The post you are reporting:
A report from Keef on the Dover Mercury Facebook page.
Hustings meeting Tonight at St Mary's
I attended tonights meeting with a number of other posters who im sure will be able to give there version of the meeting;
The meeting was chaired by the Bishop Of Dover whom I felt kept the candidates in check, for most of the meeting.
A number of subjects raised including
SOUP KITCHENS, FOOD BANKS, 0.7% OVERSEAS AID, FUTURE OF NHS, VOTE ON EU IN OR OUT, SOCIAL HOUSING ISSUES, HOW TO GET INVESTMENT INTO KENT, PROBLEMS OF INEQUALITY, and BISHOPS FINAL QUESTION TO THE PANEL, WHAT DO THEY THINK IS MOST CRITICAL ISSUE.
The debate got under way with a packed hall, attended by on the panel; Charlie, (con)Claire(lab), David(UKIP), Sarah(lib dem)and sarah (green)
The first question on food banks/soup kitchens was answered by Sarah Smith in my opinion it appears Sarah had rushed from somewhere else as took a fair while to get past stumbling her words. The best way maybe is look at many a few positives and a few negatives on each candidate.
Charlie; POSITIVES; Passionate, and knew his subjects and very able as a speaker, came across quite well was able to answer all the questions put forward and those from the floor, unlike the last meeting where his deputy really didn't do Charlie any justice at all.
Charlie; NEGATIVES; Maybe still not in the real world, did keep on about how unemployment was down and employees better protected, this is not the same as I hear day in day out where if people are not unemployed, they are working on the minimum wage and little job satisfaction.
Claire; POSITIVES; Claire without doubt is passionate and had answers to all the questions comes off as a friendly face that wants to help and how
Claire NEGATIVES; slides sometimes into anti tory speech, or when others speaking pulling faces.
Sarah(lib dem) Positives; passionate, has ideas that differ from others but quite able to answer all the questions
Negatives; Appeared not to be ready at the start and rambled a little, but once the meeting got under way recovered.
David; Positives; I think David did himself a lot of justice tonight in the main not sounding arrogant, and also explanations on the EU and how UKIP would re direct the money, also showed he had a passion for the seat, and the people of the District.
David; Negatives; David was correct in his assumption that projects such as the DITZ have taken to long, but then to take on the same people as candidates will be difficult for people to understand.
Sarah(greens) Positives; sarah didn't know she was on top table and really when you listened to her views, she put a far better case forward on behalf of the greens than the actual candidate.
Sarah; Negatives; Sarah was passionate, but sometimes the passion was taken over by rambling that wasn't really going anywhere.
So all in all I think at times the two main parties hid behind there national party, although it was nice to hear Claire disagreed with some past Labour party policy.
I think the seat will be very marginal, but quite as some feel it might go.
Iv predicted before but will again that the result will be be;
CLAIRE(Elected) then Charlie very close behind, then David, then Sarah(lib dem,) then green a long way behind.
keith