Editorial: New Labour version, or aversion?

The Labour Party will face a crucial test in mid-September when it holds elections for its deputy leaders and the party administration.

The party was left with a bittersweet taste in the wake of the European Parliament and local council elections in June. It comfortably won both contests but by a sharply reduced majority.

In its wake, prime minister and party leader Robert Abela argued that the people had shown they wanted Labour to continue to lead, but they also wanted a new version of the party.

He never properly defined what he meant by that.

In the weeks that followed the June elections, Daniel Micallef resigned as deputy leader for party affairs and Chris Fearne stepped down as deputy leader for parliamentary affairs.

Neither of them – or indeed anyone within the Labour hierarchy – stepped down over the electoral result. Micallef said his resignation was planned well beforehand. Fearne resigned over his arraignment in the Vitals case.

Since the election, Abela has sounded a more conciliatory tone, insisting that he was listening to the electorate’s concerns and that he would carry out change.

While we all wait to see whether the much-needed changes in the country will happen, the Labour delegates will be deciding on the next chapter of their party.

Will they vote for a ‘new version’ of the party? And if they do, what version do they want?

Will it be a more populist version made of unscrupulous politicians bent on wilting to all of their constituents’ demands, however unjustified, and at whatever cost to the taxpayers?

If the Labour Party wants to win over more voters, especially the younger generation, it must align with their priorities

Or will it be principled individuals who give true meaning to the two words that make up ‘social justice,’  people who can build the party without undermining its foundations?

The same, of course, applies to the election of the party’s administration. Will the delegates elect an administration that makes the party a guiding light for the government and an effective and efficient watchdog over its excesses? 

Or will the party become a stronger instrument of those excesses?

What the electorate demonstrated on June 8 was frustration over the ‘anything goes’ mentality gripping the country, and a penchant for short-term gain, even if it comes with long-term pain.

Many of the problems faced by the country today were created by the Labour government itself in the first years after it was elected in 2013, and those problems hang around the country and party like a noose.

While the elections in September are a party matter, they will have an impact nationally, not least because the deputy leader for parliamentary affairs will become deputy prime minister.

We can only hope that delegates will consider the bigger picture. If the Labour Party wants to win over more voters, especially the younger generation, it must align with their priorities.

These voters are increasingly focused on environmental sustainability and quality of life, rather than the unchecked pursuit of wealth that is threatening the country’s future.

The country would like to see a party administration which does not condone contempt of the law and elects leaders capable of challenging the status quo.

All political parties need deputy leaders who are not mere subordinates to the leader but are prepared to address and rectify the issues within their party and the country.

Will the delegates who once elected Konrad Mizzi as deputy leader, days after the Panama Papers revelations, produce a newer version of the party, or an aversion to the reality facing Labour?