Selwyn candidate

Press, 26 February 1981, Page 16

Selwyn candidate

Sir, — Roderick McKenzie (February 24) is wrong in dismissing all Ruth Richardson’s opponents as parochial. Karren Beanland’s excellent feature article did not tell us why Tasman was deserted for a soft option in Selwvn. If she is as good as we are told, Tasman is just as winnable as were Rangitikei or East Coast Bays; but the effect on New Zealand would be. beyond comparison. Not since 1919 has a former Prime Minister, still leading his party, been defeated in his own electorate. The old Liberal Party never fully recovered from the shock of Hamilton’s victory over Sir Joseph Ward in Awarua. Ruth Richardson covered the Tasman electorate thoroughly in 1978, building up an organisation;

Hamilton started from scratch. She has backed off from a chance to make history. — Yours, etc., A. M. COATES. February 24, 1981. Sir, — Ruth Richardson has made several statements which need clarification. She says she was approached by “the local party organisation” but does not elaborate. An executive member said there was no official approach by that organisation. She came here on the electorate’s terms but does not say what they were or who made them. All her political experience has been gained in the south? Has she forgotten Rangitikei? Did she make a lifetime commitment to Tasman? She sees herself as a farmer and lawyers, etc., who own farms do not call themselves farmers. Running some sheep to keep in touch with farming; how naive. She keeps her farm up north for sentimental reasons. Who else can afford to do this? She states her opposition is in pockets; I suggest her support is in smaller pockets as shown by her campaign committee — four from one pocket and one from another. — Yours, etc L. G. RENNIE. February 17, 1981.