THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22,1980. National caucus should vote

Press, 22 October 1980, Page 22

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22,1980. National caucus should vote

Until yesterday the Prime Minister was speaking as if he did not expect a National Party caucus vote tomorrow on his leadership. By opening up the whole question of the challenges to his leadership, Mr Muldoon has looked for comfort to where his support and support for the Government finally rests; that is, with the electors and with party members in particular. Whatever the outcome of unsolicited and random reactions from round the country, the test is not fair or accurate. As a temporary political, manoeuvre it may look good and it may cause his challengers to think again. The test, however, is not a public or party opinion poll; it is not a substitute for an election. The public was offered a Government with Mr Muldoon at its head; the choice of leader was initially that of the National Party Parliamentarians. Whether a change is to be made, or Mr Muldoon is to be confirmed in office, the job remains with the party caucus.

The question of leadership has been aired and thrown open to the public by Mr Muldoon himself as much as by anyone else. He cannot close it, however self-assured he may be, by simply saying that the question has been settled. The question must be seen to be settled. Failing that, it will seem that it is settled simply because the Prime Minister says it is settled. This comes close to the very element that critics inside and outside the party find unsatisfactory in Mr Muldoon’s style of leadership.

The clearest way to end the matter, one way or the other, is to require a vote in the caucus. It will be surprising, given the confidence he has acquired in the last few days, if Mr Muldoon himself does not seek the vote. How else can he demonstrate, if he remains the leader, that changes have been made to satisfy those in his party who feel uneasy about their prospects of re-election?

One item in the message from the National Party’s Dominion executive to the caucus must be deduced,from the discussion since last week. The party’s president, Mr George Chapnian, wants the Prime Minister to end his baiting of the media. Few politicians feel entirely, happy , with the way they are treated by newspapers and broadcasters: the relationship is a mixture of trust, and hop?, and scepticism. Few politicians have '‘got so much on the nerves of journalists as has Mr Muldoon; if he thinks they are ill-informed, he lets them know; if they needle him, he needles : them in return. Perhaps overly self-conscious about all this, the media are prepared to give time and space to the latest exchange. The simple fact is that the Prime Minister makes news about news'.

"■ Commonly the exercise reacts against Mr Muldoon; worst of all, it

distracts attention and diverts time and space from what , are more important matters. The Tom Scott affair is a notable example and Mr Chapman has virtually said so. ’The Prime Minister might reflect that Mr Scott’s writings might be better informed if Mr Scott were admitted to press conferences along with serious reporters. A revised attitude to the press will not be sufficient to pacify those who complain about the Muldoon “style.” One much-discussed possibility is a change in the Cabinet. This raises the question of where the leaders of the palace coup will stand if Mr Muldoon is confirmed in office. To many, for the moment, they are crusaders. If they fail in their crusade to secure their own positions, to reinforce the party electorally, and to bolster their own chances of re-election, they are probably still too valuable in the party and’.in the Cabinet to be put aside or demoted. The Prime Minister can afford to be magnanimous and forgiving towards them, or even, appreciative if he wins a clear vote of confidence. He cannot afford to be vindictive, unless he wants to emphasise the very trait that causes some members of his party disquiet His propensity to put down people with whom he disagrees, when it is quite sufficient merely to disagree and give clear reasons, is one of the Prime Minister’s most alienating qualities. In his position, if it remains strong, such a quality is unnecessary.

Mr Muldoon’s scratchier moods and ways tend to make all the more attractive the ways of politicians who present a smooth-talking and urbane front to the public. Mr Minogue and Mr Beetham are notable examples of this counter-reaction to Mr Muldoon’s manner. The fact that they may really have very little to say, and even less to do, does not gainsay the force of the contrast.

Those in the. party hierarchy who may be uneasy about policy, such as the pace and extent of the restructuring of the economy, probably have an unimportant part in the consideration of leadership. On any reading of the last conference of the party, and of what has been said by Mr Chapman, the conclusion must be that the main concern is clarifying the policy and selling it to the public. If the public does not like the policy, it will reject the party as a Government next year no matter who is leader. At least the public is entitled to have a clear picture of what the policy is, and of what the alternative Labour. Party policy offers. This, in large part, is the duty of the media. At the same time, the parties have a duty to make sure that the picture is clear. The sooner the leadership question is settled, the sooner both the politicians and the media .can return to a task just as vital to the electorate.