I was interested to read the comments by Mr David Sherratt in your letters column regarding the recent election.
No doubt defeated candidate’s votes were affected by the misleading advertising by the conservative candidates too.
But part of the “toxicity” on Marlborough Town Council that he refers to, is due to the legacy of the previous conservative led council, where they took the Council’s finances into effective bankruptcy. Not easily forgotten.
Of more interest should be that in Marlborough East Ward only 1,103 voters bothered to vote (an appalling 33.5% 2013 turn out compared to 40.8% in 2009).
This cannot give the winning candidate in East Ward any comfort, especially if misleading advertising, plus a big party machine only produced a majority of 25 votes, over independents.
Maybe a poor record of adding to the “toxicity” on the Town Council was a factor too?
In the Marlborough West Ward 1,221 voters, was a 40% turn out.
Same Town – different views of candidates?
For the whole of Wiltshire there was a 34.3% turn out for 2013, down from the 2009 election’s 43% turn out.
Jane Scott, leader of Wiltshire Council and the diminishing band of tories panicked by losing a single seat to UKIP, should reflect instead on why the appeal of Wiltshire Council interests only 34.3% of the voters.
Maybe they should look at the 1,354 spoiled ballot papers. There might be some useful advice.