Editorial
Lop-sided argument
As contenders for the post of Labour Party leader and two deputy leaders bend over backwards to impress their own people of the need for change, uncommitted voters are left wondering if the new leadership would after all bring about the new beginning to the party's fortunes they are promising today. The prospects so far are not all that bright. On the contrary, the indications suggest that, despite all the nice words the contenders are using, the MLP is heading towards the status quo once again.
A choice quote from a speech made by one of the leading contenders gives a clue to a mentality that does not go well with the promise of change. Joseph Muscat, tipped as the favourite candidate to the party's top post, feels it would be unacceptable for Lawrence Gonzi to use the price hikes of oil and cereals as an excuse for him not to implement what he had promised in the election campaign. He argued that these had been all too clear before the election when the PN made its promises. On Thursday, a day before a meeting of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, the MLP issued a statement making a similar argument. So, interpreting their view, there should be no escape route for Dr Gonzi!
This is precisely the kind of language that puts off uncommitted voters, the people the party so badly needs to draw to its side. It is the height of political immaturity to argue, as Dr Muscat and the MLP seem to be implying, that a party has to carry out what it promises irrespective of any changing scenario. True, when the PN made its income tax promises, for example, the price of crude and food was already shooting up. Its calculations were obviously made on the situation prevailing then and, presumably, on forecasts, too. But what if forecasts go haywire? Should the government, any government for that matter, go ahead and ignore changing circumstances in the implementation of its programme?
Alfred Sant spoke in the same vein when as Leader of the Opposition he said in Parliament that the government was being overly pessimistic regarding the international situation. He asked: Was this in preparation for a big U-turn on its electoral promises? Dr Sant sounds as if he is unaware of the impact the sharp rise in the price of crude oil and food is having on the cost of living everywhere. True, political parties may get carried away in an election campaign, showering voters with a countless number of promises. The electorate would not have forgotten, for instance, how many times Labour promised to do this and that within just six months of being elected. It even promised to do things that had already been done!
The point is that if Labour wants to attract new voters, as it needs to if it wants to get back to govern again, it would have to be convincing in its arguments all the time. Rather, than closing both eyes to reality, the government is indeed expected to take changing economic circumstances well into consideration before implementing its promises. That is what national interests dictate. Lambasting a government for failing to keep to its promises is usually par for the course in politics but doing so haphazardly could be very counter-productive.
Popular Stories
Labour Party resorts to political...
Why calling an election now makes sense
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Top businessman touches some raw nerves
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
Smoke signals of the very worrying kind
Stemming the tide of migrants
Did justice prevail in the Lockerbie...
Frustration over fuel price increases
In Discussion
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Stemming the tide of migrants
Labour Party resorts to political...
Does it really pay to use public...
Roadworks, traffic chaos and...
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
This country must remain competitive
Frustration over fuel price increases
Shameful case of lack of accountability
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Vella
May 25th 2008, 09:15
@ Charles j. Schembri & Michael Debono
What do you think the Prime Minister and others like LIno Spiteri and other respected economist were saying that Alfred Sant and the MLP are being irresponsable and suicidal in promising to halve the surcharge.
@s. Sammut
Goodmornig, why do you think the Government in the last Budget awarded th e cost of living for 2008 in advance and not waited till the coming budget later on this year.
s.sammut
May 24th 2008, 21:40
Dear Editor,
what should change is your unequivocal alliance with one political party at all costs. The notoriously known safe hands prime minister surely must have anticipated the rise of cereal pricing and the continuous uprise in oil prices. Notwithstanding this, in a truly opportunistic manner our then caretaker prime minister never for one single moment hesitated to promise to all and sundry the goodies his party will be delivering once trusted again with political and administrative power. The electoral pledges have been made to be kept. He and his party have been elected albiet with a relative slim majority to deliver what he has been promising. I feel utterly amazed and surprised at how you never tire to bring up lame excuses to exhonerate him and his Political party from any wrongdoing. Infallibility is nothing of this world but you repeatedly disappoint us with a make believe that the prime Minister and his political party are always alien to any wrondoing. Electoral pledges in the run up of any general election are recorded precisely to show how deceitful one was to promise heavenly goodies only to deliver blunt excuses.
Frans Sammut
May 24th 2008, 19:36
What Mr Evarist Bartolo said makes sense, a lot of sense. But that is not what the editorial under review implied. Whereas the former was being honest, the latter was playing a sort of dog in the manger role, trying to influence MLP delegates to think of "uncommitted voters" (whatever that means) while they should be considering who among the contestants is the most suitable to lead their party in the post-EU accession era, what socio-political principles he/she embraces, what his/her ideas on the environment are, and so forth. Incidentally, if by "uncommitted voters" one means Labourites who did not cast their votes in the hope of getting their own back on Dr Sant for winning the 1992 elections, as they may have already done in 1998, 2003, 2008, that is a matter altogether different. I personally do not know what to say about these people. It is up to them to decide. One just hopes there are not many of them who are also party delegates. Anyway, we shall know come the fifth of June!
Michael Debono
May 24th 2008, 15:33
What would have been the reaction of the editor of this respected newspaper if instead of the PN winning the elections we were governed by the MLP. Would the editor have spoken in favour of the government if it said publicly that it cannot implement its promises because of the changing cirumstances. Curious to know!
Commun sense would have dictated to write: you should have included that proviso in your program" and not mislead the voters. But then why not refer to Minister Fench's statement that this year budget approved in December did take into consideration the present world financial situation, and the increases given were meant for the purpose.
The statement issued from the Labour side is more appropriate than this biased editorial.
Joe Scerri
May 24th 2008, 11:00
And what about what Evarist Bartolo was reported as saying on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
"With unity and careful work in Parliament and beyond, a firm opposition would be able to shorten the life of a government which had 'stolen' the last election through a campaign of lies and favours but which was still continuing to govern in an incompetent and arrogant way"
I leave it to the readers to arrive to their own conclusions.
Peter Muscat
May 24th 2008, 10:53
The five contenders for the MLP Leadership are conducting themselves as they should. I am certain that all of them are being fair and honest.All five contestants have a lot to contribute and I personally wish all GOOD LUCK!
Various reasons are being attributed to the MLP's defeat at the general elections.All might be valid. However what should really worry the MLP is the fact that nearly 7000 considered MLP voters stayed home on election day. Both the MLP and the PN were aware of this fact just before midnight on election day. The rest is public knowledge.
I am not revealing any secrets, since the info above would soon be made public.
In my humble opinion the new Leader should put the above as a priority in his/her agenda and deal with this matter asap. It is not a question of 'lost sheep'. Those aren't lost yet. They are there waiting for the new leader's 'welcome back' signal to return to the fold.
G. Sammut
May 24th 2008, 10:39
Dear Editor,
I honestly fail to understand the point of your argument. Granted, the new leadership has to be much more positive and present new and better ideas rather than basing its entire work on negativity. But that is but a part of the role that the Opposition must serve. If there is no Opposition that is capable of demanding that the Government lives up to its promises and that it continuously administers the Public Interest and Social Justice than I would imagine the whole notion of Opposition in a Parliamentary Democracy such as ours is nothing but futile and an unnecessary formality.
Frans Sammut
May 24th 2008, 10:30
Sir, what exactly do you mean by "uncommitted voters"? How on earth should these "uncommitted voters" be involved in the current MLP leadership election? Who is kidding whom with this kind of newspeak or whatever one may call it? "Uncommitted voters" at the moment can only wait and see. Then after June 5, if they like the new MLP leader they may commit themselves, if not, not. That's all there is to it. The rest is all horse ...
Charles.J.Schembri
May 24th 2008, 10:11
What i would like to ask the Editorial is just one question....if it was a Labour government, what would you have written, would it be the same as for the PN........or would you have written something different.