OH good grief ! Jo Carter is really unhappy, it seems, that there was no opposition to those who put their names forward for election to the town council in May.

She believes that it makes no difference whether one labels that elected unopposed, co-opted or appointed.

Actually, it really does. They are each different and mean different things.

An election was arranged for the town council. The date was known four years ahead (stand by, the next one is on May 4, 2023), people were nominated and seconded (yes, it does only take two people to put your name forward for the town council) and as there were more seats than names nominated on this occasion, those people were elected unopposed – that is the correct terminology.

You might be surprised how often this happens up and down the country, especially at a parish level.

The important thing is that these people put themselves forward for election: if there is no contest to be had, that is not their fault or doing.

The idea that being elected unopposed lessens the strength or force of one’s arguments or ability to represent one’s constituents is laughable.

I represented the views and best interests of my Bexton Ward residents for the eight years on the town council. The fact that for the latter four years I had been elected unopposed didn’t negate or nullify that. It’s a redundant argument to suggest otherwise.

Then there is the ridiculous suggestion by Victoria Barnes that as I represented Bexton, I should have no say over or be able to comment on matters which affect other parts of the town.

Arguably, anything which concerns the town centre of Knutsford will be of relevance to all residents of Knutsford regardless of in which ward they live.

Just because I was a Bexton councillor does not invalidate my opinion or my constituents’ views about matters which affect them on, for example, Top Street.

If one extends that argument logically, that would mean that our MP Esther McVey, should not comment on Parliamentary matters which do not affect Tatton. What utter nonsense.

But, of course, it all goes back to the fact that Jo Carter remains aggrieved that she did not get her way on the issue of the Makers’ Market.

I have nothing further to add to that which I have already repeated in my previous letter. Enough of the windy rhetoric: this correspondence is closed.

Simon Hutchence Knutsford