Some societies are born with social pacts - modern Sweden and contemporary Ireland come to mind. Other societies have social pacts thrust (unsociably) upon them - Margaret Thatcher's UK is a notable example. And some societies acquire social pacts by stealth. After the last budget, I am beginning to think that Malta falls into the latter category, and I am not sure this is reassuring news.

The last budget suggests that a new consensus on economy and society is being formed. I do not refer to the widespread, explicitly expressed agreement that this budget was, all things considered, a good one. This agreement excludes not only the Malta Labour Party. The Medical Association of Malta has expressed reservations, for example, that strongly suggest that there is some way to go before a doctors' pact with the government is reached. And the General Workers' Union's guarded welcome of several measures may have to do as much with its leaders' current weak position, in public perception, as with the budget itself.

But this budget has also been accompanied by an unspoken consensus. It is shared even by Alfred Sant.

This consensus accepts a part of Mrs Thatcher's legacy, which (excluding her complex relationship to the European Union) can be divided into three parts. Her premiership was marked by the insistence that the Treasury should exercise sovereignty over the spending ministries and avoid deficits. Those of you who think it was ever thus need only consult the studies of Mrs Thatcher by Hugo Young (who charts the hegemony not only of Mrs Thatcher but also of Thatcherism over her party, against the initial resistance by Tory grandees) and the recent work by Simon Jenkins, who traces how Thatcherism came to be, so to speak, naturalism and realism.

There was more to Thatcherism than this, of course. There was the insistence that state expenditure should be cut back, the preferable aim being to return money to people in the form of tax cuts and not to redistribute it as social benefits. And although Mrs Thatcher always claimed she wanted to roll back the state, she ended up centralising power at the expense of local government. Centralisation was justified in terms of saving money.

It is evident that the sovereignty of the Ministry of Finance over other ministries is now established in Malta: there are several reasons for this, the terms of EU membership being key. The point is, however, that it seems to me that this sovereignty is now accepted not because of circumstances, but because it is considered legitimate - a good thing.

I think it is a good thing, too - but I would consider it a bad thing if Malta had to slide from accepting this part of the legacy to accepting the other parts. A bad thing not just for subjective reasons (I find Thatcherism's political values to be deeply unattractive), but also for objective ones: Thatcherism, even when it works, tends to create great opportunities for some, but squalor for others. Malta is simply too small to afford squalor affecting anyone: in no time it would affect those other parts - such as tourism - on which general affluence depends.

It is important, then, to recognise explicitly that we have accepted part of Thatcher's legacy. If not, we will be vulnerable to accepting the other parts unthinkingly.

The way this would happen would be that all three parts of Thatcherism come to be seen as a natural package, where all elements hang together, where one cannot logically accept Treasury constraints without accepting a centralising, cost-cutting logic.

And here is the crux: there are alternative logics to choose from. This government, possibly because its Prime Minister comes to his post having served as Social Policy Minister, has set up a process that tries to reconcile cost-cutting concerns with the general aims of government policy. Legal Notices, for example, need to be tested for their impact on a range of issues - from education and the environment to Gozo.

But apart from the fact that, even so, the government has not always got it right, it is not clear if such an approach is yet institutionalised, in a way that would survive this administration. Would a future government, Nationalist or Labour, adopt such an approach? The sheer fact of Cabinet government is not enough - Cabinet discussions are only as thorough as the personalities that have them.

Nor is it only a question of whether the current impact assessments are too much tailored to the likes of the current administration, instead of the nature of Malta governments. There is another question: are the current safeguards enough?

There is a case for the argument that a lot more can be done. Institutionalising a process of vetting the drafting of laws for their impact on cost (and redrafting to curtail cost where possible, if the legislative intention is not affected) is something we ought to discuss. Surely, in some cases curtailing expenditure at this level would be rational, and protect against arguments for cost-cutting at the level of service provision.

The general point is that, given that we are all (at least) partial Thatcherites now, there is no point in going into denial. On the contrary, recognising the new consensus for what it is will serve to make the arguments about real political differences just that bit more relevant to voters.

ranierfsadni@europe.com