 |
| Che? |
Someone signing 'Manuel' sent a very interesting and beautifully written comment on another post on this blog. I think that the questions it raises are so crucial that it deserves to be looked at separately.
Here is Manuel's comment:
"Ideologically speaking, there is little to differentiate the PL from the
PN. There is broad agreement about the nature of the economy,
international relations, the attitude to the welfare state - far more
than there was, say, 30 years ago(or even 15 years ago in relation to
the EU).
So, no cataclysmic change will occur should the Opposition gain
power in 18 months' time. It would be quite different if, for example,
in a fit of collective madness, Imperium Europa were to be voted into
power.
Any new polices will essentially be details to a socio-political
programme there is quasi-universal agreement about. We can afford to
wait until we get to know the finer points."
Allow me to invite debate by raising the following questions:
1) If the PN and the PL are 'ideologically' indistinguishable why is it that latter does little else but criticise the former on a daily basis and in the most militant manner conceivable? Why does Labour politicise everything, including the health of a minister, if the differences are so non-existent?
2) Now let us take the comment's point at face value: assuming that there are no ideological differences the only basis left for voting are people to be elected. So who is better at running the country the Nationalist Party or the Partit Laburista? Who would be the better prime minister after the election, Lawrence Gonzi or Joseph Muscat? Whose cabinet will be better when Malta takes on the EU presidency in 2017? These are the questions which the very essence of democracy invites voters to address. What are the answers?
3) Is it true that there will be no 'cataclysmic' changes if Joseph Muscat becomes prime minister? From the tiny number of things he has told us we certainly would. Read this post Who's Moody, Lawrence or Joseph? (Part 2) and if it does not scare you, a crash course in elementary economics might help you.
4) I can fully understand the instinct to change a government after more than two decades. But changing a government is not like choosing pasta with pesto instead of con funghi porcini. It has consequences in every sector, deep consequences. When you choose between pesto or porcini it is because you know what they taste like. So shouldn't we at least know what the next government might be doing every morning? Isn't this question more pressing given that the architect of its electoral programme is Karmenu Vella, a man who goes back three Labour leaders?
10 comments:
Answers to your questions:
1) It criticises the government because it is it's constitutional role to do so and because it keeps the government in check. The government would often do nothing if the opposition did not point out certain shortcomings
2) It would be impossible to answer this question since we have not seen Muscat at work - and that is why a lot of people want to try him. Other wise it is only a matter of opinion - Nationalists saying he would be worse and Labourites saying he would be better. You cannot say he would be worse because he is younger or has no experience since that is what the Mintoffjani used to say about Fenech Adami.
3)Again the 'tiny number of things' he has told us is irrelevant since ultimately people will vote in a year and half's time not tomorrow and by then they would have an electoral programme. What is the point of telling us what he wants to do now? Unless we are going for an election soon (which I doubt)
4) The issue, Lou, is not Lawrence Gonzi. Lawrence Gonzi is a likeable person although he made a number of promises which he has not kept. The real issue, as I see it is that people are sick of the Nationalist party in government. They are sick of the same people being appointed to government sponsored posts. They are sick of government infrastructure projects being built by the same contractors and they are sick of everything being done as part of an election strategy (for example leaving the income tax rises for the last budget - election after election). And no - this is NOT envy, its just that people want fairness. Some people think that one should be satisfied because of the fact he or she has a job and has a generally good standard of living.
But its more than that - our government is precisely what it is - OURS. We have the power to remove it or leave it there for another five years and the fact that the Nationalist Party expects to stay there forever since it thinks it is superior by default - really does not help its chances. A shred of humility would be better.
I agree with you totally Lou. I also think that the PL might seem to be "not so different" to the P.N. only because they do their best to restrain themselves from showing their true colours. Once they are safely in Castille they will let loose and we will see that they are the same people with the same outlook they always had. I too can understand that some people want change but I, for one, am not ready to cut off my nose to spite my face.
My point was that the parties are fraternal (if not quite identical) twins on the IDEOLOGICAL, not political level. You, of all people, should appreciate the difference.
It is blindingly obvious there is a strong tribal element to local politics, and that adherence to a party is often oblivious to what ideological principles the party is supposed to uphold. Some of the more horrendous racist comments gracing local for a seem to emanate from the "socialist" PL's supporters, while tens of thousands of Nationalist voted for divorce in defiance of the PN's Catholic-inspired position. But the different tribes have the same world-view.
The PL opposition hounds the governemnt on points of administration and politics, not ideology. It believes it has the men and the approaches to manage the economy,and the wider polis, better than the present government. However, if it wins the election, the national economy will still be run on broadly social market principles, with Muscat and co. (like GonziPN before them) still racking their brains about how best to accommodate the disparate demands of enhancing private income on teh one hand and funding a burgeoning social (including health)state on the other.
Do you really believe that, should the PL win with Karmenu vella-inspired manifesto, the country would go back to bulk-buying and budgets boasting about a €0.05 reduction in the price of mackerel?
Do you think that Kim Jong-Il and Raul Castro will be the next recipients of Gieh ir-Repubblika?
Can you envisage JM grandstanding in Brussels and threatening to do a Greenland, unless the EU forks out the €100 million the late, lamented Guido at one time used to dangle to convince us that "the EU is good for you."
No, thsoe days are over. The tactical plan of the team might change, the captain might impose a different-coloured shirts on the players, but the rules of the team will play by and the goal-posts will remain unchanged.
@Manuel
In the last couple of years we had the following PL 'experiences' by which to judge how they will operate if in Government:
. Joseph Muscat advised Iceland to stay out of the Euro
. Joseph Muscat advised the Government to launch a 'massicc' tourism campaign to take advantage of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt
. Joseph Cuschieri threatening that Malta should withhold bail out money to Greece
. Joseph Muscat refuse to denounce the Gaddafi regime until he was cornered but accepting free rides in his private jet
. Joseph Muscat call for electricity tariffs to be subsidised when we know this cannot be done under the EU rules
. Luciano Busuttil (EU affairs spokesman) suggest we should use frozen Libyan assets as a bargaining chip to get better oil pricing
This is TODAY not yesterday so yes I am very very worried that whilst politically they are not a million miles away from the PN, the PL is intellectually so remote from the PN that your and my livelihood is under threat if they are elected.
How on earth can I trust someone who refuses to tell me what his policies are? Is he afraid they will not stand up to scrutiny - come on, admit it, we all know they won't stand up to scrutiny. Herein lies the problem. Why on earth will we try a PL that is incapable to defend its own policy position coming from a track record where they are consistently wrong on all the important issues!
There is already enough data so far to judge Joseph Muscat on an ideological and/or political level.
He was against parties contesting local elections and now he's for, he was against EU membership now he's for, he was against the introduction of the Euro now he's for, he was against VAT now he's for, he was against the HSBC purchase of MidMed now he's for, he was against Partnership for Peace and now he looks like he's changing his mind on this as well. What does all this tell you about the man?
Secondly, the Labour leader has not been silent for the last three years and is not bound to be. So this business of asking people to 'wait' for the electoral programme is non-sensical. If you want to know what he is for and against I refer you again to Part 2 of the post Who's Moody. Then do the math.
Third, given that we are now in the EU - no thanks to the PL - there is less room for irresponsible policies. But it is precisely for this reason that Joseph Muscat's rhetoric is misleading. He is giving the impression that he can do things which he cannot do because we are EU members. Take the promise he is most vociferous about: reducing the water and electricity rates. As prime minister, Joseph Muscat will not be able to subsidise them as he says he can because we have to abide by EU rules.
.... Lou, there is also the PL pledge to refund the VAT on cars even if the court case finds that it is not justified. That alone will put some 40 million into the pockets of those who are best off in this country - how's that for the Joseph Muscat brand of socialism!
@Bondiblog But on the other hand imagine how the Nationalists would be after another 5 years in government....ugh! Imagine the arrogance and the smugness, how untouchable they would feel! Would that be good for democracy - I don't think so.
Imagine if you will how you will feel if you were without a job, or your children were struggling to make ends meet or hold down a job. Imagine if Financial services fly the coup and we are left with hundreds more unemployed.
Imagine crass statements made by the President of the EU Joseph Muscat and everyone making a mockery of Malta because we demonstrate inability to head the Eu and virtually start diplomatic wars because of ill-conceived statements. Imagine Joseph Cuschieri representing you and me in the EU parliament.
Imagine the hundreds of promises made before the election to every sector of our society and then the unrest when they are not met but the owners of new cars are refunded their VAT despite a court case finding against.
Imagine yes imagine - what a blissful democracy we will live in.
People change beliefs and positions for a variety of reasons. Whether we call them realists (and therefore laud their maturity) or fickle (and brand them as opportunists) sometimes depends on whether we like them or not. What would you call the PN MP's who campaigned against divorce and then voted for it in Parliament? what do you call Gonzi who first spoke out against female quotas in party political structures, then embraced the concept and pushed it within the PN until the party accepted it? The British labour party took an official position against the EEC in 1973, and within a few years became a United Europe's staunchest supporters. What are we to make of that?
People need to know what they are to vote for. The party in opposition enjoys the luxury of being in a position to criticise the government and gradually form, hone and fine-tune its policies in time for the elections. It would be very silly for Muscat to reveal his hand now. As long as basic positions are known - and we do know there will be no major changes with regard to socio-political fundamentals - the country can afford to wait.
The party in opposition will have to justify its criticism in some way. That's what political journalism is for - to ensure that parties are pressed for answers, their inconsistencies are laid bare, and any impossible promises hinted at revealed for the hot air they are. If the opposition drops clangers, then, come the big day, it will pay the price.
It wasnt my intention to go into specifics, because I'm not trying to defend the PL (about whom I have reservations), but merely to argue a point about the role of oppositions in parliamentary democracy at this point in time.But something which was said has aroused ny curiosity. If, according to EU rules it is not possible to subsidise W & E rates, what was the much-vaunted Energy Benefit all about?
Post a Comment