Apart from the fact that King Norm and his men managed to score a "landslide" with less than half the valid votes cast, the most interesting aspect of the 1972 general election, pundits seemed to agree, was the emergence of a shiny new political party. Under the leadership of ex-journalist Tony Brunt, the Values Party - a belated product of "end to ideology" thinking - excited liberals everywhere with its promise to redecorate the walls while leaving the structure intact. The image projected would have wowed them on Madison Avenue; it had all the style and unreality of a Coca Cola ad. The vocabulary was Now ("communication", "participation", "involvement", "decentralisation", "democratisation"), the reading list was up to date, if a bit gauche, and the spirit youthful, riding the wave of the ad industry's successful conquering of a hitherto hostile sector.

Beneath the exterior that Values tried to sell as real, however, major and minor antagonisms were evident. The Party decried materialism, yet wished to retain a materialistic incentive system; the Party wished to discourage advertising, yet used the slickest adverts in the campaign; the Party stressed and valued its youth image, yet advocated a stable population which would greatly increase the average age; the Party wished to redistribute wealth, yet leave the machines that create wealth in private hands; the Party wished to establish zero economic growth, yet - by some definitions - advocated a growth rate in excess of that achieved in recent years; the Party wished to retain links with our present allies, yet has expressed interest in recognition of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam; the Party wished to abolish the Security Service, yet wanted to "screen" Party members and exclude "extremists", the Party shunned leadership and machine politics, yet has recently been the vehicle for both.

Rag-Bag Issues

Many of the Party's current difficulties are the result of the sort of membership it attracted. Youth politics in recent years have been strictly issue politics - Vietnam, South Africa, the Security Service, cannabis etc. The Values Party, in seeking and attracting youth membership, built into its structure this sort of approach and adopted a markedly liberal stance on most of these questions. It attempted to tie up this rag-bag with a central but negative policy of zero economic and population growth, a policy of insufficiently imaginative and scientific proportions to secure a philosophical base by which the Party membership could be sustained during the waiting between elections. Party membership seemed to regard the 1972 election as an issue of a kind, perhaps with good reason. The bankruptcy of the National Party was apparent, that of the Labour Party suspected. A gulf, tenuously spanned in one direction by the law and press propaganda, in the other by an increasing state bureaucracy, was discernible between Parliament and the people.

Into this gulf the Values Party wished to pour the festive resources of participation, democratisation and decentralisation. In short, new directions were up for consideration. But with the election gone the issue was settled and thus membership tended to drift away. The result has been the waning of Values fortunes and it may have been this that produced divisive bickering in the Party and some challenge to Brunt's leadership — Brunt has consistently refused to anchor his political philosophy to anything more than an eclectic liberalism, fearful — as he admits — of the appearance of dogma that a consistent, scientific, global critique can sometimes take. Other members of the Party, aware of ebbing support and conscious of the difficulty of working reforms in the face of Brunt's possessive disapproval, have advocated and attempted to institute a flexible Party structure that could cope with the need for a new and more sophisticated policy.

Groping Towards Professionalism

At the time of the general election the Wellington executive of the Party — all of the candidates from the Wellington area and some of Brunt's friends — was characterised by the sort of informality which adherents wished to make the political norm, but the election whetted appetites for politics over social action and some felt the Party would have to organise itself more efficiently if it were ever to take on either National or Labour in a serious way. The hope was that the informality which has characterised previous deliberations — much valued by those activists central to the Party's formation — could be retained but moulded into a structure that could make maximum use of the resources and information available — much valued by the general membership which had been latterly drawn to the Party as an electoral force. This groping towards political professionalism gave rise to a final and perhaps decisive antagonism between what subsequently became Values ideology and Values reality.

Conflict of Visions

The first steps towards structural reorganisation were taken on December 16, 1972, at a moderately well attended (200 people) Wellington Regional Conference held at Victoria University. The Conference set up action groups selected spokesmen or spokeswomen who were invited by Brunt (who, although assuming the mantle of leadership, had only ever been elected to the position of co-ordinator) to form a new executive. One of those elected was the spokeswoman on education. Judy Allum, who said the Party should adopt the function of a social action group as its approach rather than a political party organising for electoral purposes. Her vision conflicted with Brunt's and she conflicted with him at a number of subsequent executive meetings. According to one course, Brunt sensing a challenge, talked of having Allum removed from the executive. But at that stage the executive contained a number of people who made up their own minds and Brunt's suggestions were not taken up. He wasn't sufficiently in control to do all that he wanted.

"Dump Brunt"

In Febuary came the National Conference and an attack on Brunt's leadership from a different quarter. Some elements in the Party were not happy with Brunt's leadership. The phrase "dump Brunt" was bandied about. At the same time Wellington's Guy Salmon suggested something that Brunt found unsettling. Salmon had been a persistent thorn in Brunt's side over the preceeding months, upstaging Brunt at meetings with cases that were always well prepared. As one Values member put it: "Tony read only the fly-leaf, Guy had always read the book." Salmon's suggestion was that leadership should be scrapped. He intended putting forward this proposition at the National Conference. When the two discussed the matter Brunt always found Salmon outarguing him. Further more, Salmon had evidence of the inefficiency that leadership can bring if in the wrong hands. The message was clear: if Brunt did not agree, the fight would spill over into the Conference, and the argument would spill over from the abstract to the concrete — Brunt's failings would be bandied about.

Brunt agreed to the reform. The vacuum which the move created in the Party needed filling and while those who were thoroughly imbued with the Values ideology were happy with developments, supporters in outlying areas and the small branches were not. By way of compromise, Wellington — thought by Brunt to be the strongest in support for Values — was given power by the Conference to establish a National Secretariat. Brunt returned to Wellington holding the opinion that he had been out-foxed by Salmon. The "We need you Tony" chorus from those intent on playing electoral politics convinced him that Conference's decision was not in the Party's best interests. It became obvious that in the absence of a formally elected leaders, the top-dog in Wellington would be top-dog in the Party. Brunt remained, for the time being, acting regional co-ordinator. Control in Wellington became the essence of his holding strategy. Salmon became an important figure in Brunt's strategy since Brunt suspected Salmon of having an eye on the leadership for the next election. Those in the Party closest to Salmon emphatically deny that this is so.

Upstaging

Early in March a meeting was held to discuss how to organise the Wellington Region in light of the discussion at National Conference. The existing executive (elements of which were not totally sympathetic to Brunt) favoured the retention of interest groups combing within their ambit research and activist sections. Guy Salmon and John Bartram (both sympathetic to this approach) were delegated to meet next day to formulate an organisational plan for the executive to consider. At the conclusion of the meeting, strongly pro-Brunt elements of the executive stayed behind to inform Brunt that he was being upstaged again. The following morning Brunt contacted Bartram, telling him not to meet Salmon since Brunt himself was going to write a paper on Regional Organisation for the executive to consider. In response to a question Bartram was told by Brunt that he was not a liberty to disclose the contents of the paper at that stage. Bartram contacted Salmon who said that he had already been telephoned and told by Brunt that Bartram had decided not to meet him. Unhappy with this discovery, Bartram talked to as many members of the 19—man executive as he could, finding as a result of these discussions that Brunt, in an effort to gather support, had told some of them what was to be in his paper, the essence of which was that a 19—man executive was too large and that six of the current executive would have to go. Apparently Brunt cited as authority for this proposition a study he had read on the psychology of organisational efficiency.

Bartram reacted sharply by calling an executive meeting to discuss whether or not the decision of the previous executive meeting (empowering Bartram and Salmon to write a paper) should be reaffirmed. Brunt of course was invited but seemed uncertain of whether or not he should attend. After reversing his decision a number of times he decided to attend. The meeting was something of a fiasco. Brunt initiated the discussion by reading out his proposals for reorganisation. The present executive, he said, had been the vehicle for cliques (a veiled reference to those who opposed him) and lengthy time wasting discussion. "I have therefore reconstituted the executive." It was apparent to some of those present that the new executive was weighted more heavily with Brunt's friends than the old. "Executive members may feel," Brunt said, "my arbitary reorganisation is undemocratic and dictatorial. It is." Brunt went on to justify his being arbitary and dictatorial by claiming — at a meeting initiated by someone else — that he was the only one capable of initiating such a change. When he had concluded Bartram delivered a strong protest, claiming that Brunt's proposals and attitudes contradicted the Party's principles of participation and democratisation. Brunt's paper was not mentioned again and the meeting metamorphosed into encounter group therapy. Two of the proposed members of Brunt's proposed 12-man executive confessed during the session that they were in the Party because of personal problems, another that he was only in it for "an ego trip". Emotions rose to the surface and several people were in tears as a result. With the table groaning under the weight of collective guilt, reconciliation was achieved and Brunt was given the go ahead to form not only a Regional Body but also the National Secretariat — however he pleased.

A Purge of the Wilful

Things thus appeared to be going well for Brunt — he at least seemed to think so. He wrote a letter to a Party member in the Auckland Region claiming that he had "purged" the Wellington executive of eight members, adding that he'd got rid of "the wilful young Guy Salmon", the architect of the Party's present malaise. The first meeting of the Regional Secretariat formed by Brunt was in early April. To this meeting Brunt's erstwhile opponent Bartram was invited. He was not, however, invited to a subsequent meeting. Although the Wellington executive had decided that the Secretariat should sit on any Regional Council that was established this decision was not implemented after the all-important Regional meeting on May 31, the meeting at which the Regional co-ordinator was elected.

Prior to this meeting, Salient put the suggestion to Brunt, then acting regional co-ordinator, that the coordinator for the Wellington Region would in effect be leader of the Party. "It is possible that in the media's eyes I would still be de facto leader, sure," Brunt replied. Salient also asked Brunt whether or not he would be standing for the position. "I don't know — ah, well, put it this way, it's going to be nominations from the floor. There could be a number of nominations," he said. Asked whether or not he would be happy for the media to propagate the view that he was de facto leader of the Party Brunt replied: "If I'm elected regional co-ordinator, every press release will be signed by me as Wellington Regional spokesman." Salient then questioned Brunt about the fact that the meeting was to be held on a day when a possible contender — the wilful young Guy Salmon — could not attend. Brunt indicated that he did not know of this until after "we" set the date of the meeting. It was too late, he said, to change the date. He saw no reason, he said, why Salmon could not stand in absentia.

Who Will Dominate?

The meeting on May 31 was attended by only 70 people. The Chairman — Denis Tindall — was selected by Brunt who had also drawn up the agenda. The first item was the election of a spokesman/co-ordinator, the second the decision on the organisation of the region. At the beginning of the meeting Bartram handed the Chairman a motion proposing that the first two items be taken together, presumably because he wished to discuss Brunt's performance as acting co-ordinator in the light of the organisational wrangle and because he did not want Brunt's organisational proposals prematurely legitimised by Brunt's probable election as regional co-ordinator. The Chairman, however, ignored the motion and began to talk about the need for a regional co-ordinator. Brunt was elected unopposed. Brunt then proposed that a regional council be established comprising 23 people — 10 more than the figure he'd earlier cited as being the maximum compatible with efficiency. This council was to be the supreme governing authority for the Wellington Region, but its powers were undefined.

Some Values members claim that this executive will not be dominated by Brunt and his friends, pointing to the fact that a proportion of the members are selected by the branches of the Region. This argument is weakened by the consideration that most of the branches are some distance from Wellington (for example, the Palmerston North branch) and could not really be expected to send representatives to weekly, or even fortnightly meetings. Furthermore, to the extent that they do attend these branches will apparently rotate their representatives who will thus be prevented from developing the necessary continuity of knowledge to combat the machinations of a central bureacracy.

Bartram was again dissatisfied and wrote to Brunt, calling on him to resign and protesting the treatment his motion had received at the hands of Tindall. A meeting of six (see above) of the 23-member council unanimously rejected Bartram's letter, saying that to do otherwise would necessitate another general meeting what's leadership for if not to make decisions? Bartram was subsequently asked to deliver a letter arguing his case to the Deputy Co-ordinator, Martin Leqner (selected by Brunt and approved by the Regional meeting of May 31) by Monday, June 18. He was subsequently informed that a further meeting of the council to consider his letter would be held at the home of Dave West on Wednesday, June 20. West, however, had previously told Bartram that he had been invited to join the council but had refused. In the event, the meeting was held a day earlier than scheduled, Bartram being neither informed nor invited.

The situation was further complicated by the fact that Bartram wrote an article for the Dominion mildly critical of the direction the Party is taking. After publication he was contacted by Joan Beaufort, candidate for Bartram's electorate at the election, who said she had been contacted by a member of the regional council and told that the article was objectionable. She hadn't, at that point, read it. Bartram asked who had contacted her and she said "Martin". Bartram understood her to mean Martin Leqner. After she had read the article, however, Beaufort rang Bartram back, indicating that she thought the article praiseworthy. During this conversation she admitted that it was Brunt who had contacted her, not Leqner. If Beaufort was satisfied with the article, however, Brunt was not. According to one source he initially contemplated disenfranchising Bartram's branch, the Kapi — Mana branch, but contented himself, in the event, with going out to give the branch a "pep talk" at a meeting to which Bartram was again not invited.

Tony's Baby

Those now on the outer — typified by Bartram, Allum and Salmon — see the arguments as being between the activists and Brunt backed by general membership. "The Values Party is regarded by Tony as his baby," says one ex-member, "and he resents any move which seems to challenge paternity." "Brunt started the Party," says another, "and now seems about to finish it. The truth was that the Party began to outgrow Brunt under the influence of its activists. Brunt put a stop to any further growth by ridding himself of challenge with the aid of his friends and the non activist membership."

For the moment Brunt seems safe, the Party skeletal, perhaps finished. It all seems a pity, for the Values Party hit upon one of the conflicts of the era: the lack of fit, as one writer has described it, between old theories and new sentiments. The Party's failure seems to have been the failure to recognise the fact that there is also a lack of fit between new sentiments and the institutions the old theories served. In turning away from the social action approach advocated by Allum and others and towards the electoral aspirations of Tony Brunt the general membership seems to have an approach that contradicts all the Party claimed to stand for.

Just Arrived From England!

The official engagement portrait of Princess Anne and her groom to be, Mark Philipps, by the Royal Artist: Tom Scott.