Dear Editor,

Never high, but faith in political process and representation seems at as low an ebb as I can ever recall. I am placing hope in a few talented and public service-committed individuals, but frankly as it stands any party choice will only be on the depressing basis of who is the least bad.

When it comes to local issues, whilst I accept flag-waving can be useful banners to signify policy commitments up the chain, I choose more to look at the person, as the rosette seems next to irrelevant.

Who does the best job on the ground, serving my community’s interests most effectively, using the realities of funding and frameworks set from on high. So, though it always jars when people are played at any level, at a local one it is all the more distasteful. Especially when carried out using techniques akin to the most gutter of partisan tabloids on paid, professional politicians.

Our house had a leaflet delivered recently. I was interested in ‘news’ such as a fresh Tree Warden role, or a proposed vintage shopping trail.

However one ‘story’ caught my eye that overshadowed these, and not in a good way.

I have now read both the leaflet and what was cited, and frankly the Daily Mail or Independent would struggle to match such a hit piece. Beyond a clearly inflammatory effort at cherry-picking for outrage and effect, it falls apart immediately by offering near zero useful context.

As a private businessman in a competitive field, my experience of meetings is that most are not worth the time consumed, though careers are clearly made by calling them, pontificating or grandstanding at them. But yes, they are a necessary evil on occasion.

Most of those I have attended have been at best exercises in box ticking and/or rancorous, chewing on irrelevant personal tub-thumping bones of little value or interest at local level, though piquing interest if there is a danger of funds being misdirected or representations made that may not actually reflect majority town sentiment.

So I am much more concerned with who has achieved what, when, where and for how much outside panelled rooms, on our streets and with our services.

Looking at the link in question, it would seem the ‘shock research’ is based merely on a highly selective mathematical dip into some free-to-view open source information. This leaflet was delivered to my door. It says a political opponent of the author(s) has cost ‘me’ £1,122 per county meeting. I would like that figure properly broken down, please.

I can only presume these payments were made, have been in the past, and will be in the future, by meeting parameters agreed by all ‘parties’ with representatives mentioned (or not, of some four score names) prior to the two year period cited, during and beyond?

Peter Martin

Ross-on-Wye