The Labour media people have been making an inordinate amount of fuss because they've sniffed out the presence of someone who they persist in describing as a crafty spin doctor engaged by the Prime Minister.

Some weeks ago, Charles Crawford, a retired British diplomat, made a brief visit to Malta. He declared that the purpose of his stay here was to give professional diplomatic communications training to a small group of government officials, as agreed with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This consisted in instruction about official drafting, writing and speechwriting. For some reason or other, this innocuous training session was deemed to be quite suspicious by the PL and we read all sorts of exciting conspiracy theories. Chief among these was the one which had Crawford coming over to Malta to advise Lawrence Gonzi on how to deal with his rebellious backbenchers.

According to the super-sleuths over at Maltastar and One News, the decision to gag the Nationalist backbenchers by giving them an artificial promotion was a Crawford brainwave. I can't decide whether this sort of deduction is more embarrassing or absurd or if the allegations were not explained well enough.

What is more interesting is why the Labour media should rail against the importation of a spin doctor. Because, if there's one thing that the PL desperately needs - it's a good spin doctor, a political strategist, somebody who can lead the party out of the mess it's in.

Perhaps the City Gate saga has diverted attention away from the opposition, but it is clear to even the most casual observer that the PL is not gaining ground in either the credibility or the visibility stakes. This is due to several factors but mainly to the maddening insistence of Joseph Muscat not to commit the party to any one policy or initiative or project.

I realise that these are early days yet and that specific programmes and initiatives are to be listed in an electoral manifesto for the public's appraisal, but enough time has elapsed for the electorate to have a general idea of what the PL stands for. Even if the specifics have not yet been made clear, at least we should have an indication of the approach it intends to take. We don't.

Whenever I think of the PL, I can think of no one quality, no concrete policy suggestions, which are uniquely bound and identifiable with the party. Besides the hopelessly wishy-washy free vote fence-sitting about divorce and the "progressive-moderate" mantra, nothing much springs to mind when I think of Labour.

If this is the impression gleaned by a columnist who reads every line in all the local newspapers and watches every single discussion programme, what will be the impression of those who do not follow the political scene so closely?

Muscat may be hoping that floating voters or disillusioned Nationalist supporters will feel sufficiently annoyed at the Gonzipn administration that they will vote it out of office. I wouldn't be too sure about such a strategy. That's because free-thinkers who weigh up their options and are not the type to vote for their party come what may will be loath to opt for an unknown quantity.

They would not opt for fuzzy non-logic about issues such as divorce. If Muscat fails to nail his colours to the mast, the independent-minded voters are not going his way. The Leader of the Opposition should not bank too much on attracting the votes of disgruntled Nationalists. Disgruntlement is easily done away with by means of a raft of pre-electoral promises.

Muscat is forgetting one of the cardinal rules of an effective public relations strategy. And that is: "Define yourself, or others will."

It is vitally important for leaders to explain what they represent and how they are reaching their decisions, especially in times of change. If they don't, their opponents will pitch in, attributing unfavourable attributes to them.

I suspect Muscat gives away as little as possible because he fears he will be misrepresented in the media. He senses the anti-Labour vibe emanating from certain quarters, and the distortion of his party's message by some supposedly independent journalists.

In view of this hostile attitude, Muscat prefers to keep a low profile, not giving his critics anything they can get their teeth into, or anything they can misrepresent.

I'm afraid this is the wrong tactic. Laying low and trying to get elected by stealth is not the answer. If the non-Labour media are hostile to the party, something has to be done to beef-up the Labour media machine, to man it with people who can write stories about issues that matter (and not ridiculous spin doctor theories).

It also has to gear itself up to cope with the inevitable assault on all things Labour which will be carried out by the pro-Nationalist character assassins before the next election.

Carrying non-stories, replete with spelling mistakes and peppered with too many exclamation marks, just won't cut it. Shoddy, unprofessional media reflects terribly on the parent organisation.

Compare the sleek performance of the Nationalist propaganda machine to the amateur efforts of its Labour equivalent. While the former can make the Prime Minister and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando look as loved-up as John Lennon and Yoko, the latter simply gives an impression of bumbling amateurishness.

Labour had better take heed, because when push comes to shove people will always opt for the arrogant over the inept.

The title of this article was lifted from that of a news item carried recently. However, unless the PL gets its act together (with a legion of spin doctors if necessary) at the next general election, it might well be butchered at the polls like the donkey savaged by the pitbull.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt