Inept opponents McLay aid

Press, 4 December 1985, Page 1

Inept opponents McLay aid

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington The only hope left for the leader of the National Party, Mr McLay, that he might hang on is the inept way his opponents are trying to finish him off. Leadership was ready to fall into the hands of Mr Bolger like a ripe plum; by grabbing at it before it is ripe he risks if not missing it, at least delaying it \ The abysmal rating oi tor

McLay in the public opinion polls in recent months, and the 18-point gap between Labour and National, brought a majority of his colleagues in the National Party caucus to the point where they felt he had to be replaced. His obvious replacement was his deputy, Mr Bolger. All Mr Bolger had to do was carry on sitting quietly for the prize to be his. By rushing the issue of changing the leadership, Mr Bolger and his closest supporters have set up a coun-

ter-reaction within the caucus to prevent the succession. This counter-reaction is based on those who are loyal to Mr McLay. It is attracting those who do not think much of Mr McLay, but prefer his continued leadership to what they see happening. The first National member of Parliament to go public on what is happening in the National caucus is Mr Bruce Townshend (Kaimai).

He has been the numbers man in earlier campaigns

by Mr Bolger and is closely involved this time. Mr Townshend said a change of leadership was close, but would not say whether it would be this week or later. Mr Bolger was the front runner for the job of leader, with Mr George Gair looking a likely deputy. National needed to get everyone back into one camp, including Sir Robert Muldoon, who had a large sector of the communiity still supporting him. Mr Townshend said Mr

McLay. had led the caucus well but National had had a set of difficult circumstances over the year. The public had made their judgment and, rightly or wrongly, that was a fact of life. In all this the role of Sir Robert Muldoon is crucial. It is not so much that he is playing an active role in a leadership change — although he has said he sup- ; ports a change — but what i the consequences for him of a change will be.

Sir Robert can carry about seven or eight votes with him in a caucus vote. They will all vote for Mr Bolger no matter what happens, but will expect a recognition of this support from Mr Bolger when he is leader.

Supporters of Sir Robert would also benefit. The. former Minister of Education, Mr Merv Wellington, would return from seat No. 37 up by Sir Robert and drop his plans to contest his Papakura electorate as an. Independent in the next election.

But the support of Sir Robert and prospects of reelevation for him have several dangerous consequences for Mr Bolger: First, it would permanently alienate the top party officials — notably the president, Mrs Sue Wood, and the chief executive, Mr Barrie Leay — from Mr Bolger’s leadership. It would make for a verydifficult working relationship until and unless Mr Bolger can arrange their replacement by April-May next year. Second, it would drive some opponents of Mrs

Wood and Mr Leay within the Parliamentary caucus to support Mr McLay because they would prefer to have Mrs Wood as president than Sir Robert on the front bench.-

Third, it would involve the demotion of a number of McLay supporters within the caucus, thus cementing their opposition to Mr Bolger. One person, at least, would be demoted from the front bench, and possibly more — with Mr Venn Young (Waitotara) and Mr John Falloon (Pahiatua) the prime targets. Fourth, it would make the National front bench look even more like it was when National was the Government.

Fifth, it would make National seem as if it were playing a game of “musical leaders” among its top people, with Sir Robert being replaced by Mr McLay, followed by Mr Bolger. If, as seems likely, Mr George Gain now is to come in as deputy leader this impression would be confirmed further. National would be seen as changing names but not moving outside the original clique at the top. One of the reasons Mr Bolger is being seen by his colleagues as a replacement for Mr McLay is the hope

that he can reach an “accommodation” with Sir Robert This would, so the rationale goes, bring together the disparate elements within the National caucus and let them work as a team.

The Bolger camp means “accommodation,” but the Muldoon camp means “deal” and the McLay camp fears “deal.” These three attitudes to what is planned are putting in jeopardy the changeover Mr Bolger

seems to have sewn up. Mr Bolger seems to have the numbers to replace Mr McLay. He would have more support still if there were not fears about the reemergence of Sir Robert Muldoon as a major figure seeking a return to Mul-doon-era policies. Those policies cost National sweeping electoral defeat in July, 1984. Sir Robert has been a millstone round the neck of Mr McLay who sought to move

away from him; he may be a millstone round the neck of Mr Bolger who may return to him. -

To a very great degree it has been the failure of Mr McLay . to deal with Siri Robert that is costing him the leadership; to an equal degree it is the hope that Mr Bolger can cope with Sir Robert which is pushing him forward as leader, and the fear that he cannot that is costing him even more support