The Malta Independent
Firstly the fact that such an
internal conflict about EU policies had to be externalised on third party media exposes the lack of
internal space for such a debate upon which the general conference delegates
still have to deliberate and decide. Secondly it shows total lack of consistency
with other occasions where such externalisation met
the wrath and discipline of the Vigilance & Disciplinary Board.
Both aspects merit further consideration and analysis. KMB line of argument is hardly surprising. Even if KMB did not put forward the case for rejecting the Accession Treaty as signed by government last April inAthens
But political parties do change policies from time to time. Once policies get rejected by the electorate they would normally have to change to reflect the new realities as part of the quest to gain majority support at the next time of asking. But it is policies that change not the principles. So when a political party raises a policy such as the one about EU non-membership to the level of principle, it will unavoidably sail into confusion as it tries to convince its followers that the principle was no principle but was simply a policy.
Normally such shift of policies become more acceptable by a change of leadership. Things get debated. Policies get contrasted. Personalities argue and put forward their case and ultimately a vote is taken. The majority rules prevail allowing full space for the minority to argue and make their point. Normally after time the majority grows bigger behind the new leader and the minority, whilst holding on to their view, get less vociferous and allow due space for the new leader to execute his/her policies.
When however new policies get promulgated by the previous leadership who had mistakenly elevated the previous policies to principle status, they lack credibility. They harden the minority, if minority it is, in the view that principles should remain principles and cannot be reduced to policies by the same leadership that had emphatically developed them in hard black and white terms.
Can somebody suggest any reason why the internal debate on the new EU policies is being externalised over third party media and then allowed no space on the party’ inner mechanisms and party’s own media, whereas the independent Analysis report has been treated with utmost secrecy and rapidly buried into the Party’s darkest vault? If anything the contrary should apply. The new EU policy could easily be debated internally among the one thousand or so conference delegates with full space being allowed to contrasting viewpoints. The general public is interested mostly on what the policy is when it is decided upon, and has much milder interest on how the Party works to formulate and decides upon its policies
The analysis report is however of interest not only to the Party administration and executive. It is of interest to the general public, certainly those 134000 who voted Labour believing that its policies can gain majority support. These are fully entitled to know why this has not happened. They demand accountability as to who will carry the guilt for missing the objective which had been described as quite easily within reach.
It is time for Labour to shape up into a proper Opposition not least re-ordering its internal affairs and put logic into what should be externalised, as a duty not as a privilege, and what should be debated internally in the policy formation stage. Could it be that the strange willingness to externalise a pure internal debate is meant as a deviation from the need to give proper account to the conference delegates and the public at large of the election analysis report. Whoever elevated the EU non-membership policy into a principle worth losing an election for only to change it after the event has something to answer for.
Both aspects merit further consideration and analysis. KMB line of argument is hardly surprising. Even if KMB did not put forward the case for rejecting the Accession Treaty as signed by government last April in
But political parties do change policies from time to time. Once policies get rejected by the electorate they would normally have to change to reflect the new realities as part of the quest to gain majority support at the next time of asking. But it is policies that change not the principles. So when a political party raises a policy such as the one about EU non-membership to the level of principle, it will unavoidably sail into confusion as it tries to convince its followers that the principle was no principle but was simply a policy.
Normally such shift of policies become more acceptable by a change of leadership. Things get debated. Policies get contrasted. Personalities argue and put forward their case and ultimately a vote is taken. The majority rules prevail allowing full space for the minority to argue and make their point. Normally after time the majority grows bigger behind the new leader and the minority, whilst holding on to their view, get less vociferous and allow due space for the new leader to execute his/her policies.
When however new policies get promulgated by the previous leadership who had mistakenly elevated the previous policies to principle status, they lack credibility. They harden the minority, if minority it is, in the view that principles should remain principles and cannot be reduced to policies by the same leadership that had emphatically developed them in hard black and white terms.
Can somebody suggest any reason why the internal debate on the new EU policies is being externalised over third party media and then allowed no space on the party’ inner mechanisms and party’s own media, whereas the independent Analysis report has been treated with utmost secrecy and rapidly buried into the Party’s darkest vault? If anything the contrary should apply. The new EU policy could easily be debated internally among the one thousand or so conference delegates with full space being allowed to contrasting viewpoints. The general public is interested mostly on what the policy is when it is decided upon, and has much milder interest on how the Party works to formulate and decides upon its policies
The analysis report is however of interest not only to the Party administration and executive. It is of interest to the general public, certainly those 134000 who voted Labour believing that its policies can gain majority support. These are fully entitled to know why this has not happened. They demand accountability as to who will carry the guilt for missing the objective which had been described as quite easily within reach.
It is time for Labour to shape up into a proper Opposition not least re-ordering its internal affairs and put logic into what should be externalised, as a duty not as a privilege, and what should be debated internally in the policy formation stage. Could it be that the strange willingness to externalise a pure internal debate is meant as a deviation from the need to give proper account to the conference delegates and the public at large of the election analysis report. Whoever elevated the EU non-membership policy into a principle worth losing an election for only to change it after the event has something to answer for.
No comments:
Post a Comment