CLLR Rod Kennedy seems to be digging a deeper hole for himself in attempting to defend his statement that there is nothing political in his comment that it is a waste of money (less than 50p per household) to hold a by-election after the death of a town c
CLLR Rod Kennedy seems to be digging a deeper hole for himself in attempting to defend his statement that there is nothing political in his comment that it is a waste of money (less than 50p per household) to hold a by-election after the death of a town councillor, given that there is only 21 months to go to the next election.
He now tells us that because the person died in office and was a member of the Conservative Party, that the civilised thing to do is to allow the Tories to co-opt a replacement.
Really, is that not politics, surely it is up to the town council to decide on the person to co-opt.
Do not people vote for an individual rather than a political party, even if that person does have a party affiliation?
He also states that a councillor takes an oath after election and so does not represent a political party.
Maybe, as he says, it's true that the Conservative party has changed in Royston since I was a member.
As the problem of a by-election is a local matter why is Mr Kennedy also introducing national politics into the debate? He reflects the Conservative Eurosceptic views. Is it really true that the Lisbon Treaty will "further transfer our democratic rights to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels"? What does he know about the subject?
CHRIS EAST
Shrubbery Grove
Royston
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here