Those wishing to vote in Liverpool’s mayoral elections next
month have a tough choice on their hands, as twelve different candidates will
be on offer, representing every position on the political spectrum.
I am ashamed to say that I may have left my signature on the
electoral register a little too late, but even if I cannot vote, I hope I can
help elucidate others, and enable them to make the right decision. Unbiased,
factual reporting starts here.
Last Thursday (19th April), the Liverpool Mayoral
Debate was cancelled. It was cancelled because it was due to be held on
university campus, and many students disapproved of the inclusion of one or
more far-right candidates. They were due to stage a protest, and far-right
groups in Liverpool were set to conflict with the protesters. The official line
was that it was cancelled due to safety concerns.
However, I wanted to find out what the parties, and indeed
the candidates had to say, and so I emailed them all in turn using the same
stock email.
The BNP were the first to respond, with a jovial “I think
this answers your question!” and a link to this article. The
headline declared that the mayoral debate had been “banned” because people were
“frightened” of the BNP.
It went on to claim that it was the Labour party who
requested the debate to be cancelled, and also that scientific evidence does
not support global warming. It went on to list all BNP candidate Mike Whitby’s
planned responses to the questions at the debate, stating “This is what the people
of Liverpool are effectively forbidden to hear and once again this is why the
Establishment hates the British National Party.”
Unfortunately, nobody in the list of commenters seems to
realise that the debate was not cancelled simply because the BNP was going to
be in attendance. It may have instead been something about the large number of
armed thugs/malnourished students planning to be in attendance.
I hoped for more honesty from other politicians, and then
laughed at the stupidity of myself sometimes.
Independent candidate Liam Fogarty was next to respond,
expressing regret at the short length of the campaign and the way everything
was being rushed to fit in before the election.
Liberal party leader and candidate Steve Radford’s response
can be included in full: “glad rescheduled”. I expect he has better things to
do than take his constituents seriously.
Robin Tilbrook, chairman of the English Democrats, provided
me with some useful information. Initially expressing the fear that Liverpool’s
democracy would be poorer for the loss of a key debate, he also furnished me
with the news that the debate was due to be split into three segments, an idea
the party was not comfortable with.
It was due to be split by position on the political spectrum,
i.e. right, established centre parties and left. This, however, would lump the
unknown quantity of the English Democrats with the flavours of the political
right that many people already distrust- not a pleasant idea for a party
wishing to be taken seriously in its first attempt at acquiring an important
seat of office. Especially not when the party itself claims to be neither on
the political left, nor the right, and campaigns not on the basis of ethnicity
but for the hope of a devolved English parliament such as that enjoyed by
Scotland.
Conservative candidate Tony Caldeira simply forwarded me the
details of the next debate, which is not what I asked for at all.
I later received another email from the North-west chairman
of the English Democrats Stephen Morris, who implied that the BNP were to blame
for the cancellation, stating “When Nick Griffin attended the Question Time
programme […] he was shown up for what he is, he did so much damage to his
party’s national standing and caused massive division internally that they have
thankfully imploded. For any group to stop democratic debate is wrong”.
My next respondents from the office of Tony Mulhearn,
Socialist/Trade Union candidate, doubted the English Democrats’ commitment to
democracy. They agreed with the student union’s opposition to the NF, the BNP
and the English Democrats, as well as the rather unusual structure at the
debate, i.e. pre-prepared answers and no actual debating.
The supposed replacement debate missed out the
Socialist/Trade Union candidate, leaving them without a platform. They are
seeking a debate with Labour candidate Joe Anderson, who they believe is the
embodiment of the pro-cuts argument they oppose.
Incidentally, Joe Anderson of Labour has not got back to me,
and neither have the Liberal Democrats. This puts them nicely into the same
category as the National Front, which I’m fairly sure is not what they were
after.
So, there are your candidates, and their responses to the
somewhat dubious “debate” planned at the university earlier this month. Makes
me glad to live in a democracy, it really does.
