Editorial

It takes no Einstein to guess what kind of criticism the government will be in for from the Labour Party after it presents its budget for 2009. Its kernel was spelt out in the clearest of language in Parliament when, following a statement made by the Finance Minister on the local situation in the light of the financial crisis abroad, the acting Leader of the Opposition, Anġlu Farrugia, asked if this was a screen for other problems the government was having. Would it be used, he asked, as a reason for the government not to keep its electoral promises in the budget.

In his statement, made after he took part in an EU Finance Ministers' meeting in Luxembourg, the minister reviewed the local banking situation and remarked that the indirect economic impact of the international crisis could not be ignored. He pointed out that if the demand for products and services slowed down, the economic rhythm would likewise decrease.

To those following the upheaval in international financial situation, and the widespread fears of recession hitting a number of countries, including some close to Malta, such as Italy, and France, the minister's cautionary attitude sounds correct. But, judging from comments made by Labour people, it would seem to them, that the government is only warning of the impact on Malta of what is happening abroad to camouflage its own shortcomings and incompetence in dealing with the Administration's financial situation.

The tune was well set by the Labour leader, Joseph Muscat, when he repeatedly said before the outbreak of the financial crisis that, since the price of crude had been rising well before the general election, the government could not use the price rise as an excuse for not meeting its election promises. So, now, Labour is leaving no doubt that it will come down on the government like a tonne of bricks unless its budget reflects the people's expectations based on promises made before the election. Not that this will come as a surprise since an opposition in Parliament is always likely to lambast a government for its budget. This time, however, the government will obviously have good reason not to be too liberal in its budget and the opposition would lose, not gain, points if it chooses to close both eyes to the likely effects on the economy of the recessionary times ahead.

As it has been said many times before, all political parties are over-generous when they come to make electoral promises. Indeed, Labour had promised to halve the surcharge, an opportunistic proposal deemed by most as highly unrealistic at a time when the price of crude was galloping ahead at a faster pace than a mustang. What would Labour have done had it been in power? Forget for a moment that the price of crude has now gone down, would Labour have immediately halved the surcharge on taking office, even though the price had continued to rise sharply up till then? Is this the way Labour thinks a party gains political credibility?

Even though the Nationalists won the election by a slim majority, its election showed that what counts most is trust when people come to cast their vote. No, in today's unsettled economic circumstances, the government should ignore Labour's political exhortations about the keeping or not keeping of electoral promises and do what it feels is in the country's best interests. In such turbulent times, the country needs a firm hand on the tiller.