The election

Press, 26 June 1984, Page 20

The election

Sir, — As an ordinary New Zealander, I am greatly disturbed that the Socialist Unity Party has thrown in its lot with the Labour Party by supporting all its candidates in the forthcoming elections. It makes one wonder what deal these communists have with Labour in the event of a Labour victory. Mr Lange’s silence on the matter provides further speculation. — Yours, etc.,

NEVILLE HATLEE, Auckland. June 20, 1984.

Sir,—Another election and another round of first-past-the-post contests. How much longer must we elect our governments by this sham, democratic process? Where there are three or more candidates, the present system breaks down. This election I shall be reluctant to vote for my first choice because by doing so I shall improve the chances of my least-favoured candidate. The answer, of course, is elementary. The voter would list his or her preferences first, second, third. The lowest-polling first preference candidate would be eliminated, then second preference votes allocated and so on until the successful representative could be assured of office with a 51-plus percentage share of the vote.— Yours, etc., GORDON BAKER. June 21, 1984.

Sir,—Over the past week or so, we have been told that it has been established that governments change after an average of nine years in office. Therefore, National’s defeat in the coming election can be When did New Zealand 'ever have even one government which changed after nine years?

The term of the present Government remains uncertain until after the election, so cannot be included in those figures. The Labour Party has been active for 68 years, and for 48 of those years has been in Opposition. Of their 20 years in government their first term was for 14 years (1935 to 1949), followed by two three-year terms, 1957-60 and 1972-75. Two election victories, gained by the narrowest of margins, were due to the support of the four Maori electorates. The first National Government ruled for eight years, was the Opposition for three years, regained the Treasury benches in 1960, remained the government for another 12 years, was defeated in 1972, and was back in office three years later, where they have remained ever since.—Yours, etc.,

ISABELLA C. BROWN. June 21, 1984.

Sir,—Moral issues should be the most important considerations in the coming elections. These include the need to remove, as far as possible, anything in our nation which stunts or degrades our neighbours. Examples include corrupting influences in the media; the promotion of atheistic standards in State schools; legislation which encourages family breakdown; abortion; selfishness in business; and loss of individual freedom. We should oppose the misuse of alcohol by voting for prohibition. National prohibition is a worthy aim because liquor’s evil effects are immense. Policies of defence and law and order which embody Christian attitudes are also important. Leaders are understandably focusing on the economy. However, seeking personal material gain will not greatly benefit individuals or the nation. — Yours, etc.,

JOHN CANHAM. June 23, 1984.

Sir,—Sir Robert Muldoon should be aware that his patronising and denigrating comments concerning Marilyn Waring will lose him even more support of the voting population. A substantial proportion of the population have high regard for our women politicians and they will continue to vote for women politicians. I see his comments as being transparently anti-woman and they do not generate my respect.—Yours, etc., L. SCHMIDT. June 24, 1984.

Sir,—Having viewed “Close-Up” on television on Thursday evening, I was particularly interested in the section on Mr Lange’s arrival at Lancaster Park for the rugby test. On arrival at the park, Mr Lange was seen asking a gate attendant, “How can I get to number three stand as I don’t want to walk in front of the crowd?” This would imply that Mr Lange was not using the test as a political plug; rather, the Canterbury Rugby Union failed in its undertaking to meet Mr Lange and see him to his seat. This makes the rugby union officials’ outburst in the newspapers totally unacceptable. How about less of your oWn type of political outburst, and brushing up on your manners?—Yours, etc., C. GILCHRIST. June 21, 1984.

Sir,—H. Johnston (June 23) may be right about bias against the Prime Minister, but this is the season for reinforcing prejudices. A simple test for assessing one’s own bias is to imagine a given situation with the roles reversed. For instance, how would we view the dictatorial control of interest rates and our world-beating overseas debt, per head of population, if they had occurred under a Labour government? Indeed, if we had a National opposition, headed by a Sir Robert Muldoon, the depth of his criticism would exceed that of 1975. Where does the truth lie between his statements now and what he would certainly say in the role of Opposition Leader? As the Prime Minister who brought the economy to its knees, he now has the gall to misrepresent Opposition discussions of the necessary solutions, which may have to include devaluation. Truly, our recently be-knighted leader ■ has a lot to answer for.— Yours, etc., R. HARMAN. June 24, 1984.