Crystal-clear contradictions

A glaring example of clear cut inconsistency is Joseph Muscat’s latest slogan: Meritocracy and not Mediocrity. Great! So he wants to reward “workers” according to their merit, value, efficiency, effectiveness etc. and, yet, he says he wants to introduce a living wage to “workers”, whether they are good, bad, second-rate or worse (!).

One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a living wage is not performance based but quite the opposite. It is simply an incentive for the unproductive, worthless and lazy worker to receive a higher salary. Now Dr Muscat says the living wage will be given on a voluntary basis and that he will not impose it… so what on earth is he saying really?

This half-baked proposal is reminiscent of Labour’s hare-brained proposals to: replace VAT by CET, to introduce a reception class, better known as repeaters’ class and to re-introduce government importation, as in the bulk buying system – another Labour shocker.

Winding up a conference on the cost of living (July 18, 2009), Dr Muscat declared that Labour will ensure a free market but the third proposal of the “23 concrete proposals” presented in the Labour document says the government should start importing goods itself. For heaven’s sake, does Labour really know what it wants? On November 6, a Labour news portal parroted Dr Muscat: “On a more macro level too, Malta is not doing as well as it should, not even as well as it did in the Fenech Adami years and certainly not as well as countries Malta can be fairly compared to, like Cyprus”.

Dr Muscat claims that, although Lawrence Gonzi and Dr Fenech Adami both worked under the same conditions, the latter was the better leader and a worthier economist. He explains that Dr Fenech Adami had reduced taxes although he was facing major problems such as the bird flu outbreak and Malta’s preparation for EU membership whereas Dr Gonzi was simply using the international financial crisis as an excuse for not cutting taxes!

May I remind the Labour leader that when Labour was elected to govern in 1996, it heavily bombarded Dr Fenech Adami’s premiership right, left and centre, alleging it had inherited a bankrupt country.

So, Labour’s incredible verbal acrobatics are amazing, to say the least!

Dr Muscat knows that, since 2007, Dr Gonzi reduced taxation for three consecutive years. In the real world, Labour cannot demand an income tax ceiling reduction (35 per cent to 25 per cent) and in the same breath insist the rich be taxed more. The Labour leader has to decide what he wants to do for real. Likewise, he cannot claim he will be introducing a new way of doing politics and then hysterically call the Prime Minister a liar on national television. Moreover, he has promised to refund the car registration tax from the national coffers even if a court of law decides it is illegal. This is definitely not a “new” way of doing politics, is it?

More: we all followed Dr Muscat’s resounding hullabaloo over the utility tariffs, divorce and the Delimara power station extension. Yet, when push comes to shove, he will not give a guarantee he will reduce tariffs if he is ever Prime Minister. Neither will he include divorce in the next Labour electoral manifesto as he is only going to give MPs a free vote in Parliament.

He spent months puffing polluted accusations against the government over the power station extension contract but he will not admit his allegations were all unfounded. Neither will he divulge how deep his “good contacts” ran with Bateman, the Israeli company that bid and failed to win the blessed contract.

More inconsistency surfaces when Dr Muscat clambers for more females to join the workforce. He thinks extending maternity leave to 20 weeks will do the trick. Has it crossed his mind that, with this extension, employers might discriminate against hiring female workers? And how will the small self-employed he likes to champion so much cope with the financial repercussions?

One of Labour’s four principles the reform of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority is based on, is transparency, to ensure the whole process prior to issuing the permit is accessible to all, as should any decision be, however and whenever it is taken. Dr Muscat seems to have forgotten that his building permit (no. 362/1998) was reportedly issued two weeks before the time allowed for public consultation and objections was up. How transparent was that!

They say comparisons are odious but, although his predecessors Dom Mintoff and Alfred Sant had their own weird ideologies, at least they used to shoot straight to the point. Even if their decisions were unpopular, they knew exactly what they wanted and so did we. With Dr Muscat it is another story. Sitting on the fence shuffling his deck of popularity cards, his politics are superficial, non-committal, ambivalent, inconsistent and vague leaving everybody guessing what he has up his sleeve. Perhaps a New Year’s Resolution could change the status quo.

And before the little elves pounce onto their keyboards may I say I have no quarrel with Dr Muscat, the father and husband, but tolerating Dr Muscat the politician is a different story altogether.

Merry Christmas to you all.