IF I WENT into the centre of Ormskirk today, picked 100 people at random and asked them what the local elections were for I bet most of them wouldn't have a clue.
Not only that, they probably also wouldn't know:
a) It was taking place
b) Which ward they live in
c) The candidates in that ward
d) Their current councillors
To be fair, I could go into any settlement in West Lancs, or indeed the whole UK, and still come up with the same stats.
I suppose it's partially to do with the fact that local elections are an irrelevance to many people. At last year's polls, only an average of 30-odd per cent bothered to cast their vote.
It seems that only certain issues (usually council/poll tax) pull people to the polls.
For instance, when I was a reporter in Southport, one year the council tax shot up by 9%. This setllement from the Lib Dems and Labour (a deal had to be struck between them as Sefton doesn't have one party which has overall control) left people flabbergasted.
The newly-formed Southport Party managed to turn this to their advantage and a few months later their of their candidates won seats in the town - and in the process beat the then council leader Dave Bamber. It sent political shockwaves through the town, albeit temporarily.
But to be honest, that is the only big issue which I've ever seen have a direct impact on a local election result.
I wondered whether there might may been a backlash against the new recycling collections in West Lancs but the anger felt by many didn't have much sway at all in terms of the final votes counted.
But 12 months on and at the Advertiser we still get complaints and letters so perhaps last year was merely the calm before the storm?
What do YOU think? To have your say, click on the 'comment' link at the bottom right hand of this post.
You do not have to give your e-mail address or website and can use either your own name or a pseudonym if you prefer. Join the debate now!
- Post to:
del.icio.us
Digg
Newsvine
Nowpublic
Reddit
« Previous | Home | Next »