopeless.

Gordon Troy: Read his speech which was all but a rehash of his GE senatorial one - also with same quip about the Irish potato famine bringing his family to Jersey. Not an ounce of passion - although he tried hard to convince he was a caring and sympathetic candidate. It didn’t work. He fumbled and rambled his way through the questions referring time and again to a pile of notes he had in front of him which was very distracting if not embarrassing at times. Useless.

Guy de Faye: Speech and answers to questions from the hip throughout but in essence all he had to say was what he had done, how clever he was and how he had a fix for most if not all of Jersey present woes. As usual he also mildly insulted the audience on a couple of occasions which did not go down too well. He treated the hustings like a soapbox. Not a hope in hell of being elected!