Last Thursday night’s episode of Question Time (June 4) was a fascinating watch, as the panel consisted of five of the main candidates in the Makerfield by-election. As such it provided an excellent opportunity to learn more about them and effectively watch a ‘mini-hustings’, although the Restore Britain candidate had not been invited.
The first question of the programme asked how politicians could restore public confidence in politics in general. Speaking first, Andy Burnham (Labour) gave an impassioned response where he said that our parliament is set up in a way that encourages “party first, not place first”, and he claimed to have followed “place first” in his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester. I haven’t followed Manchester politics enough to make a judgment about his track record as mayor, but there was an authenticity to his presentation. Throughout the programme it was evident that he is an experienced politician, and a polished public speaker, his appearance was effective.
The man in the spotlight: Kenyon
Next to respond was Robert Kenyon (Reform UK). There had been much speculation on social media about whether he would actually appear and how he would come across, particularly after an interview with the BBC’s Chris Mason, which one commentator described as “the worst political interview in history”.
His first answer was unconvincing. On restoring trust in politics he talked about the importance of electing “real people” instead of “career politicians”. He followed this up with a suggestion that money that should go to Makerfield is instead diverted to Manchester, but he offered no evidence to back this statement up, and I have not been able to find any either). In my view this set the pattern for most of his answers which were typically low on detail, high on slogans and offered very few constructive ideas.
Sarah Wakefield, the only woman on the panel, challenged Kenyon
Kenyon’s nemesis on the panel was Sarah Wakefield, the Green candidate. She started with a challenge to Kenyon over a reply he had sent to misogynistic remarks about the TV and radio personality Carol Vorderman.
Ms Wakefield stated that she had been on the phone to Ms Vorderman that day and challenged Mr Kenyon to apologise live on TV. Kenyon’s response seemed highly evasive – a pattern which would be repeated when other alleged skeletons in his cupboard were raised. A woman in the audience made the comment “I’d rather have a career politician than a plumber who is a sexist”. On being asked to comment on this, Kenyon denied that he was sexist, arguing that he had been brought up by a single mother and an influential grandmother, and that he had great respect for women. The camera panned to the faces of the audience, showing a number of women shaking their heads with stony expressions.
Mr Kenyon also seemed keen to stress that these events had happened before he became politically involved.
Sarah Wakefield herself came across as a coherent and experienced councillor.
An old school Conservative
Michael Winstanley, the Conservative candidate, also demonstrated that he is an experienced politician with some might call an “old school” Tory mindset, more like the Tories of 30 years ago. His first response rather demonstrated Burnham’s claim about politics being more “party and not place” as he laid into Burnham over why the by-election was even happening and Burnham’s political ambitions. In his responses he presented a more traditional Conservative political outlook than many current leading Tories seem to indulge in. I don’t agree with his politics but he is definitely someone I can respect.
The Liberal Democrat
The Liberal Democrat candidate is Jake Austin, another experienced politician who ran against Andy Burnham in the Mayoral election. Again his answers were well structured and demonstrated experience.
How they came across to me
Most of the debate was highly predictable, with all five candidates largely representative of their party’s philosophies and policies. Four of the participants were highly experienced and accomplished in their presentation. For this viewer the weakest participant by far was Mr Kenyon, the Reform candidate. The Green candidate consistently challenged him over things he is alleged to have said and done in the past. My sense was that his responses were evasive. In addition Ms Wakefield challenged him repeatedly asking him what his solutions were for several of the issues under discussion. In many cases his responses appeared evasive. At one point he made a claim that Reform would hire an extra 30,000 police officers over the life of a Parliament. When asked how Reform would successfully recruit and train so many officers, Kenyon responded that this would be an issue for the recruiters. When asked about how to solve the housing crisis, Kenyon suggested that the solution was to ”stop the boats”, hardly a comprehensive solution for a much more complex social problem.
On social media his supporters have defended him, saying that his lack of polish is proof that he is not a “career politician”. In my view, while one can make allowances for his inexperience in the public eye, one can’t ignore that on questions of policy he seemed to have virtually no detail or substance to offer.
So who to vote for?
My assessment is that there was no clear “winner” in the debate. The four more seasoned candidates were all articulate and argued pretty much in line with the policies of their respective party. Ultimately a local voter would probably have to decide based on their political convictions or on tactical voting if they wanted to keep a particular candidate out. A purely personal view, but my conclusion was that for a voter to choose the Reform candidate would be to ignore the question of whether someone evasive, unclear on their own policies, and who has a history of questionable actions on social media is the right person to represent a constituency.
It will be interesting to see whether his appearance on the programme has any impact on his electability. On 19 June we will know.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
