I:
THE QUALITATIVE ELECTION STUDY OF BRITAIN 2015
Clacton Pre-Election Focus Groupconducted April 30th 2015
Transcribed Focus Groups Dataset
Version 1.1
Date of release: 5 November 2015
Principal Investigator
Dr. Edzia Carvalho, University of Dundee
International Co-Investigator
Dr. Kristi Winters, GESIS, Cologne
Funded by
British Academy and Leverhulme Trust Small Grant SG142740
and supported by
Carnegie Corporation of New York, GESIS-Leibniz Institute
(Cologne) and University of Dundee
QESB Contacts
[email protected]@[email protected]
@qualesb
qualesb2015
‘QESB’
http://wintersresearch.wordpress.com
READ ME
Transcribed Focus Groups Dataset Version 1.0
On copyright and attribution
Copyright of this transcript belongs to Dr. Edzia Carvalho and
Dr. Kristi Winters. Individuals may re-use this
document/publication free of charge in any format for research,
private study or internal circulation within an organisation. You
must re-use it accurately and not present it in a misleading
context. You must acknowledge the author, the QES Britain project
title, and the source document/publication.
Recommended citation:
Carvalho, E. and K. Winters. 2015. 'The Qualitative Election
Study of Britain 2015 Dataset', version 1.0. Funded by British
Academy and Leverhulme Small Grant SG142740 and supported by GESIS,
Carnegie Corporation, and University of Dundee. Available at:
http://wintersresearch.wordpress.com
On the transcription
All participants’ names have been changed and any direct or
indirect identifiers removed to protect their anonymity
The transcripts in Version 1.0 do not have enhanced data
recovery including non-verbal communication. It includes the basic
transcription of words said by participants. The participants have
been identified through attribution by the moderator or other
participants and by an initial attribution by the investigators.
Subsequent versions of the dataset will verify attribution of
participants by video identification.
The transcripts in this version also do not include extensive
instructions given to participants at the beginning of the groups,
introductions by participants, and exchanges between participants
and moderators during exercises.
Initial Transcription by: Just Write Secretarial Services,
Belfast, Northern Ireland. Contact: [email protected]
Reporting conventions used
We have used ** to indicate words, phrases or sentences which we
could not hear.
Italic font indicates we have taken a guess at a word/name
etc.
Words in parentheses {} indicate physical gestures or what can
be heard on the tape but cannot be clearly articulated into
specific words.
Removal of direct and indirect identifiers are set off with +
word +
Clacton Pre FG
*Participant ID numbers added to version 1.1
3
Date of focus group: 30 April 2015
Location: Community Hall, Clacton, Essex
Moderator: Dr. Kristi Winters
Participants:
ID
Alias
Sex
SpecialCategory
Age
Group
Supporter
Party
Strength
Pre
Group
Post
Group
Constituency
2015 vote
preference
2015-011-GE-EN
Beatrice
F
Retired
57-64
N
NA
NA
Clacton
No
Clacton
Y, not which party
2015-009-GE-EN
Edwina
F
Retired
57-64
N
NA
NA
Clacton
Colchester 1
Clacton
Y, not which party
2015-010-GE-EN
Kathryn
F
N
34-41
N
NA
NA
Clacton
Colchester 1
Clacton
Y, not which party
2015-008-GE-EN
Tamsin
F
N
49-56
N
NA
NA
Clacton
Colchester 3
Clacton
Y, and party
ContentsCAMPAIGN
IMPRESSIONS10Kathryn10Tamsin10Kathryn10Kathryn10Edwina10Beatrice11Kathryn11Beatrice11Kathryn11Beatrice11Kathryn11Beatrice11Tamsin12Beatrice12Tamsin12Beatrice12Tamsin12Beatrice12Kathryn12Beatrice12Beatrice12Kathryn12Beatrice12Kathryn12Tamsin12Kathryn12Tamsin13Beatrice13Tamsin13Kathryn13Tamsin13Beatrice13Tamsin13MEDIA
CONSUMPTION13Edwina14Edwina14Kathryn14Tamsin14Beatrice14Tamsin15Kathryn15Beatrice15Tamsin15Beatrice15Tamsin15Tamsin15Edwina15Kathryn15PARTY
LEADER
HANDOUT15Kathryn15Tamsin16Beatrice16Edwina16Tamsin16Tamsin16Kathryn16Beatrice16Edwina17Edwina17Edwina17Kathryn17Tamsin17Edwina17Tamsin17Edwina18Beatrice18Edwina18Beatrice18Edwina18Kathryn18Kathryn18Beatrice18Kathryn18Edwina18Beatrice18Edwina18Tamsin19Edwina19Beatrice19Beatrice19Tamsin19Beatrice19Kathryn19Beatrice19Kathryn20Beatrice20Kathryn20Kathryn20Beatrice20Edwina20Edwina20Tamsin20Kathryn20Beatrice20Tamsin20Beatrice20Beatrice21Edwina21Beatrice21Beatrice21Beatrice21Edwina21Kathryn21Beatrice21Kathryn21Beatrice22Tamsin22Kathryn22Edwina22Beatrice22Tamsin22Edwina22Edwina22Tamsin22Tamsin22Edwina22Beatrice23Beatrice23Tamsin23Kathryn23Beatrice23Kathryn23Beatrice23Kathryn23Edwina23Edwina23Beatrice24Tamsin24Edwina24Beatrice24Edwina24Tamsin24Beatrice24TRAPPED
IN A
LIFT24Beatrice24Kathryn25Kathryn25Edwina25Edwina25Edwina25Tamsin25Tamsin25Tamsin25PARTY
CONSIDER VOTING FOR
HANDOUT25Beatrice26Beatrice26Tamsin26Beatrice26Kathryn26Beatrice26Beatrice26Beatrice26Tamsin26Tamsin27Tamsin27Kathryn27Kathryn27VOTE
CHOICE
CONSIDERATIONS28Tamsin28Edwina28Edwina28Beatrice28Beatrice28Edwina28Kathryn28Tamsin29Beatrice29Tamsin29Kathryn29Edwina29Kathryn30Kathryn30DEBATES30Beatrice30Edwina31Beatrice31Kathryn31Beatrice31Kathryn31Beatrice31Edwina31Edwina32Beatrice32Edwina32Tamsin32Kathryn32Beatrice32Edwina32Edwina33Kathryn33Edwina33Edwina33Kathryn33Tamsin33Kathryn33Beatrice34Edwina34Edwina34VOTER
REGISTRATION34OUTCOME PREDICTIONS34
Transcript
CAMPAIGN IMPRESSIONS
Moderator: Just to get started, being in the Clacton area, I
would be interested to know your impressions of the campaign so
far. So you can think about the media coverage you've seen or
conversations you've had with friends, the lit that's come through
the door. What's your general impression of how the campaign is
going or how you been touched by it so far? Kathryn, would you like
to start?
Kathryn: I think it's been slightly different. I've lived here
quite a long time and it's been slightly different this time
because someone who's been a long-standing Conservative MP defected
to UKIP, Douglas Carswell. So about six months ago when they had
the bye-election it was very heavily promoted, we had international
media, politicians who have never been here before, we're never
normally the focus of anything, we're never normally a key area.
And I've seen that reflected in the posters and the advertising
still now; even though he won by a large majority for the new party
he joined, UKIP, they still refer to us as a key area. So it was
interesting because we were suddenly the focus for a very short
period of time because I think they thought it would be a tighter
result than it was. Normally we don't generally get a lot of focus,
so it was interesting but it was very short-lived. So I think
probably my experience has been, sort of working within local
authorities, that there tends to be, in the period before
elections, a lot of focus, a lot of work done by councils, a lot of
visibility, which then after elections tends to drop off slightly,
and again I think it will probably be a similar sort of thing with
this election.
Moderator: Thank you. Tamsin, how about you?
Tamsin: I agree absolutely with everything Kathryn said. The
focus was definitely on UKIP when Carswell defected. But from
what's come through my door, it has been very balanced actually.
I've had Green leaflets, I've had Liberal Democrat leaflets, I've
had Labour, Conservative, not around UKIP. I think the
Conservatives are fighting back because I've had more Conservatives
and through my door than I have any of the other parties.
Kathryn: I think we've had a lot more literature than they used
to; definitely, there's been more.
FR: There's lots of UKIP ones, aren't there?
Kathryn: Yeah, we've had quite a few UKIP ones. But yeah, we've
had other parties but definitely in previous elections sometimes
you wouldn't get anything. You might get the odd one, and we've had
much more across the parties, I think.
Edwina: When we had as Kathryn was saying about when Douglas
Carswell defected I also noticed that, as well as UKIP having the
constituency area in Clacton I noticed also the Conservatives, who
are also in the same road, they had the doors open so that you felt
that you could go in, because I've often felt that maybe something
might crop up, say, during the year or something, and you really
want to talk to somebody about it but the doors were always shut or
you don't feel that you want to go in or anything like that; even
though they probably have said 'contact me by email or phone,' you
don't feel you want to go in. But this time I did notice they've
got their doors open, which is strange. Yet then, because I suppose
they were worried, the Conservatives perhaps were worried, and I
noticed Labour then came in and they were by the Bluebird Cafe,
which is a little away from here, but I don't know where the Lib
Dems were, because they're in Great Clacton, I think it would
probably profit them if they did have offices, more or less in
Clacton, so that if people… I don't know how they feel about that
because people don't feel they tend to want to go and talk about
things. If these parties want us to communicate how we feel they're
not really doing a very good job. But it's funny that then they
did. I don't know how other people feel.
Beatrice: I'm fairly new to the area, I've only been in Clacton
for a year. I'm finding it really amusing. I was at an Arts and Lit
Society on Monday evening when the bye-election was on and the
Conservatives called the police because UKIP had their van, ‘vote
Douglas Carswell’, and their offices were directly opposite and we
were standing outside the Princess Theatre, they hadn't been able
to park it so they parked outside the Red Cross. It was near the
Conservative office. It was funny, they were saying "we can't have
a UKIP van outside our office!" And I thought 'for goodness sake!
Grow up!'
Kathryn: I think that location is probably more worrying. That's
the main road from Clacton, that would block the road, wouldn't it
really?
Beatrice: I know. There's these police officers standing there
yesterday. Like, we have more important things to police in
Clacton!
Kathryn: Exactly.
Moderator: So that's what stood out a little bit for you
then?
Beatrice: I thought that was just so childish. And I've had
literature through the door but I haven't had any personal callers.
When I lived in Chelmsford I could guarantee the week before
election I would have had them all around, at least once,
door-knocking to try and engage you, and I've not had a single
person. I live in Clacton but have not had a single person knock on
my door, and I've not seen any the canvassing in the town, whereas
in Chelmsford it would be everywhere. So it's really
noticeable.
Kathryn: It's definitely different, isn't it? I think we've had
one and that was before the bye-election. But it's very unusual
that...
Beatrice: You go on YouGov and see how your constituency is
tending to be at the moment and it says Clacton is leaning UKIP. I
think if it's only leaning UKIP there's obviously a lot of work to
be done and I'm just amazed there's not canvassing been done.
Tamsin: I've seen the Conservative, but then I live out in
Frinton and Frinton is...
Beatrice: Well, that's where Giles lives.
Tamsin: Yes, where Giles lives. I've seen Giles merrily
pottering about up and down the street, and he has got a devoted
following there but I think he's been the only one I've seen
canvassing.
Beatrice: I went to the Conservatives selection meeting at the
Princes Theatre, and it was really funny, because bear in mind I
was relatively new into the area, and I thought this will be
interesting to go to, and him and a lady candidate did their talk,
and she was brilliant, the idea she had she was so good, and Giles
had a great stage presence, because he comes from a theatrical
family and background, he had great stage presence, he owned the
stage and he engaged the audience but he talked such a load of
waffle.
Tamsin: Well, he'll go down well as a politician!
Beatrice: His only policy was ‘we need another theatre’. I do
volunteer work at the Westcliff Theatre, which is run by a
charitable trust, as is the Princes Theatre, and they struggle to
fill the theatre. And I thought 'my goodness, another theatre, the
Westcliff will go bust!'
Kathryn: Yeah, is that really the priority?
Beatrice: But what was really interesting was listening to the
people in the audience, the chatter, and there were some people
alongside me saying, "well yes, that girl spoke jolly well but
honestly, we can't elect a female. She'll be eaten alive in
Westminster."
FR: Oh my goodness!
Beatrice: And I thought 'oh my God, have you not heard of Maggie
Thatcher!' But these were the people voting to select a candidate.
And I thought 'it's madness!'
Kathryn: It is, particularly when they've had a chance to see
someone perform well. But it's interesting that you say that he was
where he is obviously comfortable and he's already got several
votes...
Beatrice: I bet he hasn't been to Jaywick! (Laughter)
Kathryn: We don't get door-knocking, so exactly what you were
saying, wouldn't you go somewhere when you could convert people
rather than where you know you're all right.
Tamsin: I wanted to go and say to him “it's not here that you
should be canvassing, you've got your votes here”.
Kathryn: Safe votes.
Tamsin: Yeah, safe votes. You should be out in Clacton where
there's all this UKIP and you should be fighting it.
Beatrice: I noticed around by me there's all UKIP posters in
windows.
Tamsin: It's so disturbing; I'm really, really distressed about
it.
Kathryn: I think it was generally felt that it was quite... The
majority that they got was much more than they were expecting. I
think they were thinking, particularly due to the **** out
canvassing and so much canvassing that they thought that would be a
much closer run vote, the bye-election, and when he came on it was
considerable, wasn't it, and you do see a lot of... I've probably
seen more houses with UKIP boards and UKIP posters than I have the
other parties, although you do see them represented.
Tamsin: They're the vociferous voters.
Beatrice: They feel more passionate, I think, more passionately
engaged with the party.
Moderator: This is so good and rich and I hate to cut you off
but if I do want to keep you on time... (Laughter) Tamsin, in terms
of your impressions of the campaign, do you feel like you've given
your views on your impression of the campaign so far?
Tamsin: Yes.
MEDIA CONSUMPTION
Moderator: So in terms of keeping up with the information,
people tend to either use digital, the Internet in some way, or old
school media, newspapers and radio, things you turn on in your car
and you can listen to at home. So maybe we can see, by a show of
hands, how many of you go into the Internet and you might see news
headlines or go through newspapers to see what's going on with the
election? Two. (Beatrice and Tamsin)
How about using Facebook, somebody will post an article on
Facebook and then you'll read it? Maybe a little bit. (Tamsin)
And the other one we ask about is Twitter, if you follow any
journalist. (No one)
How about we move off of television not on the Internet but the
actual box in your house. How many of you got information on the
campaign from the evening news, Question Time? (Kathryn, Tamsin,
Edwina, Beatrice)
FR: Yeah.
Moderator: How about on the radio?
FR: Yeah.
(Tamsin, Edwina, Beatrice)
Moderator: And lastly, actual newspapers, either paid or free
ones, you pick up for free have a look, where you can scan through
and see headlines on the election?
FR: Yes, sporadically.
(Kathryn, Tamsin, Edwina)
Edwina: Can I just say for the radio, I have Radio 4 on when I'm
cooking, I do find they're quite good because they'll have
something about what one of the politicians have said about a
certain thing, about housing or taxes, and then they have an
independent opinion about whether they can get that certain amount
of money from whatever, which I think is quite helpful because it
gives a non-biased opinion, supposedly, rather than saying well do
you believe what the Conservatives or Labour or whatever have said
about X, Y and Z?
Moderator: Would you say that goes more in-depth than even the
television or the newspapers?
Edwina: Well, they've only got a few minutes but then sometimes
it's the figures more or less decide whether it's correct. I do
find that quite interesting because it's not going with one party
or another party, and I think it can be very... I find it very
confusing because you don't know who's saying what, whether it's
the truth, because sometimes the politicians do not want to give
you all the information because they're worried about whether
they'll lose their edge, because it's going to be quite a tight
thing between the two main parties and they may well have to go
into coalition with somebody.
Kathryn: I think definitely the television news is much more
dumbed down now. Because it's designed to follow how the other
television drama things go, it's much pace-ier , it's like five
minute, four minutes segments. So the depth of information is not
as good and unless you're looking at something that's longer and
has more informal debate, like Channel 4 News, it's very… I sort of
avoid it now because it's almost like the politician wants to get
across the headlines and it'll be a little bit… And it won't really
tell you anything about issues.
Tamsin: You get more cynical, don't you? I'm just so cynical
because they're all spinning like mad. The funniest thing I saw
this week was Russell Brand talking to Ed Miliband, and Ed
Miliband, a posh, middle-class educated man, changed and started
saying "and" all the time. It was just so contrived and ridiculous.
I thought 'why are you doing this?'
Beatrice: Because it's going on YouTube.
Tamsin: 'You should be down with the kids and you're just making
a prat of yourself! Why are you doing it?' And it doesn't ring
true.
Kathryn: No, it doesn't really... Authentic.
Beatrice: The trouble is when they interviewed a lot of
teenagers in their 20s, "oh yeah, we saw Ed Miliband on with
Russell Brand, we're going to vote for him; he was really good." So
youngsters were impressed by it.
Tamsin: So it must be working, I suppose.
Beatrice: They would have taken a decision on to do that and
reasoned that it was worth doing it to get some more votes,
wouldn't they, otherwise he wouldn't have done it.
Tamsin: It's inauthentic, isn't it?
FR: Absolutely, it just sounds contrived.
Tamsin: It's inconsistent with how he's been previously.
Edwina: Can I just say about Ed Miliband, looking at body
language on the television, I noticed when he talks suddenly he
goes... like that. It's like he's been practising in front of a
mirror. I know all politicians probably do practise what they're
going to say but he doesn't look natural in respect to perhaps the
others.
Moderator: You guys have done a great job of segueing into the
next section of the focus group, which is (laughter, speech
inaudible)
Kathryn: It is going to be a quiz!
PARTY LEADER HANDOUT
Moderator: So what we'll do is first we'll talk about the
leaders and then we'll talk about the parties you would consider
voting for generally and then we'll talk about what's going into
your decision as you are looking at next week's election, and then
we'll talk a little bit about the debates and then I'm going to ask
you to predict how the election is going to go, just so as you know
what the rest of this is going to be like. So we've two on each
side, it's two sided, we've got the three main party gentlemen on
the front and basically everyone who has taken part in the debates
on the back. So here's what this exercise is. If I were to say
Stephen Fry, the kinds of things that come to mind are national
treasure, quite intelligent, Blackadder. So those are the things we
are looking for. So if I say the name Jeremy Paxman, Kathryn, what
comes to mind about Paxman?
Kathryn: Intelligent, tough interviewer, well informed, very
watchable.
Moderator: Exactly, this is what we're looking for, just general
impressions. And then we're also interested if you think... Those
who are more positive about the candidate, neutral, it doesn't sway
you one way or the other but it's just a word that comes to mind,
or if it's a negative. So I'll give you a couple of minutes.
Basically, you don't have to put something down for everyone. By
the way, just as a reminder, ****, on the other side you've got
Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood and Natalie Bennett from the Green
party.
FR: I'm jolly glad you told me, apart from Nicola
Sturgeon...
FR: Yeah, I recognise her from... (Over talking)
Moderator: If you don't have an opinion, that's fine, because
last time people, next to Nick Clegg, wrote "who?"
Tamsin: I was going to say 'privileged' but I can't think how
you spell it.
Moderator: Put it down, it'll go with everybody else's
misspellings. So should be start with the Prime Minister and we'll
do positive, neutral and negative, and the way that I'm going to do
this is I'm just going to say David Cameron, positives and then
just sort of pause, because not everybody will have written a
positive and a neutral a negative for everyone. You can choose from
the things on your sheet that you want to talk about, and ones, if
you don't want to mention them, that's fine as well. So if we start
off with the positives for David Cameron. Did anyone have
positives? Beatrice?
Beatrice: I think he's quite statesmanlike when I've seen him in
debates. I shall take that as a positive for someone in the Prime
Minister position.
Moderator: Edwina?
Edwina: I said he's got a positive leader image and he got us
out of the banking crisis, so, you know, that's good.
Moderator: Anyone else for positives? And then I'll just wait
for a few seconds and if no one says anything then I'll move
on.
Tamsin: I think he's polished but I don't know whether that's a
positive or a negative, really.
Moderator: Or is it a neutral?
Tamsin: Neutral, really I think.
Kathryn: I've put neutral, again, a similar sort of thing, 'more
credible as a PM than maybe the other leaders.'
Beatrice: He came across as trustworthy to me.
Moderator: So neutrals for David Cameron? How about
negatives?
Edwina: The benefit clampdown and ATOS, I know Labour started
ATOS and the Conservatives continued, but that was really
terrible.
Moderator: That was the disability review?
Edwina: Yeah. And also the bedroom tax, that's another thing
that was quite terrible, and the other thing is not able to alter
our commitment to the EU and what we have to do and what we get out
of the EU. It seems they dictate to us what we are able to do and
we're not able to alter anything.
Moderator: So it's ineffective on the EU?
Edwina: He doesn't seem to be able to, but whether any leader
will be able to, because if you're part of the EU it seems that you
have no control over... your EU citizens can go freely from country
to country because there is no borders in respect to checking who
comes in and out, and I think that is quite… We need to do
something but he is unable to do it, but I don't know whether
anybody will be able to do it, unless of course you get out of the
EU.
Moderator: Other negatives?
Kathryn: Smarmy. I think he's vote chaser, he's not really
interested in real change and I think that's consistent with his
party; they're not really interested in improving things.
Tamsin: Privileged. I think the problem is that you get this
impression that he lives in a different world to everybody else,
that him and his Bullingdon club chums, they are rather aloof and
privileged. Whether it's a positive or a negative, I don't know.
They're all privileged, really, so…
Moderator:Moving on to Ed Miliband, positives for him?
Edwina: He seems to have a sort of a positive, when you look at
him, performance in front of the camera when he talks on the
TV.
Moderator: Other positives?
Tamsin: He's well-meaning. I don't think... He's just
ineffectual but he is a well-meaning man.
Moderator: Neutrals?
FR: Neutral that he's well-meaning!
FR: He's insipid.
Moderator: Negatives?
Edwina: As I said before, though I said he looks... He just
turns slightly to the camera and then he goes... So it looks
insincere, like he practises in front of the mirror, or whoever it
is, because they all have people, don't they, that help them but
over this image to the media.
Moderator: Beatrice, your negatives?
Beatrice: He comes across as false, he's been over-coached and I
think it's to the detriment. He did need coaching but he's been
over-coached and that comes across as false if you don't appreciate
that it's just the coaching and look behind the...
Edwina: It's the body language really, isn't it?
Beatrice: I think he's ruthless. What he did to his brother,
David Miliband, and the election for the leader was absolutely...
And that's still cause a rift that family to this day.
Edwina: He may have been the better one to go forward.
Moderator: Other negatives?
Kathryn: What Tamsin was saying earlier, I have to concur with.
He is ineffectual, but exactly the same thing really, I've not seen
him credible as a prime minister and just ineffectual, quite
reactive. Rather than having his own ideas, his own policies, you
get this sense it's just a reaction to whatever the Conservatives
are doing or whatever the issue of the day is, the flavour of the
month is, 'the vibe it's going this way, I'm going to say this.'
Rather than thinking 'well, actually my opinions are this, this and
this and this is what we're doing', it's reactive rather than, you
know...
Moderator: Proactive.
Kathryn: Exactly, that's the word I was looking for.
Beatrice: Nicola Sturgeon will eat him alive!
Kathryn: Yes, she would.
Moderator: I think that was it for negatives, unless anyone else
wanted to…? We'll move on to Nick. Positives for Nick Clegg.
Edwina: He has some firm ideas, that he says on the front of his
manifesto, that he won't cross. So, you know...
Beatrice: Like last time... (Laughter)
Edwina: But also on the front of the manifesto he tells us...
(laughter)
Moderator: Positives first?
Tamsin: He's another well-meaning one, I think.
Moderator: Neutrals?
Edwina: He's balanced. He's a little bit of light Labour and a
little bit of Conservative, but because he probably will not get in
he knows he's going to be, if he's lucky, get into a coalition with
somebody. So, you know, that's the only way he probably would get
into power.
Beatrice: As a former Lib Dem voter I'm just appalled at him. He
definitely peaked in 2010 and went downhill from then on, and he
just got over himself once they got into a coalition. I mean,
reneging on the absolute pledge about fees was appalling, and he
stands up now and apologises, but it's no good apologising, just
don't do it.
Moderator: So was 2010 the last time you voted Lib Dem?
Beatrice: Yes [mmm] ??
Moderator: We'll get to parties. Were we on neutrals?
Tamsin: I put 'bland.'
Moderator: And negatives?
Beatrice: ‘Not trustworthy’, ‘weak’.
Kathryn: I've put ‘weak’ as well, and again, what Beatrice was
saying, he performed better than they were expecting, I think, in
the television debates, and it was a very new thing and it got him
a lot of positive... I'm not sure before that whether the Lib Dems
would have been in as strong a position as they were in. But he
has, he's reneged on everything. It was a very odd marriage between
the two and for half the time, for at least two years running up to
it, they have been bitching each other, really. And you think
'you're going to be running the country together, you need to reach
some sort of consensus' and it really has been a case of rolling
over to the Conservatives. But that's not coalition, is it, that's
just having them there and just choosing… So it's not worked well
as a marriage at all and he's lost a lot of credibility from that.
So he is not strong and I'll be surprised if he will, after the
election, regardless of the outcome, regardless if there is another
coalition, even if it's not a coalition in power, it's another
coalition that's an opposition, I'll be surprised if they still
keep him, for that reason.
Beatrice: On Radio 4 this morning his financial sidekick,
Alexander, was on and John Humphrys was just pulling him to pieces,
because the whole Lib Dem thing was 'ah, I've got a secret document
that the Tories prepared in 2012 about where they're going to
cut...' And John Humphrys was saying 'why are you saying… This is
just some old stuff regurgitated from...' And it leaks this to the
Guardian today and I thought 'oh my God, you know, Lib Dems used to
stand for more principles than this.'
Kathryn: And also he's been sitting on it for three years,
hasn't he, by the sounds of it.
Beatrice: But now there's an election... It's just awful.
Kathryn: Exactly, he's held onto it, which just...
Moderator: They say about marry in haste, repent in leisure.
Kathryn: But the values of the parties didn't match so it was
always going to be a strange one, and I think you can understand
Lib Dem voters and the Lib Dem party, why they've been disappointed
in his side of the coalition and the Lib Dem politicians that are
in the coalition with their inability to make an impact on what
their key policies were.
Moderator: Any last associations, negative, for Nick, otherwise
we'll move on to Nicola on the next page. Positives?
Beatrice: No. (Laughter) Oh, I put down 'she's a good
presenter.' She does know how to present.
Moderator: So other positives?
Edwina: I think she's dynamic really. I think she's a very
forceful campaigner.
Moderator: And its forceful so that's why it's positive for
you?
Edwina: For her cause, I'm just saying forceful for her
cause.
Tamsin: And passionate as well, I think she is passionate in her
cause.
Kathryn: I think she's potentially a good leader and she's
credible and she's knowledgeable. Some of the things that have come
up, that we've discussed, that seem to be recurring, but in some of
the men, a disconnect between the way they're presenting themselves
and the way they are authentically, she seems to be authentically
herself and that comes across, rather than... I think some of the
others struggle with that.
Beatrice: Isn't it strange to have a leader who is not putting
herself up for election? She's not going to be elected by the
public. I find that strange, I can't remember a previous political
leader who wasn't... [Over talking]
Tamsin: Gordon Brown, he wasn't really elected into his
leadership, was he?
Beatrice: What I meant was as an MP she's not standing for
Parliament.
Moderator: She's leader of the party but she's not standing.
That's kind of the way the debates went, they put the party leaders
up there regardless of whether or not they were standing to
represent their party.
Beatrice: I find it strange, a party leader who is not a member
of Parliament, who hasn't put themselves up to the public to be
elected as a member of Parliament. I just find that a bit
strange.
Moderator: So neutrals for Nicola, anyone have any asterisks
down on her? And then negatives?
Edwina: She wants independence for Scotland. I know she says
that's not an issue but she was very passionate about it before and
I do feel that that will bubble up if she does happen get some
seats. I think that will be part of her commitment, because she is
such a forceful person, and obviously, by the signs of it, she is
going to sweep the board up in Scotland, isn't she? Labour aren't
going to get a look in, or one seat perhaps.
Moderator: Other negatives for Nicola?
Beatrice: I put down 'dangerous.'
Moderator: And is that for the independence issue?
Beatrice: Dangerous inasmuch as the way I can see it going, if
she props up Ed Miliband she's more or less going to be running the
country, as far as I can see, because she's just going to run rings
around him. That's the danger I see, because, yes, she's got
overwhelming support in Scotland because the Scots know a good
thing, they know what a good financial deal they've got, so that's
fine, but when it comes to having an effect on the government of
the UK I find that a very dangerous thing when, as I say, she
hasn't even been elected by a vote. She's been elected by her party
but...
Moderator: She's not in Westminster, she's not been elected by
people to represent.
Beatrice: But she could be.
Edwina: She's a bit like Margaret Thatcher, isn't she?
Kathryn: I think that is… Because it's an unknown quantity,
isn't it, and, as I say, they've got...
Beatrice: Look how Nick Clegg rolled over, so Ed Miliband will
roll over in the same way.
Kathryn: Exactly, and they've got a very, as you say, Scotland
have got a lot of good financial dealings through being ruled by
them that you don't know how it's going to be. She is likely, as
you say, to push for the independence and will we then come second
in terms of preference if she is involved? Would she push for
independence and then how would that impact? So there's quite a lot
of unknown factors with her. But her, as a person, comes across
well.
Moderator: Any other negatives?
Beatrice: I've got 'totally single-minded' because you know what
her goal is. Although she's giving out platitudes of 'oh no, we've
had the referendum,' you know that is her goal.
Moderator: What about Leanne Wood? Positives?
Tamsin: Oh my God. I've just got 'non-descript.' I can say
anything about her.
Kathryn: Yeah, I've got 'hasn't got a profile of
visibility.'
Moderator: Any negatives then?
Edwina: Too nationalistic. She's very weak. In the leaders'
debate all she said was 'well, in Wales,' 'well, in Wales,'
Beatrice: That's what I said, 'she talks about Wales, not the
UK.' She's very **** beyond financials. She just wants to do
everything which everyone wants to do but if you drew her down into
financials she just hasn't got a plan.
Tamsin: I missed the leaders' debates so these two women, I have
no knowledge, I would walk past them in the street and not know who
they were.
Edwina: We recorded it and I'm afraid as it got on I skipped
through whenever they talked. I thought 'no, I just cant...' I
skipped them and just sort of picked, because I found it 'oh no,
that's all about…'
Moderator: Just so as you know, people in Wales, Leanne Wood,
she just bangs on about Wales all the time. It's something that
people in Wales picked up on, that she is very heavily Wales in the
debate.
Edwina: And the SNP I skipped again after a while because it
always seem to be Scotland.
Tamsin: I think of all the people on both sides of the sheets
she's had the lowest public vote of, you know, so that you would
know what she's like and things like that and she hasn't
really...
Moderator: Broken through
Tamsin: Yeah, in terms of recognition and things like that.
Moderator: So let's go positives for Natalie Bennett, leader of
the Green party in England and Wales. Any positives?
Edwina: She's very good. I know she had a shaky start but after
that, in the leaders' debate, she was quite good. There were short
bursts of information, but she's very good on green issues and
energy sustainability. That's sort of the positive parts.
Moderator: Any neutrals?
Beatrice: She's not always well informed... oh no, that's a
negative. (Laughter)
Moderator: Anymore neutrals? Okay, Beatrice negatives. She's not
always…
Beatrice: Not always well informed, is she? She has had a couple
of embarrassing gaffes, which worries you for a party leader.
Tamsin: I think she's the wrong leader; I think they should have
had Caroline, the Brighton woman. She's more of a leader than this
woman.
Kathryn: Definitely. But also, and I have to totally concur with
what Beatrice was saying, it's not really forgivable. It's not like
somebody has suddenly come up to one of us and suddenly gone,
'right, you're running the country. Your press conference is here
in two minutes.' It was something that she had time to prepare for,
she's in the run-up to election, it wasn't really obscure stuff, it
was stuff she should have known what her party was doing, and it
was...
Beatrice: It was embarrassing.
Kathryn: Yet, it was embarrassing to listen to. And I remember
seeing the footage of afterwards when someone was trying to
question her about it, at which point, the day afterwards where she
should have had something ready, the PR boy has to go to say,' I'm
sorry' or what have you and it ended up with the woman for her
party interjections going 'she's not going to answer any questions
about that.' Yeah, it was embarrassing.
Beatrice: But it loses the party credibility.
Kathryn: Definitely, and that was the start, that was the key...
That was your moment and it was a bit of a ****
Moderator: One last go around for negatives.
Edwina: She was saying about immigration should continue, but
obviously immigration is quite a big issue but there's nothing in
what she's saying about what we're going to do to help contain the
problem. She just says we should have it, but there's no plan that
I could fathom out. I don't know if anybody else can.
Moderator: So moving on into the last leader. That's going to be
Nigel Farage obviously. So any positives for Nigel?
Edwina: He has decided on this Australian point system
supposedly for immigration. Nobody else has sort of come up with
anything else that I could fathom out so that's something
different, which Australia had said. The only thing that worries
me, another thing about the Australian system with the boat, people
sort of going on the boats and that and the loss of life, they just
send the boats back and they said that stopped all these people
coming across from various countries to them, and they stopped
that. Whether this would be a policy that we would have, I don't
know, or Nigel would have, I don't know.
Beatrice: He's open and you get the feeling that he is saying
what he truly thinks, whether you agree with them or not, you get
the impression that he says what he thinks, not what he's been
scripted by a coach to say what the party line is. I get the
impression he does actually say what he thinks.
Tamsin: I have no positives for Nigel Farage.
Moderator: Neutrals for Nigel? Okay, it's either hot or cold.
And negatives?
Edwina: He says that we are the UKIP army, I don't like that
terminology. I don't feel I'm an army, it's not the sort of thing
you would say, really, because it sounds like you're going to get
up and fight somebody. And the other negatives, he wants us out of
the EU but what in its place? We haven't really got anything
constructive. What are we going to do?
Beatrice: Save a lot of money.
Edwina: Yeah, we'll save a lot of money but what are we going to
do? We've got to trade with somebody, we've got to have something
in its place, haven't we?
Moderator: So back on Nigel. Negatives?
Tamsin: He's dangerous, he's disingenuous, he's racist, where do
want me to stop?
Beatrice: Do you not think he says what he thinks? When you say
he's disingenuous, don't you think he says what he thinks? Whether
you agree with it or not is another matter, but don't you think he
actually does says what he thinks?
TRAPPED IN A LIFT
Moderator: I would say, sorry, we weren't going to have a
debate; this is more about the expression. I think the last
question I have, while you've got their photographs in front of
you, is imagine you're in an elevator that's just been stuck,
you've called out for help, you have got two hours to wait before
they're going to be able to come in and fix the mechanics and you
turn around and your realise that you're stuck in the elevator with
one of the party leaders. Which of the party leaders would you want
to see, which of these people would you like to be stuck in an
elevator with for two hours, who would you want to spend that time
with? And then I'll ask you who you wouldn't want to spend time
with so you can get both sides.
Beatrice: I think I'd probably want Nigel Farage because I think
I could probably have a discussion with him and he would say what
he thought. The others, I don't think, would.
Kathryn: I wouldn't want to be stuck with any of them! Probably
Nicola, probably least Nigel. I agree with Beatrice, I think he
genuinely believes what he is saying, the only problem is I agree
with Tamsin, it's not often I agree with Tamsin but I do agree with
Tamsin, I think his party values are unpleasant. Some of the women
I'm not as familiar with, but I agree, I find his party values are
really unpleasant and he doesn't have a lot of policies for the
rest of, you know, economic and things like that.
Moderator: So Nicola is sort of the best out of the worst-case
scenario?
Kathryn: Yeah. I saw her interviewed on television, not for a
political debate but a morning programme, and she came across well.
So I think probably out of those, the others, no, probably not. The
women mostly because I don't know them so they might be fine to get
along with.
Moderator: Edwina, how about you? Who would you want to be
trapped with?
Edwina: I can think of her name.
Moderator: Natalie Bennett.
Edwina: Natalie Bennett, yes.
Moderator: And who would you not want to be trapped with?
Edwina: Nigel, I think.
Moderator: And Tamsin, you’re last, I think.
Tamsin: Probably was Nat-, she is the Green lady, isn't she?
Moderator: Yes
Tamsin: Because I'd just try to get something out of her.
Moderator: Try to suss out what she's actually about?
Tamsin: Try to suss out what she's actually about. The least,
absolute least, Nigel Farage.
PARTY CONSIDER VOTING FOR HANDOUT
Moderator: One of the other questions I asked was the parties
you could see yourself voting for. So if you could get that sheet
out. Count down from seven parties, then six, five, four, three,
two, one to see how many people, what you've checked on, and what
we're really interested in here is how wide is your world in terms
of parties you could see yourself voting for. Some people just say
one, they could only ever see themselves voting for one party.
Other people had six, six out of the seven. So did anyone have all
seven? Okay. Next would be six, anyone have six parties? How about
five? Four? So let's start with Beatrice and we'll work our way
round.
Beatrice: Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP.
Moderator: And those are the ones you could see yourself voting
for because?
Beatrice: They've all got good points and bad points. There is
not one party that says or does all the right things. So therefore
I'm not a lifelong such and such supporter and I change my key
station at each election, who I believe in, what they're saying,
what the issues are at that time. Here is quite interesting,
because Clacton is a bit strange because Douglas Carswell, from
what I can make out, was a very, very good MP-
Tamsin: No, he wasn't.
Beatrice: That’s not the impression I got from lots of
people.
Kathryn: He was long-standing, wasn't he?
Beatrice: My impression was that he was a good local MP and very
available blah, blah, blah. So do you vote to keep him, because I
can’t stand Giles, or do you vote for a party to get the government
you want?
Moderator: Yes, and we're going to be talking about when it
comes to May 7, those kinds of things and voting for the leader,
the party, for the local MP, you voting your heart, you vote
tactically; it's very complicated for lots of people. Okay, and the
ones that you couldn't see yourself voting for were?
Beatrice: 'Never' were Welsh, Scottish and Greens.
Moderator: And for similar reasons?
Beatrice: Welsh and Scottish because they're just too
nationalistic for Wales and Scotland and I'm not really in Wales
and Scotland. Greens, because I applaud some of their policies but
they just have got their head in the clouds and they never know how
to fund anything or… Just, it would be a disaster.
Moderator: Thanks for that; I appreciate it. Tamsin, your
four?
Tamsin: Well, I have, in the past, voted for Conservative,
Green, Labour and Liberal. I voted Labour up until… well really up
until Tony Blair got into bed with George Bush, I was a Labour
voter and then I just couldn't bear it anymore and I just felt so
betrayed by Tony Blair I could not bring myself to vote Labour ever
again. I voted Green in the European elections, probably because
they don't have... I wanted people to know that I wanted more
emphasis on green issues even though I didn't particularly want to
vote for them nationally. So I have voted Liberal before and I will
possibly vote Conservative tactically this time round. So I have
voted for loads of **** really, and the only one I would never
ever, ever, as long as I've got a pulse, vote for is Nigel Farage
and UKIP, because my opinion of Douglas Carswell was that he was
not a good local MP at all. I have been to various places where he
has just completely just been rude really and ignored things that
have been... I mean, it's so difficult to say. The +community
group+, I'm one of the trustees and I've been to the annual
meetings and he's been sitting on the platform. He's not looked at
the stuff, he's put it underneath the seat and then as soon as he
could he was out the door. I have no time for the man.
Moderator: And the National parties, is that because of the
policies or just because you don't live in Wales or Scotland?
Tamsin: That's just because I don't live in Wales or Scotland.
They might be marvellous...
Moderator: But you don't live there so you couldn't see yourself
voting?
Tamsin: Yeah.
Moderator: Fair enough. How about you, Kathryn?
Kathryn: To be honest, it was almost… I agree totally with what
you were saying earlier about you make a decision over a
combination of factors and you make a decision at that time. I
think I'm someone who is more... When I completed it, I completed
the 'nos' first so I'm more away from... I've always voted
anti-Tory, obviously before UKIP existed, now it's anti-UKIP. So
rather than consistently for one of the other parties, and again
sometimes on a local level you'll vote differently to the national
vote. But yeah, that would be my mindset. If someone put me on the
spot and said... That would be anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour or
pro-Liberal, and again the National parties, the Welsh and
Scottish, I mean, simply because I think it's more likely to be
involved in a coalition, that's a possible yes, but the Welsh, no,
and just no to Conservative and UKIP, definitely never.
Moderator: So your yes were Green, Labour and Lib Dem then, by a
process of elimination?
Kathryn: Yes, and possibly Scottish National.
Moderator: And Edwina, how many yes?
Edwina: I've got three. Perhaps tactically, Conservative, the
Greens because of their green issue policies, which are quite
positive. Lib Dems, sometimes, because they're into mental health.
I'm a child nurse so I'm quite... So that's sort of a positive
issue. All of them have issues that I like, bits, but you can't
have a 'bit' party. So Labour, I have in the past, but no, because
of Ed Miliband, really, and also Wales and Scotland, no, and never
UKIP, no.
VOTE CHOICE CONSIDERATIONS
Moderator: Thank you everyone for that. So now we're going from
the General to May 7. So thinking more specifically about when
you're in the polling booth next week and you're going to be
putting your tick next to one of the party's candidates, what are
the things that's going to actually help guide you to make that
choice? What are you going to be expressing when you put that tick
down? So anyone want to start, because it's a kind of hard
question, isn't it?
Tamsin: I'll start, because despite the fact that I'm not a
natural Conservative I will probably vote Conservative as a
tactical vote, because I think they are the only ones that are
going to stand any chance against UKIP in this area.
Edwina: I agree.
Moderator: Another tactical?
Edwina: Probably, yeah, because UKIP has got such... What is it,
12,000 or whatever majority, though they say he won't get so much,
and obviously Giles isn't quite as dynamic as UKIP, probably
tactically, yes, because I don't think anything else will get in.
It's very difficult really, because some parties you would like to
have there but you know that they're not going to get in.
Moderator: So tactics here?
Beatrice: It's a difficult one, because I don't think I've ever
been so undecided before, and it's because I'm tucked between
conservative and UKIP, and the only reason for UKIP is because I
prefer Douglas Carswell as an MP to Giles Watling as an MP.
Moderator: So then it comes down to the MP, really?
Beatrice: Yeah, for the local...
Moderator: Yeah, who do you want working for you here locally. I
think a lot of people are struggling in this election to make
decisions.
Edwina: I've gone from one, to the other, to another one. Every
time there's something on they say 'oh, I'm doing this, I'm doing
that' and I think 'oh shall I go that way, shall I go...?' It's
very difficult this time, very difficult.
Kathryn: I think it's wider as well, isn't it, because the
leader debate is more than double the amount of people.
(Laughter)
Moderator: My colleague, who lives up in Scotland, she thought
she knew how she was going to vote when we came down and then over
the course of doing the focus groups she said 'actually, now I
think I might change my vote.' So she does politics and is very
well aware of what's going on. Her Labour seat has now opened up,
it's an open seat now, and so initially she was going to vote one
way but she said 'no, maybe tactically I should vote this way. I
don't know, I've gone from being a decided voter to being an
undecided voter in an hour!'
Tamsin: Doesn't this show what a poor system it is, the actual
voting system, that we are all voting for people we don't
necessarily want to vote for just because of tactics. My son
teaches abroad, but he just says that you should go and spoil your
vote, because you should be voicing your right to vote but voicing
your dissatisfaction with the entire system, because none of us
feel, I don't think, from what I've heard, that we've got anybody
that we really feel that we want to vote for.
Beatrice: As a past staunch Lib Dem it used to be so
frustrating, because we would get so many votes and so few seats
because of the electoral system in this country.
Moderator: And also people who live in really, really safe
seats. I could vote Green, I could vote Labour tactically, ****
seat over in Colchester. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter
because it's a safe seat. I feel like I should vote but it doesn't
really matter where I put my vote. And that's part of the reason
why think it's difficult to decide, especially if you feel like
voting is something you should do, but what does it mean behind it?
And that's why we're doing this, because we want to get this out,
the frustration or the complexity, all the things that people have
to weigh up.
Tamsin: Absolutely, because as a woman I really feel… In history
we had to fight like mad to get a vote and we should use our vote.
I feel passionately about it. But when you've got hardly anyone you
want to vote for it's a bit frustrating, isn't it?
Kathryn: I agree totally with that, you want to vote but it's
almost like you're voting against your intention. If someone said
which of the parties would you be interested or which of them you
might be interested in might be totally different to what you vote
for because you're actually thinking the very least I need to do is
make sure that UKIP doesn't get in so I might have to vote for
someone else. So it's very imbalanced.
Moderator: And there's a lot of very bitter Lib Dem voters.
There was a guy in 2010 in my group in Essex and he was normally
Labour but voted Lib Dem, because again, this is going to keep the
Tories out, lots of reasons to vote tactically. So he was like 'all
right, that's it, I'm going to vote Lib Dem this time around,' and
it came to the post-election and he was like 'never again, never
again, I've cut off my nose to spite my face.' So sometimes when
you vote tactically you end up not getting what you wanted.
Edwina: Your vote is useless really in a tactical vote because
you're not voting for the… And I think the problem is more or less
all the parties have got a good, one aspect or two aspects of good
and that's something that you think you want to vote for, but you
can't vote for them all. So you'd have a policy coalition really,
wouldn't you?
Moderator: Kathryn, how about you?
Kathryn: I think, again, it's going to be a case for me of away
from ****. So the people that I might consider their policies and
have voted in the past, it's more to prevent people getting in, and
also because, you know, I mean, it's the first coalition anybody's
had in living memory, a hundred years. But that was a new thing and
when everybody voted last time I don't think anybody actually
expected it. But obviously now it's constantly talking about will
this person have the coalition, we'll go with this person, and all
of this, which will probably be totally different after the
election anyway, and that wasn't a possibility, it was always
everybody assumed it's just going to be one party and you vote for
that one party, and now you've got that other factor to build in,
to say, actually if I'm voting but then will they pair up with
so-and-so and then be in? So it's difficult, I think, but it would
be away from him; my priority would be would be to stop UKIP
getting in, and then the Conservatives, I think. So that would be
my… I would be looking at what the polls were, really it's only
worth looking at a couple of days before to see what the current...
it's likely to be two days later, or what have you, and then vote
accordingly.
Moderator: So you'll be waiting right up until the election?
Kathryn: Yeah, I would think so, because it can change so much,
and also they publicise one poll and that's totally different from
another poll, and just see and then make a decision based on that,
and also the people that I would want to vote for as well just see
what their current stance is on a coalition with certain people,
although that doesn't always be what happens. (Laughter)
DEBATES
Moderator: So we talked a little bit about the debates, and not
everyone had a chance to watch it but you're probably at least
aware of it from the media coverage. It's not going to be a quiz in
terms of debate specifics about the debate process itself, and 2010
it was the three main party leaders on the stage and they pretty
much just visited English towns, I think, and it was very uniform
and everything the same. This time we've had more parties, we've
had seven parties up there for the first time, and then the
challengers' debate. Tonight we're going to have the three main
leaders doing town hall style things. So in general, talking about
having the leaders up there on a televised situation, do you think
that that's generally a good thing for politics or do you think
it's a bad thing?
Beatrice: I've watched all of them last time and this time and I
was so disappointed this time because it just came across as so
staged this time. Last time it was quite good and you felt like you
got quite a lot out of it but this time you could tell that the
presenter had someone in their ear and they were allotting each
person so much time and then cutting it off. So no debates got
going, you know, because it was so stage-managed. And we had all of
them up there, it was ridiculous, because, to be honest, I don't
want to listen to the Welsh lady and the Green Lady and…
Edwina: Record it and then you can... (Laughter)
Beatrice: It's not having time for debate. I wanted Lib Dem and
Labour and Conservative to be able to get something going.
Kathryn: You don't have a lot of opportunity to see that, do
you?
Beatrice: It was all so glassy and all the main ones had been so
prepared and, as you say, Ed Miliband was doing this... I know, it
was so false! You felt like punching the television screen; it was
awful.
Moderator: Anyone else on the debates?
Kathryn: I think the opportunity for the actual debate side of
it where they're actually having... And, like I say, where
someone's not counting them down and cutting them off and they're
thinking 'I've got to finish this quickly,' and probably, as a
result of having so many people on stage, it's limited their time.
But it is what you were sort of saying before about presidential,
I'm not sure that's the best forum for seeing an informed debate
between them and seeing them interact and seeing whether they can
hold their own, which is going to be the best litmus test. It's not
the best utensil, not utensil but the best way of doing it.
Beatrice: Because what you want to know for a leader, you want
to know can my prime minister stand with leaders of other countries
and hold his own, because if not, I don't want him as a leader for
my country.
Moderator: Edwina?
Edwina: I was thinking that more of like a Question Time thing
would be quite good. You know, they have a question and each of
them give, you know, whoever it is, and you can see the performance
of these different people, how they react to that question and then
you go back to the person who asked the question and how they feel,
and I think that possibly may be better, because they're sat down,
they're relaxed, presumably, they're more natural, it's not like a
choreographed performance, as you say. Somebody more natural, what
they really think, would be quite good.
Moderator: So if you could have a situation where, instead of
the seven people on all the time and people asking topic questions
and people going off, would you like to see them defend their
manifestos, they would have to stick to explaining what's in their
policies and why it's better?
Edwina: Yes, I would like the Conservative to say where the
benefit cuts are. They're frightened to say where the welfare cuts
are going to be and so we don't know, and now we've got all this
about we're not going to raise taxes. If you need money for
something, if there is another, heaven forbid, a banking crisis or
something similar to that, what are you going to do? And notice
they said 'when the Conservatives get in', it doesn't say whether
we have a coalition. If we have a coalition maybe they'll say 'oh,
we're in a coalition; we don't have to stick to that because we've
got to take into consideration the other party.
Moderator: Beatrice?
Beatrice: I agree entirely with Edwina. I think the Question
Time is a much better idea.
Edwina: Much more interesting.
Tamsin: Yeah, absolutely, than standing at lecterns, all
polished and make up done and everything. Just defending their
manifestos, that sort of forum would be much better.
Moderator: Kathryn, you were going to say something about the
debates?
Kathryn: I was just going to agree. I think probably maybe not
just one, maybe have three main issues, like economy or health, and
have a Question Time on that where they get a chance to speak,
where they're sat down, interact with each other, interact with the
public as well, asking questions, because again they can be drilled
with their manifesto. They have got set lines, 'if somebody says
this I'm going to say this' and things like that, whereas if the
people are asking the question it's not as practised and it's going
to be more natural. Again, you're going to get more flavour of how
they would lead, how they would interact with people and what
they're like. So I think it would be better, and again, more
interesting, I think.
Moderator: So the format, really. So can I ask you a question
here? If you had a magic wand and you could say we're just going to
get rid of all televised debates in the future, we just had them
for the two elections, we're never going to put the leaders on
television again to debate in the future. Would anyone use that
magic wand and get rid of debates entirely?
Beatrice: When they can't afford it, yes.
Moderator: If you had a revised forum, like the Question Time,
would you be more interested?
Edwina: [several agree] The other thing is, with the leaders’
debate, you notice that they're sort of arguing with one another
and trying to shout each other down, and sometimes when they're
doing Question Time they'll sort of say 'oh rubbish!' and they
don't give the person time to actually talk, and I think that's
wrong because they're sort of trying to cut them off so they can't
express their point because they want to think 'well, I'm better
than them' and show how weak they are because they can… And I don't
like that and I don't like that sort of thing when they interview
people, that some of the interviewers, say, on television, can be
very rude and don't give them a chance to say what they're saying,
try and trip them up and say things. And I don't like that; I want
people to be able to speak properly.
Moderator: You're more interested in hearing the policies than
watching them mess up.
Edwina: And I would like an independent, as I said, somebody
independently saying afterwards, assessing that so that you could
have an independent opinion of all the... They say this, this is
really what would happen, they say that, this is… I think that
would be quite good. And then perhaps we could have more of a...
make our mind up better rather than have people, these politicians,
saying 'oh I can do this and I can say that. Don't vote for him
because this is what's going to happen', to put fear into you. I
don't know how other people feel.
Moderator: Kathryn, how about you?
Kathryn: I think when people are interviewing, again it's kind
of a trend more now, it used to be a good thing, that you'd have
something like that where if someone wouldn't get to the point,
wouldn't answer and you knew they were being evasive, him, for
example, would be very strong on them and make them say that. But
it seems to have sort of bred now and mutated into other people
doing that where they're like (clicks fingers) 'answer quickly,
answer quickly', before they've had a chance to finish. And I think
'well, even if I don't agree with what they're saying, at least let
me hear what they're saying,' and that's a similar sort of thing,
there's a lot of barracking between the two of them when they're
having a debate rather than letting them speak and giving their
view and then saying 'well, what do you think?' 'Well, I think
this.' It's a lot of cheap shots and a little bit like the Prime
Minister's Questions sometimes, which wouldn't be as good as
Question Time.
Edwina: I don't like the Question Time.
Moderator: The PMQs?
Edwina: Yeah, I think it's terrible.
Kathryn: I mean, that's the only… Other than that, that was the
only time, and obviously it was limited to the two people
generally, but it was the only time you ever got to see people...
And that was really interesting.
Tamsin: They used to be terrific in the '80s when Margaret
Thatcher and Dennis Skinner would sit there and make a little poke,
and they'd be really funny and you'd find it really hysterical. It
was really good TV, really.
Kathryn: Yeah, but you got a flavour of them. The debates, I
wouldn't even say you got a flavour because it is so forced and
rehearsed. But you got a little flavour of that. But obviously
again, it's limited to we'll try and sort of shout and there's
jeering and things like that so it's not the best to hear the
information sometimes.
Moderator: So from your impressions of the media coverage, do
you think anyone in particular has benefited from the debates this
time around?
Beatrice: Nicola Sturgeon [several agree] She did come across
very well.
Edwina: Because we didn't know about her, did we, really?
(Laughter)
Moderator: Yeah, she's got very high favourables in Scotland
right now. And do you think anyone in particular was hurt, your
impressions of the coverage?
Edwina: The Welsh lady.
VOTER REGISTRATION
Moderator: So one of the research partners we have this time
around the Electoral Commission, because they've instituted this
new household based registration, and some people have been
impacted by it, some people haven't. And so has anyone here had to
do any new registration, you got something in the mail and had to
go online? It's okay if you didn't but they're just looking for
feedback from those people who had experience of it. That's okay,
we can skip that one.
OUTCOME PREDICTIONS
Moderator: And now onto the last one where you get a chance to
be the, psephologist is the technical word for those people, like
me, who try to predict elections, in terms of what you think is
going to happen after May 8, or on May 8, in terms of the vote
totals. So generally right now in the bookies your choices are
there'll be some kind of Conservative led thing, either a coalition
or supply and confidence, or a Labour led coalition or supply and
confidence situation. So does anyone, by a show of hands, think
that it's going to be a Conservative led something or other?
So right around the table, okay. Well, that wraps up our focus
group.
