THE PRESS MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1989. Few options for Mr Bolger

Press, 3 April 1989, Page 20

THE PRESS MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1989. Few options for Mr Bolger

It becomes increasingly difficult to believe that Mr Bolger will resolve convincingly the problems that beset the National Party. He has presided over an important caucus meeting at which the subject of economic policy and differences between Miss Richardson and Mr Peters were raised. He has spoken directly to Miss Richardson and Mr Peters, and made indirect statements, particularly about Mr Peters. He has issued a series of statements and replied to innumerable questions on the matter. After all this the matter is no nearer resolution. Mr Bolger is running out of options and if he now did something dramatic, such as dismissing Mr Peters, it would be seen as a panic, not a decisive, measure. Admittedly in Miss Richardson and Mr Peters Mr Bolger has two feisty caucus members. But political leaders have often had to accommodate outspoken and ambitious members within their party caucus; it is only one test that a political leader must face. In failing to seize the initiative in the row that developed between Miss Richardson and Mr Peters, Mr Bolger has not merely been unable to rid himself and the party of a nuisance, he has failed a major political test. His performance was no better during the row over Mr Max Bradford, the former secretary-general of the National Party, who left his post after strong disagreements over a computer-based system designed to boost support for the National Party. Many political leaders make a mistake or two and fumble the handling of a situation. Mr Bolger is, however, no political novice and the subject of Mr Bradford was still hot when the Richardson-Peters argument blew up. It might have been expected that Mr Bolger would have been quick to grasp the initiative when another potential row within the National Party presented itself, particularly when one of the protagonists is spoken of as a contender for Mr Bolger’s position. Mr Bolger’s position is difficult. The last

successful leader of the National Party was Sir Robert Muldoon, who demanded (and gave) great loyalty, removing potential challengers for his job and tolerating some around him who were not adequate as Ministers. Mr Bolger might be harking back to an earlier successful leader, Sir Keith Holyoake, who ran his Cabinet by consensus. But the age when it was possible to run a country in the manner of the Holyoake years has gone. The ideological split in the National Party is almost the same as that within the Labour Party, one group favouring a Keynesian approach, the other favouring a very tight monetary policy and strict curbs on Government spending. Mr Peters veers towards the Keynesian approach; Miss Richardson is a "dry.” Where, in all this, does Mr Bolger stand? He leaves a sense of uncertainty. While the National Party is intent on avoiding any return to the economic management style of Sir Robert Muldoon, the uncertainty that Mr Bolger leaves might seem as threatening to those favouring a dry approach as anything put forward by that acknowledged “wet,” Mr Peters. The further dilemma for the National Party is that while it is not in office it cannot put any policies in place in any case — and Mr Bolger is not demonstrating much capacity to draw popular votes. The National Party has traditionally been a party of pragmatism, not ideology. Now in the throes of an ideological split, it is uneasy and seems at a loss to know what to do. A leader of the National Party will have to say where he or she stands and have sufficient support within the caucus for a clear form of economic management to be advocated and practised. There are certain to be dissenters, but such factionalism will mark New Zealand politics from now on. If Mr Bolger has any chance of remaining leader, he has to lose the habit — a habit which once characterised many New Zealand politicians — of sitting on the fence.