Seventy-four years ago, Peter Ustinov starred in the cinema epic Quo Vadis. Literally translated as ‘where are you going’? Although for the historical purists the original alleged biblical utterance of the phrase would have sounded out as ‘whither goest thou?’
Peter Carr
To schoolboy Latin scholars (I was very much a struggler in that subject) it was much more exciting than droning on with ‘amo, amas, amat… etc’. Latin master Mr Sanderson, now sitting on his cloud no doubt still conjugating verbs, would have less than happy memories of my feeble attempts to grasp the depth and purity of the subject.
I start this special extra opinion piece in this style as a reflection of last week’s Cambridge Town Hall Chamber of Commerce election presentation. Candidates were put through the grill of short and sharp answers to (some very pointed) questions while the three mayoral candidates were tightly restricted to making their key points in 90 second presentations. Indeed, they had to be extremely clear as to where they are going.
It was a most interesting exercise, deliberately timed to precede the arrival, earlier this week, of the voting papers. There was a full house at the gathering with the audience possibly wondering, during the early stages, why this was the event for which they had delayed dinner. But as the programme warmed up it was clear that all candidates had to be very much on their mettle – as superfluous information was not permitted – and they had to indicate a capability to think on their feet.
Kelly Bouzaid explains the ground rules ahead of last Thursday’s candidates’ session in the Cambridge Town Hall. Photo: Mary Anne Gill.
Some of the councillor candidates struggled in this regard. Some came halfway to achieving clarity. Only four made it to the surface with sharp, meaningful and audience-appreciated applause. Some might have been clearer had they realised that the whole event was being filmed, and is available, on Facebook.
For the three mayoral candidates, being kept to a one and a half minute timing of their opening presentations would have been a first. And to their credit all of them managed it well and they must have anguished as to what items to disregard when squeezing in their beloved vote-gathering hot points.
A surprise for the audience was an ability to partake in an electronic (very much non-binding) screen displaying an electronic voting process. Cambridge voters would have been very interested to see the neck and neck figures for the current mayor and her Cambridge opponent. The councillor voting screen result had one shining star coming through, but a member of the current Old Guard was not far behind her.
The die is cast; there is no turning back now. It was interesting that the hot potato subject – the third bridge – only got a passing mention. That said the new council will be making a major mistake if it does not give full support to the newly emerging Cambridge Connections group – which is not just about a bridge – far from it.
Vote well and vote carefully – but at least vote. The eighteen earnest and honest people who presented their views last week have a right to expect good voter interest.
Cambridge Chamber candidates meeting
Cambridge Chamber candidates meeting with Peter Carr as compere. Photo: Mary Anne Gill
