THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1987. Mr Anderton and his group

Press, 25 February 1987, Page 18

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1987. Mr Anderton and his group

The Labour Party cannot regard without qualms the emergence in an election year of the Economic Policy Network. The group seems to be the direct successor to the "Broad Left” which was evident at the Labour Party conference last year. No conference will be held before the expected September election and the Economic Policy Network may become a group through which some of the party members' concerns will be voiced, just as they would have been voiced at the annual conference. All political parties like a sense of unity, particularly as they approach an election. It would be too dramatic to describe the formation of the group as a split in the Labour Party. The group’s power within the Parliamentary party is based on Mr Jim Anderton, the member of Parliament for Sydenham. He is somewhat isolated within the Labour caucus because of his critical statements there and in public; the existence of the group is not an immediate threat to the unity of the party. Only if the group became formally aligned with the industrial labour wing of the party would there be a significant threat to unity. A number of those in the group come from unions, but there is a difference between this and any formal alignment. At the week-end meeting in Wellington, only 75 attended the group. This compares with the 300 who attended the meeting of the “Broad Left” at the Labour Party conference. However, delegates to the conference were already in a position to attend the meeting and some of their fares would have been paid or subsidised by local branches; whereas those who wanted to attend the meeting of the Economic Policy Network would have to pay their own expenses. This means that the attendance may not be a clear indication of the support of the group. The criticism from the Federation of Labour and from the Combined State Unions of the Government may coincide with the criticisms from the Economic Policy Network, but this cannot be interpreted as the formation of a political alliance among the groups. Considering the difference between what the Labour Party has traditionally been understood to stand for and what the present Government has practised in economic policy, there may be surprise that more people have not formed dissenting groups within the party. The Labour Party has traditionally emphasised social concerns, protected employment, and kept a tight central control on the economy. The present Labour Government has certainly retained a concern for the poorest in society but, in following its policies, has been prepared to let the chips fall where they may over employment and has looked to the free

market to find a way through problems. So far it does not appear that the Economic Policy Network has anything like a policy platform. It rather gives the impression that it is grasping with relief at the sort of views espoused by Mr Peter Cullen, Mr Peter Harris, and Mr Anderton. These views favour a much more regulated economy, a general renunciation of freemarket principles, and taxes on financial transfers. The Government has tended towards the doctrinaire in its economic policy and doctrine will usually be matched with doctrine. However, it would be a mistake to view the Government as having been converted to a new doctrine without other influences. The world has changed since the hey-day of the first Labour Government and since subsequent terms in office. Technological changes and the heavy hand of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Community are but two examples of the changes. It is easy to suspect that the Economic Policy Network is hankering for a New Zealand and a world of days that are long gone. The political and electoral impact of the Economic Policy Network needs to be weighed. Governments need to appear to be in control if they are to be returned to power. If the Economic Policy Network seemed to be splitting the Labour Party this would certainly have an effect on the voters. Mr Anderton has been saying that the group is committed to the re-election of the Government. The greatest present threat to the Labour Party is abstention by voters, not a dramatic shift to the National Party. It may be assumed that, because many of those associated with the Economic Policy Network are party activists, they will not be among any abstainers and that they will urge people to vote for Labour anyway. The Labour Party is reported to have lost many members recently, but the Economic Policy Network will probably try to keep members within the party as well. The group may not have a profound impact before the election; but, if Labour loses, it may then become very powerful within the party. A Labour loss would be blamed on economic policies and those most intimately associated with the present policies would be in severe trouble. Mr Anderton may be seen as positioning himself against a Labour loss in the election. At the moment, he has little chance of rising to a position of prominence. If Labour loses, there will be a period of great turmoil in the party and Mr Anderton would have a better prospect of being listened to, and even of striding up the leadership ladder.