Superficial view

I AM aware that this is the election season for local government and that one really should not yield to the temptation of baiting the candidates.
However, one of the letters in last week’s edition simply should not be allowed to pass through to the keeper without some kind of comment about style.
Kate Lempriere, according to her latest policy statement, wishes to continue as a councillor. Is that correct?
She presents herself to the electorate as an independent person, not controlled by political influences. Is that right?
I am ever so glad she was the one who introduced the notion of naivete, because I found her view of the impact of local government in our community to be just that, and absolutely fascinating. It must come as a shock to her to be told that there are folk in this community who want to say a number of things to her. To tell her that the opinions and advice she has so graciously offered us are totally inappropriate?
Personally, I found the letter to be not only patronising, but also pompous and a putdown. Indeed, I respond to her letter as a statement about what should be happening, but isn’t.
Is it just possible she is not the only person in this community who understands something of socioeconomiccultural categories such as education, demographic trends, population density, cultural diversity or conditions of the same?
These elements are part and parcel of our life in this community, but are by no means unique to it.
So, to be told “residents should try to understand and develop a generous, holistic approach to the infrastructure” is patronising, outrageous and nonsense.
Who is she trying to impress and who is she trying to appease?
In the last line of the letter exists what is probably her most accurate statement, albeit unintended, where she states: “I have hardly touched the surface.” Now that’s the truth!
Evan Laidlaw,
Pakenham.