At the end of the week in which the party manifestos were published, I attended a hustings in a nearby church.

At the end of the week in which the party manifestos were published, I attended a hustings in a nearby church. The five candidates standing in this rural seat – Conservative, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Ukip – all took part.

Very few people actually read the manifestos. Fewer still will make a comparative analysis. So observing the candidates in the flesh, watching their body language and hearing not just their answers but also the manner in which they are given, probably offers a good source of information for most people.

Or that’s what I thought at the beginning of the 90 minutes in which four of the candidates fielded questions. The Ukip hopeful left about quarter of the way through because of another engagement – unfortunately before a very good question on immigration and the EU was posed.

But most of what we heard was bland and almost comically predictable. With just a few minutes to make a pitch, no one is going to say that they oppose cycle lanes, preserving village environments or requiring people to pay their taxes.

There were, however, two moments which impressed me: one was the Green shyly admitting that he found public speaking very difficult and the other, the Labour candidate saying without equivocation that he was not in accord with his party on Trident. These were moments of unaffected honesty where both self-promotion and staying ‘on message’ took second place. It seems significant that the audience noticeably warmed to both these men.

This is a ‘safe’ Conservative seat. But that does not mean that the election period should be no more than a victory parade. Democracy demands something far more challenging than that and it was evident that the Conservative candidate was uneasy with the challenge. She vetoed the videoing of proceedings, which seemed a little high-handed, considering that audio and video recordings of both parliamentary and council proceedings are standard practice. Two other candidates offered no objection and two were not consulted after her veto. There was much comment and none which I heard was sympathetic to this state of affairs.

As the ‘shoo-in’ candidate, seeking to replace the retiring former MP, the Conservative did not greatly impress me. Although well rehearsed on her party’s tropes and attack lines, she admitted to knowing nothing about local issues when she arrived in the constituency, declaring “I’m not a career politician”. This was commendably honest, but her protestations that she was “talking to people” did not inspire a great deal of confidence just three weeks out from the election.

Emphasis on local credentials can be overdone. To shoehorn your child’s attendance at a local school and your wife’s local public service job into as many answers as possible – the implication being that you must therefore be a far better choice than the favoured daughter from outside the constituency – is obviously tempting and may contain some truth. The Liberal Democrat is a local councillor who is contesting the seat for the third time. His doggedness is praiseworthy and I do not for a moment discount his local government service and knowledge. But having lived in an area for 20 years does not automatically mean you will be effective at Westminster. I suspect I am not alone in looking for qualities beyond local longevity.

It can be argued that airy generalities are difficult to avoid in this kind of format. Of course, everyone wants better mental health services and better coordination of health and social care. But none of the candidates seemed to have much to say on how this might be achieved. And in order to prevent the proceedings descending into a fruitless shouting match, there was no opportunity for members of the audience to challenge the stock responses or press the candidates on the ‘how’ which would give credibility to the declaration of opinion.

The candidate who is successful on 7 May will have no parliamentary experience. As a raw backbencher, they will have vanishingly little chance of influencing policy. With the exception of the Green, whose party has no whipping system, they would either be compliant lobby fodder or have the independence of mind to occasionally disagree with and challenge their party’s line. Only the Labour candidate who – even in the current climate of electoral volatility – can expect no more than second place, gave any impression that this might be a possibility.

None of the candidates made a complete fool of themselves; no one swept all before them. There was little to surprise and still less to enlighten. The last sentence I jotted down in my notebook was ‘motherhood and apple pie’. The American clergywoman who chaired with that caustic warmth characteristic of the New World, drew the proceedings to a close with almost the same words: “Well, we’ve had Mom and apple pie this evening”, before expressing the hope that we had nonetheless all heard something that would help in forming our judgements. That the nature of those judgements may not necessarily be quite what the candidates had in mind is probably what gives some worth to this inevitably flawed process.

* More on the issues in the 2015 General Election from Ekklesia: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/generalelection2015

—–

© Jill Segger is an Associate Director of Ekklesia with particular involvement in editorial issues. She is a freelance writer who contributes to the Church Times, Catholic Herald, Tribune, Reform and The Friend, among other publications. Jill is an active Quaker. See: http://www.journalistdirectory.com/journalist/TQig/Jill-Segger You can follow Jill on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/quakerpen