Bradford row injures Nats

Press, 25 February 1989, Page 24

Bradford row injures Nats

Oliver Riddell, of our parliamentary staff, on dissension in the Opposition

IT IS NOT just the forced resigntion of the National Party’s secretary-general, Mr Max Bradford, that has startled everyone — it is the suddenness with which it occurred.

The National Party had seemed placid and confident, secure in being 17 points ahead of the Labour Party in the latest public-opinion poll and virtually assured of victory in the 1990 General Election as the Government lurched from crisis to crisis.

Then like a bolt from the blue came the departure this week of National’s professional, competent, urban and urbane chief executive. His departure came with a flurry of leaks, and a picture emerged of a National Party riven with policy rifts and personal feuds. How astonishing this is when it seemed that all National had to do was to sit on its hands while day after day new crises assailed a reeling Government. How demoralising it is for the National Party faithful and the increasing band of supporters who were seeing election victory in 1990 grow from probability to certainty as the weeks rolled on. Yet to political observers this public rupture at National’s highest levels comes as no surprise and is certainly not over yet.

On four separate occasions — after the Auckland division meeting of the National Party in May last year, after National’s annual conference in Rotorua in August, after National’s publicity on its computer system last October, and finally in a New Year wrapup of political events — this reporter recorded that all was not well in the National Party. Those articles referred to deep divisions over policy directions and the effectiveness of the party leadership. The message back from the party was that there were no rifts, no feuds and no problems. Now Mr Bradford has been forced to resign. The bitter feuding at the highest levels of the party is out in the open for the rank-and-file to see. Mr Bradford is the first casualty but there are those in National who are determined that he will not be the last. Those who doubted what the political commentators were telling them had logic on their side. There seemed no sound reason why National should be feuding internally. It had gone ahead in the polls by a record margin and stayed ahead for a record length of time. Yet in the end Mr Bradford was a victim for a number of valid reasons. First, he represented the drive to centralise National at its headquarters and so reduce traditional divisional and electorate autonomy. He thus seemed to threaten to end the traditional volunteer base of National. In fact, the centralised computer system he was identified with still required door-knocking and a strong presence in the electorates. Second, he became a target for those who accepted greater headquarters direction was necessary but wanted it to be driven from Auckland rather than from Wellington. Parochialism contributed to his downfall. The first group — those seeking greater centralisation — is

associated with the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, and the second — those wanting the party to be directed from Auckland — with the president of the Auckland division, Dr Ross Armstrong. They were unlikely allies but they combined to get rid of Mr Bradford. Third, Mr Bradford was seen as an economic “dry,” professional and associated with other National dries. That too made him a target for the old guard of the National Party associated with Sir Robert Muldoon. Fourth, so high was Mr Bradford’s profile in National that he became perceived by the party president, Mr Neville Young, as a potential focus of other people’s aspirations rather than as a servant. When Dr Armstrong and Sir Robert mounted their attack on the Wellington-based administration of the party it began as a joint attack on Mr Young and Mr Bradford.

But as Mr Young changed his priority from protecting Mr

Bradford and himself to holding National together in the face of factional criticism — a proper priority for the president, it must be said — so Mr Bradford became the sole target. As a paid servant he was unable to defend himself. From being close to Mr Young six months ago, his relationship with his president became more and more difficult until he judged it was impossible for him to stay. Mr Young sought to give him six months’ notice, but the pressure became too great for that to be practicable. • So Mr Bradford has gone, but he leaves a deeply wounded top echelon behind him. His departure diminishes the leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolger, with whom he worked closely and became a personal friend. Because the challenge to Mr Bradford came through the organisation, Mr Bolger was unable to save him. But that will severely strain the relationship between Mr Bolger and Mr Young, according to party

sources. Then there is the question of Mr Young’s own future, and indeed of Dr Armstrong’s. Sir Robert is safe, although the day it all happened he exhibited momentary surprise at how successful he had been and was not clear what should happen next. Six months ago, Dr Armstrong was being touted as a potential challenger to Mr Young; now he is seen within the party as having combined with Sir Robert and Mr Young in Mr Bradford’s resignation. It will be hard for him to challenge Mr Young after this. There have been reports within National for months that Mr Young would be challenged. He has announced he will be standing for a third term and expects to be party president to savour a National win in 1990. The rumours keep coming out of Auckland that an Auckland challenger will stand against him. He may have headed this off by combining with Dr Armstrong and Sir Robert on the

Bradford issue. But he has angered those in the party’s top level who considered criticism of Mr Bradford should have been aimed at the party’s elected leader rather than as a paid servant presumably carrying out the orders of his elected superiors. Mr Bradford has been the victim of a campaign of innuendo against him. He has already said he plans to consult his lawyer about issuing a suit for defamation based on remarks attributed to Dr Armstrong in an Auckland newspaper. When Mr Bradford read Dr Armstrong’s remarks he told Mr Young he no longer felt bound by his promise of silence. There have been allegations that the software being used in National’s computer system has been pirated. This has not been substantiated, but the rumour has been around for months and National has not refuted it or dealt with it. Mr Bradford’s friends do not understand why he has been made the scapegoat. They are in the mood to look for a few scapegoats themselves. Yet it is all so bizarre. Here is a party with everything going for it deliberately exposing its own bitter internal feuds to the public. The high-flying National M.P., Mr Winston Peters, has an explanation for it. He puts it down to “a failure of leadership,” without being specific about whose leadership he is referring to. Mr Young said he was “absolutely furious at the leaks that have been involved in this exercise” which were making his job as president almost impossible. Labour is beside itself with joy at having the ' spotlight turned away from is own shortcomings. These are so many and so fundamental that it is extraordinary National should choose to distract attention from them. There was strong support from the Parliamentary caucus for Mr Bradford as secretary-general. Among the urban professional supporters of National he was seen as a key (if not the key) figure in presenting a National Party that appealed to urban professional voters. Yet it is two Auckland-based factions, where so many of the urban professional that National needs live, that have pulled him down. The bickering and feuding at the highest levels of the National Party over policy directions and leadership are now plain for all to see. It has opened wider the window of opportunity for those who felt after Mr Roger Douglas and Mr Richard Prebble had been demoted that there was now a chance for an Auckland-centred third political party. Mr Bradford was one of the most compelling reasons why Labour supporters disenchanted by the loss of Mr Douglas and Mr Prebble should flow to National. The forced resignation of Mr Bradford will reduce the ability of National to capitalise on that disenchantment among Labour supporters. [ Maybe it was just that Mr Bradford was too able a person for an employee role in the National Party. In retrospect it may be his very ability that set up more tensions than the National Party organisation could handle.