General Election

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31230, 30 November 1966, Page 16

General Election

Sir, —Your editorial, “The Duty to Vote—and not to Abstain,” omits one important word rarely heard nowadays —conscience. It is no part of anyone’s duty to vote against his conscience, and large numbers of people have protested against the policies of the two main parties by abstaining or voting Social Credit. Rhodesia is not a mere political issue. It is a high moral issue—quite a different matter. Boycotts, sanctions, propaganda, guerrilla incursions and wars of attrition are part of twentieth-cen-tury life. “New Zealander” claims to be a supporter of Rhodesia. In what way does he support them? I suggest “New Zealander” remembers Evangelista Baton! Manda, the heroic Lilian Burton, and countless others murdered by the cruel N’Korao’s thugs: and then to ask himself if he can ever do too much for these people the world dubs “illegal regime.”—Yours, etc., D.V. November 29, 1966.

Sir, —Mr Kirk’s statement that the Social Credit vote was equivalent to a Country Party vote misleads. His statement has no foundation in fact. First returns show that 22 towns each returned votes of 1000 to 2000, while 12 towns each returned votes of 2000 to 3054.—Yours etc. DE ESS.

November 29, 1966. Sir.—As far as being governed is concerned, the principal issue in peace time is money. Even pulpits have to be paid for. Labour was wasting time with sentimental appeals on the Viet Cong problem. Money has odd breeding habits, but it does breed. Social Credit government would knock all the life out of it. Labour could well drop its title, learn more about the breeding habits of money and less about the emotions. Supporters must realise that the face-lift has failed, that the new look is still the old one, and perhaps advertise for a new party where clearheaded businessmen would represent them. Union funds would then be invested for breeding money for everyone’s welfare. It is not fair to leave everything to the sheep and cows.—Yours, etc., A. B. CEDARIAN.

November 29, 1966. Sir, —Press reports indicate that by their initiation of the now famous resolution, some New Zealand soldiers overseas carried out an action in direct defiance of military regulations. One wonders whether those responsible will be appropriately dealt with, thereby freeing the army from any suggestion of political bias. —Yours etc. SOLDIER BOY ’67. November 28, 1966.

Sir, —On the basis of figures published the average votes cast for each National seat were 10,773 (44 seats), Labour 13,041 (35), Social Credit 161,034 (1). Proportionally this would give National 35 seats. Labour 33 and Social Credit 12 seats, whereas the Government now represents a minority of the electors (474,003 to 622,207). If democracy is preferred to self deception we could reasonably search for a fail-safe point in our overseas pretentions, and if awareness points to traditional techniques as inadequate we should supply electoral reform to reflect public opinion in government attitudes within the perimeter of the universality of world law and order.—Yours etc. WEST WIND. November 29, 1966.

Sir, —Mr Lake’s comment that he was somewhat astonished by the number of fine people who voted for Social Credit, is understandable. Many people are somewhat astonished at the number of very fine people who voted for Mr Lake. If Mr Lake wishes to fire shots at Social Credit, he should at least be sportsman enough to have a crack at Cracknell in Parliament and not fire sour grapeshot at the opening of a new building. I know many fine people who voted Social Credit because Mr Cracknell stated his policy clearly and did not descend to the political mud-slinging of the other party leaders. Maybe Mr Lake could jack up another Monetary Commission to protect his financial policy.—Yours etc.

HOBSON’S CHOICE. November 29, 1966.