RECENTLY there has been a series of left-wing attacks on local residents like Bernard Slingsby, whose only crime seems to be that they are campaigning to keep open a council home for the elderly.

A few years ago I suspect that Labour activists would have been at the forefront of such a campaign, fighting for a school or a social services facility. How times change; now they vilify anyone simply trying to preserve some public service they value.

Arguments may be justified on both sides and points can be made for continuity of provision (there is no lack of demand) or change in the way it is provided (because of cost factors). But I fail to understand why Labour need to be so offensive.

Now they are criticising a campaigner for the terrible offence of signing an election nomination paper. Such a terrible thing to do! To make matters worse, and to compound their pettiness, Labour named the wrong person. It seems he had not signed it, but a relative had.

People will think twice in future about signing any candidate's nomination paper if they realise that they may be attacked in the local press for doing so.

Now I will admit that 30 years ago I did criticise a senior Conservative Party official who signed the nomination paper of a Liberal candidate who, at the time, was a well-known local government official (town clerk).

I felt then, and still do, that it is disloyal for someone holding office in a party to give public support to someone trying to defeat our candidate, but even then I did not resort to a press attack on the individual concerned. Mr Slingsby is not an official of the Labour Party and could sign for anyone.

The securing of signatures is not always easy for some candidates; it can be time-consuming and embarrassing for those of a more modest disposition. I have known some people sign for a friend because they believe he had a right to stand and supported democratic contests, but also made it clear that they could not vote for their party.

Such fair-minded people might well think twice if they realise that the Labour Party is going to expose them in the press for daring to assent to a non-Labour candidate.

By the way, I hope the judge will realise that the new consultation process we are undergoing on behalf of elderly persons homes has been carried out in an atmosphere of intimidation with a tirade of letters attacking anyone opposing closure.

In my opinion the process has been a sham because the homes selected for early closure are not admitting clients and the service in some is being run down in advance of the outcome of this "consultation". It is like consulting on the closure of primary schools but for a year beforehand not permitting any pupils to be admitted. There must be some way that a court could find this tactic unfair?

COUNCILLOR

ROY-E. WALKER,

Conservative leader,

Bury MBC.