How candidates were rated across eight BBC election events

Across eight BBC events, candidates in Guernsey's general election were questioned and tested - everything from their body language was analysed, to their ability to think on their feet - while one voter rated them all out of 10 on their performance.Seventeen-year-old Bailey attended all but one of the events: "I have learned who can think on their feet, who has well structured answers and who I'm going to vote for."A total of 78 out of the 82 candidates standing at Guernsey's general election took part, with only Bruno Kay-Mouat, Dicky Parmar, Tim Carré and Chris Machon not attending. The sessions saw potential politicians give a 90-second pitch to the public, before answering three questions from the audience and a meet-and-greet with voters.
The ratings out of 10 came from Rachel Rose, who attended every single one of our Your Voice, Your Vote events, and rated the candidates on their answers, body language and ability to think on their feet. For her, the top performers over the evenings were Jayne Ozanne, Simon Fairclough, Paul Luxon, Rob Curgenven, Tom Rylatt and Dr Andy Sloan.
Each candidate on the panel was given 45 seconds to answer the questions posed to them by the audience, which ranged from how would you address bed blocking at the Princess Elizabeth Hospital, to what could be done to better support charities. Some questions left candidates flumoxed, with one admitting she could not name any local charities, whilte another said he did not know what was happening to the Sixth Form Centre. Larry Melchick was another regular face in the crowd, which ranged from 80-130 people every night. He said the events convinced him to vote for some candidates and put him off a few others: "I think that it's fair to say that this is a good way to see whether people are impressive or not. "That's an easy way of saying it."To actually hear them speak, to see how quickly they're able to answer, how much they've thought about the issues, it's a great forum because you're giving them a very concise amount of time."A number of candidates after the event said they would have preferred to have had more time to answer than 45 seconds, with some asking for 90 instead.Mr Melchick disagreed: "It means that they have to have thought about the issues."
Jeanne and Peter Langford made it to six out of eight of the events and, between them, were picked to ask three questions across the nights. The two missed events meant extra homework for Ms Langford: "I'm very aware of the ones I missed on the two nights I couldn't come so I'm going to take particular notice of their manifestos."It's been fascinating to see nearly everyone."On the nights Ms Langford did make it to Les Cotils she focussed on how the candidates presented themselves and how they could make an argument. "You have got to be able to stand up and convince people. "I want leaders who will actually be prepared to stand up and say loudly what they think, like about GST, which was never presented as positively as it should have been in our lives."
Last year Guernsey's States agreed a package of tax reforms including a 5% GST (goods and services tax), a lower rate of income tax for earnings under £30,000 and reforms to social security contributions.Ms Langford's husband Peter said he had changed his mind on who he would vote for after having heard some of the answers from candidates. Filmaker Lars Janssen missed all but one of the events: "I think for me personally it was mainly interesting to see a lot of the new faces, but I was also kind of curious about the current deputies."I find it more important to see the body language opposed to what they're saying."
The way the candidates interacted before and after the event was one of the main attractions for Mr Janssen: "We had several people at a table that we kind of know, they're not really fans of each other. So it was sometimes interesting to see the dynamic."Following complaints about the behaviour of States members in the last assembly, he was focussed on candidates he believed could work together."I hope this States can get more done."
Retired civil servant Isabel de Menezes came to most of the events and said she found it helpful to decide who would be getting her vote: "It's helped me to understand who is going to be able to stand up in assembly and speak. That's very important to me."For Isabel, the breakout sessions at the end were the most useful part as it allowed her to pin candidates down on their policy positions."It's allowed me to see who was comfortable answering those questions and then to talk to the candidates afterwards and go into a bit more detail about what I want to know about them."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

26 minutes ago

• The Independent

What's the point of the UK talking to Tehran? More than you might think…

Europe's frantic diplomatic mission in Geneva may go down as one of its most arduous ventures on the world stage – and also one of its most consequential. The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany must persuade a battered Iranian regime to kow-tow to the US and Israel over its nuclear ambitions, or face likely annihilation. All three European powers would, of course, love to see the back of supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei's corrupt and brutal theocracy. But they rightly fear the regime's capacity to unleash death and destruction before it goes. If Trump joins Israel in the war on Iran with US bunker-busting bombs on nuclear sites, and it succeeds in killing Khamenei, there will still be plenty of Iranian hardliners left who will be willing to fight to the death. Previous inhibitions will not apply. That could mean use of a dirty bomb in the West, or chaos unleashed in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 90 per cent of the Gulf's oil passes. For the world at large, the stakes are that high. British foreign secretary David Lammy – after meeting his US counterpart, Marco Rubio, and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in Washington on Thursday – said that the UK was 'determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon". He thinks a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution, as Trump dithers over whether to attack the regime, as US neo-cons and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are demanding – or whether to heed the no-more-wars mantra of his Maga base. And so, in search of a diplomatic solution, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is meeting with his European counterparts in Switzerland. But what can be achieved? For all their good intentions – French president Emmanuel Macron said the diplomats would make a "comprehensive, diplomatic and technical offer of negotiation" to Iran – the Europeans are unlikely to persuade the Iranians to pull back from the brink. At least not on their own. While one Iranian diplomat said Tehran was willing to pursue 'a balanced and pragmatic policy in its dealings with Europe, and engage rationally with both East and West', Araghchi said there will be 'no talks' with the US over Iran's nuclear programme while the Israeli bombardment continues: 'The Americans want negotiations and have sent messages several times, but we have clearly said that there is no room for dialogue.' But there is a useful point to holding talks on neutral ground with Tehran – and it's not simply to ask them nicely and face-to-face if they wouldn't mind stopping with their nuclear enrichment programme. Rather than relaying Trump and Netanyahu's demands to Iran, Geneva is about feeding back to the White House – translating Tehran's position for the US president. The Europeans aren't there to stop the war, they're Trump-whispering for the Ayatollah. It's not clear that European diplomats have the connections they need to have a greater role to play than this, useful though it will prove. But when it comes to a practical breakthrough, some of the Gulf states might, however. Behind the scenes, figures in what some dub 'Iran's deep state' – many of them members of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – are talking to representatives of Oman and Qatar; it might be these Middle Eastern countries that can make the difference, in a second stage of dialogue. Qatar, for its part, will likely hold more sway over Washington than London or Paris. All the peacemakers, though, will be battling the plans of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nothing less that the obliteration of the regime in Tehran will satisfy him. Worryingly, Israel's premier appears to have been joined by an increasingly pro-war Fox News, with Sean Hannity this week declaring that Iran 'is the biggest existential threat to the entire western world'. The West should have learnt by now – after the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – that enforced regime change in the Middle East is best avoided. Andreas Krieg, a leading Iran expert at King's College London thinks regime change in Iran would 'not be clean or peaceful'. If the current theocracy falls, there is no significant alternative political-social structure to lead this country of 92 million into the light. The IRGC, a ruthless military-industrial complex, would not easily cede control of the Iranian economy. Instead, with 190,000 personnel and a similar number of Basij paramilitaries to call on, it might well create a military dictatorship. The West and Israel would be back to square one. And the Iranian people would be no better off. Ironically, the last time the West brought about regime change in Iran – by booting out, in 1953, the democratically elected premier Mohammad Mosaddegh (for which we have British Petroleum and the CIA to thank) – it laid the groundwork for the emergence of the current Islamic Republic in the 1970s. In between rounds of golf, as he ponders his next steps in the Middle East, you can't help wishing Potus would be shown – by Lammy or anyone else – the relevant pages of a history book. It is within the president's power to unleash hell – or stop history repeating itself. After the Geneva talks, let's hope he listens to what the Trump-whisperers tell him.

BBC News

33 minutes ago

• BBC News

UK preparing to charter flights from Israel, David Lammy says

The UK is arranging charter flights to return British nationals from Israel once Israeli airspace re-opens, the foreign secretary has Lammy confirmed the government was working with the Israeli authorities to provide flights out of Tel Aviv airport, the number of which will be based on demand. Israeli airspace is currently closed due to the ongoing conflict with Iran. The two nations have exchanged waves of air strikes since Israel targeted military and nuclear sites, as well as military commanders and nuclear scientists, a week statement came as Lammy arrived in Geneva for talks with Iran, in the hopes of negotiating an agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme. British nations who wish to return home from Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories have been advised to complete a form with their email and UK passport number. Lammy said this was to "register their presence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be contacted with further guidance on these flights". Flights will only be provided to those who hold a UK passport, the Foreign Office said. Land routes out of Israel remain open and Lammy said UK staff will be on hand to support British nationals who have crossed the border - including providing transportation to nearby the Foreign Office said families of staff at the UK embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate in Jerusalem had been temporarily withdrawn "as a precautionary measure".The talks in Geneva with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will also include top diplomats from the EU, Germany and France.

The Independent

38 minutes ago

• The Independent

Poll of the day: Do you support the assisted dying bill?

The assisted dying bill returns to Parliament today for its final reading amid growing controversy – and a vote that could determine whether the legislation moves forward or falls entirely. A group of Labour MPs dramatically withdrew their support on Thursday night, citing serious concerns about the removal of key safeguards, including the requirement for High Court oversight. They warned that the bill had been 'drastically weakened' and no longer offers enough protection for vulnerable patients. If passed, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow people in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for a medically assisted death. Approval would be required from two doctors and a panel including a senior legal figure, a social worker, and a psychiatrist. Campaigners are making a final push on both sides of the debate, and with a narrow majority at stake, every vote counts. MPs have a free vote and are not bound by party lines. Supporters argue that the bill offers dignity and choice to those in need. Meanwhile, opponents argue it opens the door to abuse and erodes trust in end-of-life care. With so much at stake and such deeply personal questions at the heart of this debate, we want to hear from you: do you support the assisted dying bill? Vote in our poll and let us know your thoughts in the .