yes. When Labour were in power we went bonkers when they changed the rules to allow party names on Council headed note paper. We then promptly did it our self saying however regretable we had to fight fire with fire. Now we are in power we haven’t changed it back.

The second does not follow from the first. This is similar to the way in which MPs – ours included – (ab)use the Additional cost allowances in Westminster to produce taxpayer funded focuses (sorry neutral annual reports).

If we had some principles we’d oppose the practice and expose it – but we’d rather play within the system.

All of these shots could be proactive and our group office would mail merge any responses into a second follow up letter. In my 8 years I’d guesstimate my ward got 100000 letters.

all parties do it and its above board. if you add in 2000 bussiness cards per year colour coded in party colours and glossy colour coded surgery posters its quite a boost to incumbency.

An decent officer should have stamped on this mailing but you’d be surprised how few changes would be needed to make it legitimate.

As others have said i think this is more sober and appropriate use of opposition than usual.

Jonathan (and others): it looks as if the content of this letter was approved by at least one council officer, so I think “the council” was fully aware of what was happening.

I would be staggered if the council, even outside an election, would have allowed this mailing to go out via the post. I suspect a large number of letters were produced by the councillors or someone acting on their behalf which were then put into the post without the necessary authority being given for the use of the post.

When I have a mailmerge letter to send to my own constituents about a specific issue, I send a copy to the chief exec’s dept and get their approval for it before I have them printed and posted. And it only goes to those constituents who have raised with me the issue to which the letter relates. No council postal system can afford to let councillors use it as a free (for the councillors) mailshot delivery system.

It seems therefore that Kirklees Council needs to investiage whether or not their postal system has been inappropriately used by someone.

Quite how it is accounted for in election expenses is best left to the courts! Presumably if the cost of this mailing was more than £20, a receipt will be required. I wonder whether Kirklees will be prepared to give one.

Susan: as mentioned in the posting, the council actualy produced the mailing so they did know the contents.