Labour policy

Press, 4 March 1982, Page 16

Labour policy

Sir,—Mr Rowling could be attempting to re-establish the right of the individual at “grass-root level” to directly associate with a particular political or industrial body, but is very likely, in the ultimate, to “reap” more than an alternative “crop.” I would suggest that a very close scrutiny is made of the quality, ability, and method of selection and nomination of candidates for political and trade union positions, not whether they “lean” to the “Right” or “Left,” unless it is intended to tabulate every person’s ancestral origins to ensure that their genetic make-up is correctly balanced. Members have always had the freedom to decide such issues, if they troubled to attend meetings. The operative word is “if.”— Yours, etc.,

R. W. H. WADE. March 2, 1982.

Sir, — Mr Rowling’s initiative in promoting debate within the Labour Party on union affiliation is evidence both of a healthy, vigorous, and still-developing political organisation, and of able, confident, and progressive leadership. In times past nearly all unionists were Labour supporters and the party was their political wing. Not so today. Consequently the present archaic system of affiliation must go. Unionist supporters now often cannot be effective and, in some cases, are prohibited from any form of association while opponents must sometimes be reluctantly accepted. Unionists need greater freedom to participate at electorate level, where they are now, largely absent. This can be achieved only if Labour-sup-porting unionis’ts can be distinguished from the rest and represented as such at all levels, with voting power relating to actual membership. This will strengthen union support for the party and vice-versa, and exclude all connections with opponents, be they Douglas, Anderson, or lesser union officers. — Yours, etc.;, D. J. O’ROURKE. March 3, 1982. ‘

Sir,—Our movement is delighted that Mr Rowling, as recently reported, is making a strong stand for freedom of association. Pledge No. 2 of our Candidates’ Integrity Pledges upholds the individual’s right to freedom of association and our nation’s freedom of self-sove-reignty and opposes any form of compulsory association. The Government’s decision to remove the monopolistic protection of the “Listener” is another progressive step. Pledge No. 4 opposes any kind of protected monopoly including State monopolies in the in-

terests of having competition, freely occurring.— Yours, etc., G: N. RUSSELL, N.Z. Co-ordinator, Tax Reduction Integrity Movement. February 28, 1982.