Although Lawrence Gonzi has ruled it out, Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) continues to claim (at the time of writing) that a coalition government between AD and the Nationalist Party (PN) is quite possible. AD claims it is the people that choose: How could Dr Gonzi face his voters if he rejected a coalition and handed government to Labour?

The assumption: a coalition government has to be in the PN's interests. But you do not need a hotline to Dr Gonzi's inner thoughts to realise it is highly unlikely to be in his party's interests at all. And it would be easy for him to explain why to the PN's voters.

Before we get to why, let us clear up two other things.

First, come March 10, a PN-AD coalition is not likely to be on the cards.

The new district boundaries have put about three PN seats, in different districts, within Labour's reach - even with AD out of the equation. Labour can grab them without a big national swing in its favour - that is, without winning the absolute majority of votes.

If the PN loses a further seat or two to third parties, Dr Sant will get to rule - and rule alone. Whether that is good or bad is up to you. But the maths is not.

Second, it is not the voters who choose to have a coalition. Voters choose their MPs. They can choose to put three or more parties into Parliament. But it is the MPs, particularly their leaders, who choose whether to enter into a coalition government. It is the leaders who get to agree on what goes into a compromise government programme. Without a compromise they can live with, no coalition is possible.

AD itself has made this clear. Its leader has categorically stated that he would bring a coalition government down if it crossed one of his red lines. Funnily enough, however, while AD can see its interest in aborting a coalition (under some circumstances), it cannot see the PN's interest in not entering one (under virtually all scenarios).

AD says that, since the PN contemplated a coalition in 2003, it would do so again in 2008. But surely the salient fact is that the PN ultimately rejected a coalition back then. It would have alienated it from key segments of its vote.

Five years later, for different reasons, a coalition would still greatly risk alienating the PN's voters. AD has stated it would help form a government if AD's programme, or most of it, were accepted.

How are (at the very least) 45 per cent of voters going to like being governed by a programme voted in by 10 per cent of voters (to take AD's most optimistic estimate)?

Nor do there seem to be compromises available that would not damage the credibility of one party or another. Would AD stop Dr Gonzi from bringing income tax down to 25 per cent for people earning up to €60,000? How could he face his electorate if he stopped at 30 per cent, as AD would like?

AD would like to double parental leave and raise it to 26 weeks. Admirable. But if it insists that the government do this, the PN would alienate the employers out of whose pocket this measure will be funded. And private schools would be crippled.

Already, with parental leave at 14 weeks, Church schools cannot cover the extra salaries from the government subvention.

Even if the government increased the subvention to cover the extra costs (and throw another PN financial promise out of the window), the schools will find it virtually impossible to find the extra teachers.

Already, heads of schools need to jump through the hoops to find replacements for 14 weeks. With 26 weeks, there is no doubting who the heads will blame when telling parents why their children have no teacher for French or IT in midyear, a few months away from national exams.

Even if an agreement on a government programme is reached, there will be dim prospects for proper Cabinet government with open discussion. Over the last four years, AD has called the PN (and MLP) "moral dwarves". AD has made it clear it would see its role in government as a whistleblower in waiting, watching over people it does not trust.

We know, from the Cacopardo case, that AD is so convinced that its interests and the public interest are uniquely fused that it is prepared to publicise confidential internal reports: for AD, its moral authority dwarves even the advice of Mepa's auditor and that of the Ombudsman.

Perhaps it does. But it is highly unlikely that Dr Gonzi thinks so or that he would put up with AD's holier-than-thou attitude.

Particularly since, in the face of a difficult international economic situation ahead, and important strategic decisions to be taken, this kind of coalition is unlikely to be able to provide the kind of decisive stable leadership that is needed.

AD likes to point to Germany's stable coalitions. But those have happened because a segment of the Greens travelled towards the pragmatic centre. AD's insulting attitude towards everyone and soaring self-regard has seen it travel in the opposite direction.

Did Joschka Fischer ever hurl the insults at Gerhard Schroeder that Harry Vassallo has hurled at Dr Gonzi?

What, then, is likely to happen in case AD's favourite hypothetical scenario - a Parliament with 32 seats each for the MLP and PN, with the deciding seat for AD - comes to pass?

I bet my bottom euro that Dr Gonzi will make good on his promise and let Labour clasp the chalice of government.

ranierfsadni@europe.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.