Description Comments

"Beetham faces up to a furore"

More Info →

Description: This image was taken by the Evening Standard and was published on the 8th of March 1986. It depicts New Zealand Democratic Party leader Bruce Beetham.

The article ‘Beetham faces up to a furore’ by Alister Browne read:

“Bruce Beetham rules the Democratic Party roost and that's the way it's going to stay for a while yet despite calls from within for him to call it a day. Political reporter Alister Browne talks to the man who says he's fitter and healthier than he's been in a long time.

When you’ve just turned 50 and there’s a sudden outbreak of headhunting around you, the temptation to chuck it all in must be mighty hard to resist.

But Bruce Beetham says he’s no masochist, in spite of it all. The long-time Social Credit-now-Democratic Party leader claims to be relaxed in the wake of the furore over his deputy Garry Knapp’s decision to-quit politics and his East Coast Bays seat in Parliament.

‘I’m used to hard knocks — it's like water off a duck’s back’, says Mr Beetham, reacting to calls from in the party for him to stand down.

‘Let's face it — the leader of a third party in this country is battered to hell from all sides. Adding it up over the years it comes to something like brickbats, 10, bouquets, one.’

So what keeps this 13-yearr party leader running, a man who has fought five general elections and one by-election? A track record which, he notes, will set a New Zealand political record if he leads the Democratic Party into next year's election.

Put simply, he can’t see anyone else as well qualified in terms of experience and knowledge as himself to keep the party afloat.

‘Certainly there are people in the party with the capacity to lead it. But they need time to mature.

‘It’s ironic I should be challenged to stand down at the very point in my tenure when my knowledge and capacity to cope are at their peak.

‘The party's enjoyed an unparalleled degree of unity during the last 13 years under my leadership. It's a great shame that the current ferment has arisen just at the point when there is a good prospect of public allegiances changing.

‘You need a strong character and a thick hide in this job. The party will be in deep trouble if it replaces me and can’t find such a person.’

In case that sounds a mite defeatist, Mr Beetham is quick to aver that he will lead the Democrats into next year’s election.

Under the party's constitution, only annual conference has the power to elect or throw out leaders.

‘I don't believe there will be anybody at this year’s conference (scheduled for
August) with enough backing to unseat me.’ Say Mr Beetham.

‘I'm confident the grassroots want me to stay even if the majority of the hierarchy don’t.’

By hierarchy Mr Beetham means the party's 10-strong executive, which is in charge of the Democrat's day-to-day business.

‘It’s their responsibility to support the decisions of conference. They're not justified in putting anyone in the position of constantly having to look over his shoulder.’ Besides, they’re ‘very much a minority’ in the party, he adds.

‘They’re clutching at straws. It’s the single-action syndrome. They seem to think all good things will happen if we change the leader. The same people talked the same way when we changed
our name last year. But it’s too simplistic, especially when the great bulk of the party wants me to carry on.’

Take what happened in the 1984 election. As Mr Beetham sees it, his party's plunge to a mere 7.63 percent of the vote — trailing even the newly- founded New Zealand Party — had little to do with his leadership or image.

‘Our reverses then were due to a set of circumstances and external pressures over which we had no control, such as the Lange phenomenon and the Jones party.

‘That was probably one of the best campaigns I have ever fought, but nothing would have been enough to stem the determination of people to get rid of Muldoon.

‘And once you get pushed down you tend to stay down for a while.’

Continuing the scenario — and this is where the Knapp affair comes back in — Mr Beetham reckons the Democrats were just about to return to comeback trail when his deputy dropped a spanner in the works.

‘You've got to look at these things in terms of cycles. After a long low we were on the verge of gradual improvement in the next few months because public tolerance of the pain
inflicted by Rogernomics has just about run its course.

‘The long honeymoon after Muldoon is over and we would be one of the beneficiaries of this shifting public allegiance.

‘It will still come but what's happened now will delay it. That's why I felt Mr Knapp’s decision and timing — quite apart from the challenge to me — was completely inappropriate. The potential for us to make a significant advance was very considerable — and it still is.’

As Mr Beetham sees it, the Democrats won't face another 1984-style squeeze next year even if there is an anti-Government swing to National.

‘That won't happen because you've got the two major parties espousing he same doctrine.’

‘Take Rangitikei,’ says Mr Beetham, which he lost in 1984. ‘The farmer vote for National then was similar to that of 1981. People won't flock back to National because their policies are the same as the Government's. Besides what’s happened to us pales into insignificance compared with National's
leadership problems.’

For these reasons then, Mr Beetham has no plans to leave electorate which he lost by 504 votes last election. He admits damage to the Democratic cause as a result of last weekend's events but sees a certain irony over what took place.

‘Garry (Knapp) was one of the leading proponents of my retaining the leadership and working fulltime for the party alter 1984. He played a key role in selling the idea to conference the following month. It meant I would be free of time commitments in Parliament and free of electorate
responsibilities and so more able to concentrate on politiking.

I don’t know why he's changed his mind. What's changed? Sure, our ratings in the polls have stayed down but that's not much to do with the leadership. The public mood was to give Labour a fair
go.

‘It was the same during the name-change debate. Garry suggested that changing our name would of itself delivery an almost immediate revival in our public support. I see longer-term benefits from it.’

Mr Beetham talks of falling membership and lack of money, ‘It's the cycle again. I say to the
party: Don't misread the polls.

‘Obviously morale has been affected but it’s misreading the situation to take drastic action. I say, sit tight and hold firm.’

The famous Beetham grin flashes as he adds: ‘Do I look like the picture of a man who is over the hill and had his day? I don’t feel like a has-been.’

Ask his opponents on the tennis court. Mr Beetham has just made the finals of his local club's doubles competition. ‘Today I'm probably fitter and healthier than I've been in a long time.’ But there's less levity when it comes to talking about moves to dump the Democratic Party boss.

‘These are people who are trying to usurp the democratic will of the party as expressed by conference, which is our supreme body. Once conference has elected a leader he’s entitled to get on
with the job. In a sense what happened was bound to happen. I know the most common reaction I've had is that people have been unsurprised by Mr Knapp.’

He added: ‘All I want is for the grassroots of the party to give me an executive I can live with.’

To that end, Mr Beetham forecasts ‘interesting’ times ahead at this year’s conference.

‘There could well be a cleanout of the executive by conference.’

Okay, you concede. So the Democratic Party needs and wants Bruce Beetham for a bit longer, yet. But — again — what's the point of this seemingly futile exercise in head-bashing against the
electoral brick wall?

‘The idea of Social Credit won't die. We'll just keep on keeping on. Nothing can kill the power of a good idea.

Philosophically, we've been around a long time — 60 years — and as a party, since 1954. Social Credit remains the heart and core of the party.

‘What's happened is not good, but we can recover. I reject entirely any suggestion that it's done us irreversible harm.’