Yes/No AV Debate at County Hall

On Tuesday night I was invited to the Yes/No AV debate organised by the BBC, but held at County Hall. By attending I was hoping for serious points being made as to why I should vote yes or no in the Referendum on the 5th May.

There were four panel members, Candy Atherton, former Labour MP and George Eustace MP both in the No to AV camp. In the Yes to AV we had Lord Dartmouth, MEP for UKIP and Nathan Hallow for the LDs The ringmaster was BBC’s local radio presenter Laurence Reed.

Members of the audience asked questions to the panel members, who took it in turn to answer them. At first the questionable were answered in an orderly fashion, but this soon stopped and the panel members started to interrupt other members. By the end of the debate the panel were talking over the other members in louder and louder voices hoping by talking louder it would some how make their points better.

The main point of the debate was to explain to those present and the listeners of the radio show the pros and cons to the two options. The panel members missed this, and spent a lot of the time trying to score small and sometimes petty points on the other panel members. All the panel members made draw dropping comments that should never have been said.

I came away from the debate with no clearer picture of the best system. I am not sure what the general public will think of it, but you can listen on Thursday 28th via Radio Cornwall’s Laurence Reed Show from 12 noon and come to your own conclusion.

For me, it was like a pantomime show, in parts entertaining, but once over forgettable.

Doing It Live

I did a radio interview with a very popular BBC current affairs in Cornwall. The presenter has a reputation for being direct and to the point. I received a call this morning asking if I would speak and answer questions about the decisions that the Parking Panel has made.

Again, I stepped up to the plate. If you make a decision you should stand up and defend that point. I find it difficult to understand when someone who has made a choice that will affect many people will not be open to public scrutiny or answer difficult questions.

I hope I batted well. The presenter did bowl all different types, but I don’t think he took my wicket. The crowd (not hearing it, but told) were a mixed bunch, some support, some along the lines of “who in the hell is this?” and those who might not agree, but kind of understood the method.

Call me nuts, but I even gave my own number out (presenter said could he). I said if someone wants to talk to me about the issues, then ring me and I will listen. It’s of fundamental importance that if you are in a position that affects many, then you should be accessible.