I know. I'm not an idiot. Hence the "".

IMO, it's exploitation of the dudes death for political gain. Maybe that's been common practice since the 17th century - but I still find it disgusting.

I know some here might find this utterly shocking but political parties and politicians are supposed to communicate with the public. This letter, and the many others like it around the country, are how politics is supposed to work - not some vast political juggernaut sat in Westminster but a local party activist writing to local voters about a local issue.

This is a perfectly standard Liberal Democrat letter format ordinarily used by councillors and local election candidates to communicate with the electorate. I know this because I have personally hand-addressed and hand-delivered thousands of them. Constant communication is something felt very keenly at the core of the Liberal Democrat Party - the clue as to why is in the name of the party. In this case, the standard format has been used to allow the previous councillor's widow to express public thanks and a public endorsement of her husband's successor.

However, SW says it far better than I can:

They're supposed to try to communicate to voters by exploiting the death of an (apparently) good man in the hope of a cheap sympathy vote? Wow, I thought it was by telling us what their policies are, how they will benefit us personally and how they will be good for the country. I can see how those two could be confused with each other though.

Jon

1. Who's "They"? This letter, i.e. the content, would most probably have been prepared personally by the widow.
   
   
2. What sympathy vote? She thanks people for supporting her in her grief, thanks them for supporting a charity and endorsing her husband's successor and party.
   
   
3. Why shouldn't a local activist write to local people about a party her late husband obviously strongly believed in and she still does? Why shouldn't she try to ensure some kind of legacy? Or, her husband being dead, is she supposed to just give, go home and disappear?
   
   
4. Are you really saying that politicians should only ever communicate policy? That their publications should never touch upon any aspect of human life other than politics and governance?

In short, what evidence do you actually have that this letter was written with any motive other than the purely honourable? Is it not even at least vaguely possible that this entire thread is a case of eisgesis?

Because, without having been there when the woman and the local party discussed this, we're all simply making stuff up.

You're either being staggeringly naive, or deliberately disingenuous.