Socred vote big unknown this time

Press, 20 November 1978, Page 1

Socred vote big unknown this time

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

As the 1978 General Election campaign enters its last few days, New Zealand’s complex electoral situation revolves about the answers to three main questions: — How valid is the claim that a significant number of usually conservative voters will withhold their votes because of dislike or distrust of the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) and his policies? — How many usually Labour voters will refrain or turn elsewhere because of doubts about Mr Rowling’s leadership, about party control generally, or because of doubts about Labour’s internal management?

— How many electors, for these and other reasons, will recognise Social Credit and its leader (Mr Beetham) as a viable alternative to either. The bitter personality clash between National and Labour leaders has tended to obscure other issues, including the one that “it takes two to make a quarrel.” In the last few weeks Mr Muldoon has hardly been the abrasive character of the near past, nor has Mr Rowling maintain-

ed his “nice-bloke-next-door” image. Indeed, if the 1975 upset of Labour came partly from an unadmitted call by electors for a more positive government than that provided in 1972-75, there may be many electors today who are disappointed that this type of leadership has not eventuated. Government moves in the industrial relations and farm-assistance fields have angered many farmers, although the results of this malaise are likely to show regionally rather than nationally. The public-opinion polls have charted a doubtful course: one group shows diverging paths of public acceptance by the two parties, with National clearly ahead, while another suggests the possibility of a Labour win. Clearly, whatever happens, one will be proved “right” and the other “wrong,” which does nothing to establish the integrity of this method. There is also a fierce undercurrent relating to abortion, as if this has not been sufficiently exposed. One group has called on electors to show their views by recording their demand for prohibition in

the licensing vote. Another has called on those who oppose abortion on demand to vote for candidates whose views correspond to theirs on this issue. A national-circula-tion newspaper has al-

ready published a list of candidates who have expressed a "pro-life” view. Extreme views are easily expressed by candidates on many subjects but may be easily examined; — Mr Muldoon continues to draw audience reaction when he accuses the news media of bias or “bad reporting.” But details of policy have long been published by all four main parties and the constant repetition of policy details is no part of a daily reporter’s task. Neither news broadcasts nor newspaper columns have time or space for the repetition of what is really party-political advertising. — Mr Rowling and other Opposition candidates have made considerable play on the dictatorship theme. On the facts these charges do not stand up. Mr Muldoon has

positive views but on certain well documented issues he has been overruled by majorities in the Government caucus. He has accepted the caucus verdict and has incorporated it in further

planning for further submissions. These are not the trappings of dictatorship. The greatest unknown factor to emerge, however, is the impact of the Social Credit vote. If all the factors in voters’ minds can be assessed, no-one but the returning officer can determine their effect on the final ballot. This could be Social Credit’s election. I do not mean that Social Credit will win — even Mr Beetham does not expect that — but that the active presence of Social Credit will alter the results in a number of electorates. The shrewd leadership of Mr Beetham, the emergence of other credible Social Credit candidates, the building-out of the Social Credit policy into a rounded and credible pattern of alternative — a third way as opposed to

the worldly pragmatism of National and the expressed little-man socialism of Labour — have all helped. Mr Beetham’s main attack has been against Labour. The votes he. and his followers will draw will be from other opposition sources rather than from National. A National follower who is disgruntled with National policy may withhold his vote this time but is unlikely to vote Labour. A voter who usually follows Labour but who is disenchanted can still attack the Government by voting Social Credit. How would this affect Labour? This question is being asked with increasing urgency by top Labour officials. Mr Beetham has refrain* ed from personal attacks on the other two leaders and at times has expressed some admiration of Government moves. But the record shows that he has had a greater affinity with Labour in parliamentary matters. As a viable opposition member he has voted' more with Labour than with National, which makes his tactical view of Labour in Parliament highly relevant at this time.

“I never cease to be amazed at the ineptitude of the Labour opposition when it comes to strategy and tactics,” he said a month ago. “They are trumped every time by the Prime Minister. If I were leading the Labour Party they would not do about 90 per cent of the things they do and they would be doing a lot of different things.” There is no likelihood that Mr Beetham will ever be leading the Labour Party. There is a distinct possibility, however, that he could be Leader of the Opposition at some future date. The percentage of votes claimed by Social Credit in those publicopinion polls, however contradictory those polls may be in other respects, continues to climb. Social Credit’s rise is related almost directly to predicted Labour losses. Some sources have predicted a Social Credit vote as high as 25 per cent of the total. This is no time for anyone, whatever his or her opinion, to withhold a vote on Saturday. The verdict of the people should not be made by those who decline to vote.