General Election

Press, 10 December 1981, Page 20

General Election

Sir,—One good result from this election is the lesson I have learnt — to not vote ever again on party lines. Virtually everyone I know voted not for an individual but for a party. The parties are virtually forcing their M.P.s to do as they are told — or else. It is quite remarkable to consider what this means. If the M.P. only votes according to the wishes of his party why bother having him? He is virtually only' a rubber stamp! New Zealanders seem to have a craving to be part of the mob, fearing to be different. I, for one, will certainly not be supporting a party again, because they are virtually the same in their result, although I concede there are some differences in their rhetoric. Imagine a Parliament full of individuals who voted according to the wishes of their electorate and what is best for the country rather than what is best for the party. — Yours, etc., (Mrs) P. POLLOCK. December 9, 1981.

Sir,—Mark D. Sadler (December 9) misrepresents the points made by me in a previous letter in these columns. While I do claim that a Labour government would achieve “reduced inflation” as opposed to accelerating inflation resulting from current inept policies, I did not claim

“increased government spending” and referred to “fair taxes” and several other much needed policies,, few of which require immediate significant increases in government expenditure. The personal income tax cuts proposed by Labour were fully balanced by firm policies to recover compensating revenue in other areas, both in the short and long terms. The nonsense is therefore in Mr Sadler’s criticism; and there is no doubt that significant progress would be made in all the areas I listed by a fresh and energetic Labour government over its five year plan for recovery from six years of Muldoonomic disaster. — Yours, etc., D. J. O’ROURKE. December 9, 1981.

Sir,—Mark Sadler echoes the dilemma that must have faced all thinking voters this election — that none of the parties are capable of solving the country’s problems. All the alternatives presented by the “establishment” are as bad as each other. So why do so many people continue to vote for a continuation of the same outrage, i.e. even higher taxation, more unemployment, high inflation and less and less individual freedom? Are they masochists, or are they just unaware of the way New Zealand is deteriorating? Most of the candidates ottering themselves for election as our representatives refused to divorce themselves from their party’s virtual dictatorship over the way they act in Parliament. When voters reject this basic constraint on freedom and restore proper electoral representation to Parliament then we can start doing something about government interference in the economy and our lives. — Yours, etc.,M. J. STANLEY. December 9, 1981.

Sir,—The closing of the polling booth at Timaru illustrates the chaos in which our elections are conducted. I hesitate

to quote “Pommyland” to Kiwis but it is done much better over there. Each voter on the electoral roll is assigned a place, locally, where he or she is to vote. At the close of poll the voting papers are sent to a central counting station under the control of the Returning Officer for the Parliamentary district. There is no haste about the count. In rural areas it is done on the day after polling. Those who have reason to believe they will be away from home on polling day may apply for a postal vote which must be in the hands of the Returning Officer on the election day.—Yours, etc H. F. NEWMAN. Blenheim, December 7, 1981.