How we score candidates at Hustings

The six criteria

Every candidate is scored 1–5 on six criteria. The total is out of 30.

Preparedness — Did the candidate arrive with specific local knowledge, or rely on generic party lines? A score of 5 means detailed preparation was evident throughout. A 1 means the candidate spoke in generalities and showed no sign of advance research.

Specificity — Did the candidate make actionable commitments, or offer vague aspirations? We’re looking for “I will do X by Y” rather than “we need to do better on X.” A 5 means clear, specific, actionable commitments throughout. A 1 means vague aspirations only.

Engagement — Did the candidate answer the question they were asked? Did they engage directly with challenges, or deflect? A 5 means direct, honest, fully responsive. A 1 means the candidate deflected or pivoted to attacks throughout.

Local knowledge — Did the candidate demonstrate ward-specific understanding, or could their answers have been given about any ward in any borough? A 5 means deep local knowledge was evident. A 1 means no ward-specific awareness at all.

Independence — Did the candidate bring their own perspective, or repeat what others had already said? Did they show evidence of thinking for themselves, regardless of speaking order? A 5 means consistently original. A 1 means the candidate repeated others or stuck rigidly to party lines.

Factual accuracy — When a candidate made a specific factual claim, was it true? We extract every verifiable claim and run it through our fact-check system (see below). If all checked claims score A or B, the candidate gets a 5. If any claim scores E, or two or more score D, the candidate gets a 1. If a candidate made no verifiable factual claims at all, they receive a neutral 3 — not penalised, but not rewarded either.

How scoring becomes the published ranking

The candidate with the highest total appears at the top of the card stack. The candidate with the lowest appears at the bottom. Position communicates the ranking.

We do not publish the individual numerical scores. The criteria and scale are public so you can see what we value and challenge our judgments. But publishing “Candidate A: 23, Candidate B: 21” would invite arguments about whether a 3 should have been a 4 on a single criterion, rather than focusing on the overall picture of who was best prepared to represent you.

Where candidates are tied on total score, we use editorial judgment from our observations in the room to differentiate, and note the reason.

The ★ Standout badge

Any candidate scoring 25 out of 30 or above automatically receives a Standout badge on their card. This is not an editorial decision — it is a threshold. If the score is 25 or above, the badge appears. If not, it doesn’t. If no candidate reaches 25, no badge is awarded. If multiple candidates reach 25, they all get one.

The A–E fact-check scale

Every specific factual claim made at a Hustings — and in party manifestos, leaflets, and campaign materials — is assessed on the same five-point scale.

😇 A — Accurate. The claim is correct as stated. The evidence supports it.

🙂 B — Mostly accurate. The claim is right in substance but is missing important context that would change how a reasonable person understands it.

😐 C — Needs context. The claim contains a true element but creates a misleading impression without additional information. We provide that context.

😬 D — Misleading. The claim mixes accurate and inaccurate elements, or frames true information in a way that leads to a false conclusion. We explain what’s true and what isn’t.

🤡 E — Not accurate. The claim is contradicted by the evidence. We show what the evidence actually says.

Claims we cannot verify from available primary sources are marked Unverified — we say what source would be needed and revisit if it becomes available.

What counts as evidence

We don’t use other parties’ claims as evidence. We don’t use media commentary. We don’t use inference.

Our evidence base is: the council’s own published documents (budget papers, committee reports, cabinet minutes), official statistics (ONS, DLUHC, LGA), verified records, FOI responses, and our own published reporting at putney.news. Every verdict includes the specific source so you — and the party — can follow the logic and challenge it.

Equal treatment

Every party gets the same methodology. Same criteria, same scale, same editorial standards. Before we finalise any verdict, we apply what we call the Party-Swap Test: if the other party had made exactly this claim, would we assess it the same way? If the answer is no, we re-examine the reasoning.

When a claim is ambiguous, we apply the reading most favourable to the party before assessing it. We’re trying to be scrupulously fair, not to catch people on technicalities.

All parties’ manifestos receive identical treatment. We started with the Conservative manifesto because it was published first. Labour’s will receive the same analysis. So will the Liberal Democrats’, the Greens’, and any other party that publishes one.

What we’re considering — and we’d like your view

We are thinking about adding a seventh criterion: Partisanship.

This would measure how much of a candidate’s time at a Hustings is spent criticising other parties as a substitute for engaging with the question asked — using attack as argument rather than offering their own answer.

We think there’s a case for it. A Hustings is supposed to help you decide who would best represent your ward. Time spent on “but the other lot did X” rather than “here’s what I would do about Y” doesn’t serve that purpose. And arguably, this dynamic — where political debate becomes a competition to land the best attack line rather than the best answer — is behind a lot of what frustrates people about politics.

But we also recognise it could be seen as unfair. Candidates from the governing party will inevitably face questions about their record, and responding to those isn’t the same as gratuitous attacking. Opposition candidates have a legitimate role in holding the administration to account, and drawing contrasts is part of democratic debate. Scoring “partisanship” could penalise both groups for doing their jobs.

We haven’t decided. We’re genuinely asking: would this make our assessment more useful to you as a voter, or would it introduce a bias we haven’t fully thought through?

If you have a view, we’d like to hear it. Email editor@putney.news or message us – a line or two is plenty.

This system will improve

This is the first election cycle where we’ve used structured scoring. We expect to refine it as we go. The Thamesfield & East Putney Hustings was our first run; we’re reviewing the framework before each subsequent event.

If you spot something that doesn’t seem right – a criterion that’s missing, a weighting that seems off, a verdict you think we’ve got wrong – tell us. The scoring system is open because we’d rather be challenged and improve than operate behind closed doors.