CERTAIN councillors recently suggested that any concerns electors had could be voiced at their "surgeries", intimating that this was better than refusing to vote at local elections.

I accept that everyone should vote to ensure that public opinion is fairly represented on local councils. Where it is not, we have such things happening as the election of a monkey in a city's mayoral election and, of course, the election of three BNP councillors in Burnley.

However, it appears that the days are gone when people ran for office in the hope that they could improve the lot of their fellow residents and their town. They have been replaced by egotists who engage more in "spin" than effective, honest, local government.

Why else did we have to wait until after the recent local elections to learn about the imminent closure or "restructuring" of Radcliffe's two care homes?

Lack of money was given as the reason for this drastic action, but this had followed the announcement, only a week earlier, of the proposed investment of millions of pounds to create a new market hall and museum in Radcliffe, which will do little to regenerate the town or improve the conditions of most of its residents.

Why not, therefore, scrap this proposal and use the money to help the elderly and infirm by preserving the care homes?

Many people, councillors included, will remember the last attempt by the council to close Red Bank House, and the furore which ensued. At that time, the outrage of the public, ably assisted by the then Member of Parliament Mr David Sumberg, forced councillors not only to re-consider their proposals but to finally withdraw them.

In closing, may I suggest that all Radcliffe councillors who have endorsed this shameful proposal should resign forthwith and, in the name of democracy, offer themselves up for re-election on this issue.

BERNARD SLINGSBY,

Howarth Court,

Radcliffe.