I got a response to my letter, published in the Southland Times, in defence of the Government:
D Kennedy treats us to his usual mixture of fantasy at best and downright distortion of the truth at worst.
He seems to give the electorate no credit for being able to judge which political party is to be trusted when it comes to opinion polls or, indeed, the general election.
National's manifesto made no secret of the fact that a partial privatisation of certain state owned enterprises would be part of its plans.
No surprises there then.
Furthermore, if we added binding citizens' referenda to MMP, as Mr Kennedy and the rest of the Green Party would like, the country would grind to a halt.
A C CLARKE
I thought it was A C Clarke who was promoting a fantasy (of a responsible National led Government). I also find it interesting that when National supporters respond to factually based arguments they accuse us of distortion and lies, but never specify what they are.
I decided to throw some more facts into the debate:
A C Clarke's letter (26 February) reflected a flawed understanding of what constitutes good governance and I wish to provide some facts to dissuade him from his own fantasy.
National has pushed on with the partial sale of our energy companies despite the fact that:
- 47% of the vote in 2011 was not a clear mandate to progress
- 75-85% of people polled on the issue during the election campaign were opposed.
- The sales are not supported by independent economic advisors.
- The Treasury advised the Government, last december, against the mass selling of the companies.
- Out of 1430 select committee submissions to enabling legislation, 1421 were against.
- The signatures needed for the referendum will have been collected well within the year provided.
I agree that the constant use of referenda is not practical but in this case it is necessary to stop this nonsense and ensure that my children can benefit from the full value of these state assets well into the future.
Post Script: It has been pointed out that my original use of the term "blind support" is an unfortunate slight on those who have a disability. I apologise for any offence caused. "Irrational" is a much more appropriate description anyway.