Some councillors are only providing headline expense figures, while others are giving detailed breakdowns.

I think an nation-wide body should be responsible for reporting for ALL elected respresentatives and election candidates.

This body would function in a similar way to the Companies Registration Office. It would require the elected and non-elected to submit annual returns and accounts detailing all expenses and all sources of funds – whether direct donations, reimbursement from council or government, or private.

This would settle the transparency issue once and for all.

>1. Will candidates campaign accounts be made available to the public?

They are available in council buildings on request. Personally I would like to see them available online as many of us would have difficulty attending council offices during working hours.

>2. What period do the campaign expense returns relate to?

They relate to 90 days before the election. Sitting Councillors also have to complete a donations document for each year. I have not seen copies of those. These documents may have further information as to the source of the different donations.

>3. Is there a proceedure for further querying the returns >provided by the candidates, and if so, who can make these >queries.

I’m not sure but I certainly think there should be. There was also a wide variation in the quality of the returns. Some were very thorough and detailed, some were very sketchy. Some were not even internally consistent, e.g. subtotals and totals were not even summed correctly. I think there should be some kind of audit of these at least with issues highlighted.

>4. Is there a statutory body that audits the candidates’ returns?

Just the county council from what I can see.

>5. What constitutes a breach of campaign accounting and what >are the penalties?

A significant breach would be deliberate non disclosure. I believe the penalties can run to a jail sentence.

But I suggest that the law of diminishing returns is particularly applicable to the deployment of election posters. One is surely not more likely to vote for a candidate just because his or her poster is on every other lamppost for several kilometres along some main road. And in general they don’t impress: I can well recall occasions travelling round Dublin by car at election time, when the other occupants of the car have been making caustic remarks on many of the election posters, which in their opinion do no favours to the candidates pictured on them. Maybe, on rare occasions, some image on a campaign poster does catch the public imagination, or at least attracts the attention of the odd constituent.

Maybe candidates should aim to sure that there are sufficient posters around the constituency to ensure that potential voters will be aware that they are in the race, without clambering up to put a poster on every single lamppost? But a well-chosen poster or advert, in a strategic location, may catch more favourable attention.

Then there is the question of attracting the uncommitted voter, and hopefully attracting transfers from those who support other parties.

I do not align myself with any particular political party, and have absolutely no electioneering experience. But I have been trying to think through how things might work with regard to attracting support from such quarters.

Maybe in some cases some incident, or some social or personal connection, or some other non-political factor may result in the potential voter taking an interest in the candidate. Maybe in some cases that interest might be generated by an attractive portrait of a good-looking candidate. Maybe the candidate came across well in some debate or hustings, perhaps making some point that struck home. Sometimes, I suggest, the candidate may have been on the receiving end of some at least superficially bad publicity, which may well rebound on the perpetrators if sufficiently many constituents take the attitude that the candidate has been the victim of a dirty tricks campaign, and take a more personal interest in the candidate as a result.

So then we are in the situation where the voter has taken an interest in the candidate, and may, consciously or subconsciously, ‘want’ to vote for the candidate, or at least might consider giving that candidate a higher preference on the ballot. However the voter may well feel at this stage that this instinct to favour the candidate might not be rationally based. But he or she might perhaps be motivated to try to research the candidate, in order to decide whether, in view of the candidate’s background, CV, expressed political views, reputation, etc., the candidate deserves a vote.

This is where an online presence could be a distinct advantage. But I suggest that candidates need to have an active and sincere interest in expressing themselves online, if they are to benefit from an online presence. Of course, political blogs, Facebook pages and the like spring up like mushrooms whenever an election is in the offing. Many seem to fill up with rather impersonal stuff: manifestos and other campaign promises. And then, for some mysterious reason, those blogs and webpages seem to die completely once the election is over. Or else they are merely used as a cheap medium for pushing out press releases on local issues, and similar shovelware. I suggest that this rather limited kind of online presence may not be all that effective.

An effective online presence surely needs to express the personality of the candidate so as to engage the sympathy and attention of those who don’t have the opportunity to meet with the candidate in his or her (offline) social circle. Those who do not share the candidate’s political allegiance may want to assess (at least subconsciously) where the candidate stands on various issues, and determine whether they can really trust the candidate to ‘do the right thing’ in matters that are important to them. Above all, they need a sense that the candidate is not merely a cog in a political machine, but is a human being with whom they can empathise, and who deserves their respect, although they not share all the candidate’s personal beliefs and political attitudes, and indeed they may actively disagree with the candidate on some issues. And they may well be influenced by observing how effective the candidate is at responding to other people. Are courtesy and politeness always the rule? Does the candidate try to find points of agreement, and attempt to engage constructively with others of different views? Or is the candidate locked in his or her political world, unable to reach out to find common ground with others who do not belong there?

Well, the above might have relevance at least with regard to some potential voters. You probably have a better idea than I do how many.

(Aside: that Bodenstown oration. Text written down? Suitable for posting? Also any reflections on the occasion itself, and how it feels to be present and involved?)

1. Will candidates campaign accounts be made available to the public?

2. What period do the campaign expense returns relate to?

3. Is there a proceedure for further querying the returns provided by the candidates, and if so, who can make these queries.

4. Is there a statutory body that audits the candidates’ returns?

5. What constitutes a breach of campaign accounting and what are the penalties?