Unsightly posters?

I was amused and irritated by the following letter to the Irish Times…

As an active member of our local Tidy Towns group, I feel that I cannot let Niamh Bhreathnach’s view of our activities go unchallenged (Letters, May 11th). The purpose and aims of Tidy Towns – which extend far beyond tidiness and encompasses, for example, maintaining and improving biodiversity – is to make our towns, villages and communities pleasant places in which to live, work and visit.
The Tidy Towns aim is certainly not to maintain “such a pristine condition that no hint of active daily life is visible”. However, if evidence of daily life involves the presence of litter, rubbish, and poorly positioned unsightly posters which detract from the appearance of the area then it is quite reasonable that they be removed.
The Tidy Towns organisation relies on the dedicated, unpaid action of willing hardworking volunteers. Maybe the letter writer should consider joining her local Tidy Towns group to support them in their endeavours. – Yours, etc,

I find the idea that election posters are ‘unsightly’ – whatever about poorly positioned – very much open to question. In truth I’d argue that, as someone with more than a passing familiarity with the area, that most election posters, indeed the overwhelming majority, are reasonably well designed at this stage.

I also think there’s a curious juxtaposition, in the above, between rubbish and unsightly posters. Is the letter writer really saying that an election poster is equivalent to trash on the street? Isn’t that a stretch conceptually? I’ve seen the occasional bad poster – a friend running the council in the 2000s had one that was, locally, well known for being rough and ready, but… few enough that would be rubbish.

And that’s before we get to the fact that an election has a time-limited aspect, is central to our democracy and so on. IEL has long spoken up for the necessity of posters. I think he’s right.