In article , Tim Streater
writes
On 20 Apr 2021 at 20:17:59 BST, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]
but I got a call from a representative of one of the parties last
night, suggesting that even those they represent a minority of wards
in the borough, they do hold those in power to question and that in
itself should be worth voting for?

Whilst that sounds reasonably logical (from this political outsiders
POV), how do we know that those in power aren't doing what's best for
all of us (hah, I know ...) or that having this thorn in their side is
likely to make it as easy for them to do what they think best (and
after all, the vast majority in the borough voted for them) and that
this 'opposition' has any (more) teeth than they might with no
councilors in power in the borough?

The guy on the phone was pretty reasonable, no hard sell or
undeliverable promises, just this point re being able to keep the
incumbent in check? Can they (or can they more by having *some*
representation than not)?

You should always vote, even if the person you vote for is in a no-hope seat.
Equally, an opposition party should always try to put up someone against an
incumbent who regularly gets 60% of the vote. Why? Because if the said
incumbent has too easy a time of it at the election, they get complacent and
start taking the electorate for granted; they start thinking they "own" the
voters who vote for them. That is not good.

You could try to figure out whether your councillor is in it for themselves or
to help their constituents. Being in it for themselves doesn't necessarily
mean they're a crook. It can just mean they want the kudos and perks of being
a councillor without understanding that their job is to be someone people can
turn to for help with some local issue. Even then the councillor may not
always be able to sort it, but they should be seen to have made an honest
effort even if they fail.

Democracy has to be tested and people voting is the way to do it.

Most of an MPs time these days seems to be taken up with things that
should be done by the local councillors. This is partly driven by some
MPs need to be seen to be "busy".
--
bert