Should we postpone going to the polls?

I REPRESENT a rural community on the county council. I know perfectly well that if the local election is held on May 3 there will be a large number of people in my area who will not wish to be visited by me or any other candidate. And although it will be much easier than previously to get a postal vote, many will not bother to take up that right because they have got other things on their minds.

They have got much to do. Stock to protect. Their livelihoods to safeguard. These people would not be exactly disenfranchised, but they would feel reluctant to participate in this process.

Pressing ahead would be a great mistake if democracy is to mean anything. We are trying to encourage people to take part in the democratic process. It seems a pity to put obstacles, however unintentional, in their way that prevent them from voting.

If the local election does go ahead, I will be very sensitive to farmers and smallholders who don't want me to approach their land or properties. I will therefore have to find some other means of getting in touch with them, by telephoning or writing to them. I have already written to all the farmers in my ward about foot and mouth asking if there is anything I can do to help.

As to the wider implications of a General Election, I think holding it at the same time as local elections is sensible. It reduces administration and costs, and the one encourages people to vote in the other. The turnout in my area at the General Election was 71 per cent; in the previous council election it was around 41 per cent.

So I believe both the local and general elections should be postponed until a more suitable date. We are in the middle of a crisis, and one that we are told is going to grow. Farmers feel isolated by this Government. There's a feeling of a growing gulf between the rural community and Westminster.

That's exacerbated by the field sports debate and the cutback in rural services, the post offices and so on. Country people are beginning to feel that they are not considered terribly important. Holding a General Election will only make this worse.

On the Today programme I heard Clive Soley, the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, say that the postponement of the election is going to send all the wrong signals to the rest of the world. That's absolute rubbish.

We have got a problem. Maybe we're not very successful in solving it, but we're trying to solve it. I think people in the international community will understand that the democratic process has been put back three or four months while we deal with the crisis. The experts are warning that foot and mouth is going to go on for three or four months. The elections should therefore be postponed until October.

No..says Chris Jukes, prospective Labour candidate for the Vale of York

I'M seeking to represent a very rural, farming community and people like me have to be very sensitive to the needs of that community.

I know many farmers where I live in Chester-le-Street and I know what sort of purgatory they are going through.

I don't think anybody really envisaged the situation getting the way it is, but the Government is taking a tough line to deal with the matter. It really depends on what action is taken this week. The decision to bury carcasses is a very welcome one, and if it needs more troops to go in, then they should be going in. But providing the smack of firm government continues and the sensitivities and needs of the farming community remain paramount, then I think that people will come around to accepting May 3.

If you look back in history, we have run elections even when there was a war on. If we don't have the election on May 3, how far do we take it? June? July? October? Next spring? I would be very wary of delaying it beyond May 3 because of the signals that would give out to the rest of the world that Britain is closed for business. Tourism is a billions of pounds industry. If the election were to be delayed, that industry could be affected by the message we're giving out that we're closed for business.

The government has to balance that against the sensitivities of the farming community. Farmers need total compensation, rates relief and financial relief. Then we've got to get a real grip on the foot and mouth crisis. I think actually getting the election out of the way may help that. In the run-up to the election, there is inevitably going to be some political jousting. Once we've got it out of the way then, whoever the government is, they can fully concentrate on foot and mouth.

There is the argument about the risks of spreading the disease by campaigning and canvassing. I'm very sensitive to that. If the election is going to be called, then the Government must take the best advice. Campaigning and canvassing is very important, and I know if I was a farmer I would be wanting to play my part in the democratic process.

But they can do that. Modern campaigning techniques these days rely heavily on telephone canvassing - you don't need to go and knock on hundreds of doors. Voting of course is a key factor. I think we would rely heavily on postal voting, but the Home Office would also have to be encouraged to look at electronic telephone voting. On internal votes within the Labour Party I am given the option of a telephone vote, and I don't think that probity is really an issue. It can be done.

As far as I'm concerned, the farming community is an absolutely essential and integral part of the UK, and will remain so. But for all the reasons I've given above, I do think May 3 is the best option.

Updated: 10:56 Tuesday, March 27, 2001