Editorial

George Abela must be a great optimist indeed if, as he publicly proclaimed a few days ago, he has not been disheartened by the overwhelming vote against a motion to allow Labour paid-up members to vote for the new party leader together with the delegates. Optimism is a useful attribute to a prospective leader but, while Dr Abela may still feel that all is not lost, those who pinned their hopes on him for a root-and-branch change in the party might have had their spirits dampened.

The fact is that of the 793 eligible votes, only 165 were in favour of the motion. True, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that all those who voted against the motion are also against Dr Abela being elected to the party's leadership. Hopefully, they are not. However, since the idea for paid-up members to be allowed to vote in the election for the party leader had been promoted by Dr Abela, the conference vote was interpreted by many as a vote against him.

It is hard to understand how Dr Abela can find it satisfactory that only 165 voted in favour of the motion. To his way of thinking, this showed that people wanted change within the party. Dr Abela enjoys widespread respect and was − and still is - seen by many as the person most likely to succeed, if he is given the chance, to bring about the change party stalwarts and contestants for the leadership post have been talking about since the March 8 election defeat. It was believed that Dr Abela would have had a greater chance of winning the leadership vote if the party extended the right to vote for the election to paid-up members. The way ahead for him now seems more difficult than he might have, at first thought.

It is also hard not to draw conclusions from conference votes, subjective as these may be at this stage.

The most obvious one is that, despite all the declarations of intent made so far by the other party contestants and by so many Labour people about the need for the party to steer a new course, in fact the delegates appear to have chosen the status quo, that is, if the interpretation generally given to their vote is correct.

Of course, delegates may well disagree with this assertion, arguing that the other contestants are equally committed as Dr Abela to see that the party reforms itself in its bid to become electable again.

They may well be right but the point is that, generally speaking, and however hard this may sound on the other candidates, Dr Abela is increasingly being seen as the most likely candidate to have the greatest chance of reaching out to Labour people who for one reason or another have strayed away from the party since 1998 and, more importantly, of rehabilitating the party to a degree that would make it appealing both to new and uncommitted voters. This is the crux of the challenge facing Labour today.

The ball is in the delegates' court again. Those running for the top post have laid out their vision for the party and are raring to go.

However, it is up to the delegates to decide who of the candidates is best suited to transform the MLP into a modern party that could once again become credible enough to be considered as an alternative government, thus ensuring alternation of power. A wrong decision at this point in time could well lead to a situation where Labour would find it difficult to win back the trust required to make it electable again.