Loyalty had a place

Press, 20 July 1984, Page 1

Loyalty had a place

However, the division in caucus was less over whether Sir Robert should be replaced than when, how, and by whom.

Some of those who stuck by him were motivated by simple, old-fashioned loyalty. The member for Ashburton, Mr Rob Talbot, probably fell into this cate--gory. He would not reveal where he stood on the issue, preferring to confine his views to the meeting. However, the statement he made indicated that he was firmly in the Prime Minister’s camp. He said that “some people in the last few days” had come to “too hasty conclusions” and had tended to overlook the solid leadership that Sir Robert had given the party and his achievement in establishing a new economic base for the country. The member for Fendalton, Mr Philip Burdon, also wanted him kept on but as an interim arrangement and for quite different reasons. His motives were more complex and reflected his position as an up and coming member of the party. He told “The Press” before the meeting that he would firmly oppose any attempt to get rid of Sir Robert because he thought

that, he should be given the right to quit the leadership with dignity and that anything short of that was “vengeful.” The question was clearly up for review, he said, but should be deferred until the caucus first met next year when emotions had cooled and the dust of the election had settled. Mr Burdon said that Sir Robert had given his adult life to the party and deserved better from it than the public humiliation of being so abruptly dropped, especially as 15 per cent of the population and 25 per cent of party members thought that the Prime Minister “walked on water.”

He also remembered that National’s reputation had suffered in the electorate through the unceremonious dumping of Sir Robert’s immediate predecessor, Sir John Marshall. Predictably, Mr Burdon was delighted by the decision the caucus made, especially as the majority were in favour of a leadership change but wanted it done “nicely.”

The member for Marlborough, Mr Douglas Kidd, said that he had nothing much to say except that he was in sympathy with the position the meeting had

adopted. However, remarks he had made earlier indicated that his thinking was close to that of Mr Burdon on the issue. The last and the newest of Canterbury’s National members, Mr Jim Gerrard, the representative for Rangiora, said that he had “no comment whatsoever to make.” Those who moved against Sir Robert yesterday did so because they thought it was the will of the party and because they saw the time as ripe. Their chances might never be better. Sir Robert had just fought an election

campaign based on his leadership and had lost in a landslide to Labour and, had then antagonised support further through his clumsy handling of the devaluation crisis. There was also the nagging doubt that if he was allowed to hang on, even for this year, he might retrench his position through his known effectiveness in Opposition. Sir Robert yesterday bought himself time to do just that. Alternatively he may be made to step down when the leadership is next reviewed or go willingly.