THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1986. Mr McLay’s deck of cards

Press, 12 February 1986, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1986. Mr McLay’s deck of cards

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr McLay, continues to look for a winning political hand and hopes that his latest caucus shuffle will hold a few trumps. Apart from the rapid demotion of Mr Bill Birch from number 3 in the ranking to number 12, and the slide of Mr George Gair from fourth position to number 11, the changes in Mr McLay’s “shadow Cabinet” are hardly exceptional. The greatest beneficiaries, in terms of promotion, are Miss Ruth Richardson, Mr Michael Cox, and Mr Doug Kidd. In any other circumstances their undoubted abilities would be sufficient justification for their front-bench rankings. The present circumstances, however, are not ordinary. Mr McLay cannot feel secure in his position even now, and many observers have been quick to draw a link between placings in the new National caucus line-up and reward or retribution for roles played in last year’s leadership struggle. When a party has been through such turmoil as the National Party has since its election defeat, it is easy — perhaps too easy — to read into every novelty a motive of sectional in-fighting or to see every event as part of a power struggle. Whether or not observers are entitled to analyse Mr McLay’s reshuffle in this light, he has done nothing to prevent such musings. The very pointed way in which Mr McLay has left his predecessor, Sir Robert Muldoon, at the bottom of the pecking order,

with no policy responsibilities whatsoever, encourages the notion that at least some placings in the line-up lack in magnanimity what others make up for in gratitude. Mr McLay’s own deputy, Mr Bolger, astutely observes that many caucus members are likely to be angered by the reshuffle and that Mr McLay will need “considerable leadership skills” to hold the caucus togethen Indeed, the renewed sense of division in the Parliamentary wing of the National Party might be the most pertinent result of the reshuffle. Stacking the front bench with supporters will not make Mr McLay any more secure from the activities of those who would replace him and who — as a result of reduced responsibility in party affairs — have more time to devote to their sense of grievance. Replacing members of the previous Muldoon Cabinets with young members, untainted by the Muldoon policies that Mr McLay seems to want to disown, will not distance Mr McLay from those same policies he supported as a Cabinet Minister himself and as Sir Robert’s former deputy. The real problem for Mr McLay is not presenting different faces, but presenting workable policies different to those being followed by the Government. This will be a greater test than simply arranging the responsibilities and the seating order of his colleagues.