THE PRESS SATURDAY, AUGUST 30, 1986. Spreading the message

Press, 30 August 1986, Page 20

THE PRESS SATURDAY, AUGUST 30, 1986. Spreading the message

The warning issued to the Government by the Labour Party president, Ms Margaret Wilson, at the opening of the party’s conference yesterday made at least one thing very plain: the Government is not getting across a convincing message of its policies and intentions, even to its supporters. Ms Wilson said many party members were troubled and alienated by Government policies. She spoke of the “anxiety and concern” in the .community about the Government’s approach to the economy, to taxation, industrial relations, State sector reorganisation, and unemployment. If the party faithful are not persuaded of the wisdom of the Government’s policies, how can the wider community be convinced? Ms Wilson noted that the Government had broken with the traditional Labour approach to these issues. The Government, for its part, would argue that although the means are different, the objects are the same, and that existing circumstances do not permit the application of traditional formulas. The problem for the Government goes deeper than debate over what is traditional and what not. The Parliamentary wing of the party must see some irony in the fact that, in spite of the efforts towards open government, and the large sums spent in trying to inform the public of what the Government intends, the most active membership of the Labour Party have not got the message. This difficulty might arise, in part at least, because the party members who now

feel alienated did not have a great hand in the formulation of the policies the Government now follows. In great measure these policies were devised after the election. They were based largely on the theories and proposals of the Minister of Finance, Mr Douglas, which previously had been disavowed by the Parliamentary wing of the party under Sir Wallace Rowling’s leadership. If the party members feel so out of tune, as Ms Wilson describes, her own organisation must shoulder some of the responsibility with the Government caucus. Refinements and alterations to the party organisation were said at the time of the last annual conference to provide better communication between the sections of the party. Unless the party organisation itself is at odds with the Government, it is the organisation’s prime duty to make sure its membership understands what is being done and why. The Parliamentarians have wider responsibilities.

Nevertheless, it appears that a substantial section of party membership is not hearing, or not understanding, what the Government is trying to say. How much harder it must be to make the rest of the country hear and understand. Ms Wilson’s warning offers the Government the opportunity to consider whether the fault lies with the message, or in the way of telling it. The Government may well conclude that the party organisation is most at fault if the members are not getting the message.