General Election

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31224, 23 November 1966, Page 20

General Election

Sir, —“Unanimous” looks like becoming a dirty word like “neutral.” Mr Holyoake still insists on the authenticity of the “unanimous resolution,” although the Press Association statement clearly showed it to be apocryphal in the extreme. Indeed, the story collapsed when it was revealed that the reporter who started it all was “not present at any meeting of the troops when the resolution was put to them.” Such a resolution would be contrary to army regulations, but only now, when it seems certain that it would be refuted, is the rule upheld and the gag applied. A gunner, an officer, and a chaplain all deny knowledge of any resolution, so that all that can be said concerning unanimity is that all the available witnesses who have not been gagged are unanimous in having no knowledge of any resolution at all.— Yours, etc., VARIAN J. WILSON. November 22, 1966.

Sir, —Any hope Pat T. Sheehan may have had as to the existence of men of concern in the National and Labour Parties who would be willing to adopt the statesmanlike course of putting New Zealand before the aims of their party was effectively answered in 1960. Before that the Labour Party had sufficient faith in the people of this country to pursue a policy which in the initial stages was harsh. They were labouring under the impression that the voter would be willing to undergo restrictions, etc., until the economy was on its feet; but no, the leaders were disillusioned when the unselfish and patriotic New Zealanders exercised their veto. With that as the result, maybe it is better to decline gracefully at the hands of an inept administration embracing a “she’ll be right Jack” attitude with one addition: “maybe.”—Yours, etc., R. B. WILDE. November 22, 1966.