A government that listens

Marketing and branding ex­perts teach us that for our message to be gras­ped quickly it must be simple, clear and consistent. For instance: A government that listens.

...what is happening within the Nationalist Party... is the fount of the government’s instability- Helena Dalli

Let’s explore the meaning of this simple, clear, consistent and recent Nationalist government slogan, which reminded me of the alternative David Cameron poster showing a picture of the British Premier alongside the caption: “We need a government that listens to the British people. That’s why I hired Andy Coulson.” A coincidence, in more than one aspect, of course.

What and who was the Prime Minister listening to before his speech on the vote of confidence motion last Tuesday? He spoke about the international situation; nothing new that we hadn’t already read and heard about. Then he went on to say that our government must be stable. But the instability that prompted the Prime Minister to seek a vote of confidence was not caused by the international situation.

The Prime Minister talked about the opposition. Again, the Labour Party did not create the instability within the government ranks.

There was one thing which the Prime Minister, who is now saying that he listens, didn’t tell us in his long speech, supposedly on government stability. He avoided speaking about what is happening within the Nationalist Party, which is the fount of the government’s instability.

The opposition’s motion preceding the government’s vote of confidence was on the chaos and hardship caused by the public transport system. When it came to the vote, an MP on the government side of the House – who is also engaged as the Prime Minister’s parliamentary assistant – abstained and, thus, the Speaker had to use his casting vote in order to defeat the opposition’s motion asking for the Transport Minister’s resignation. The Prime Minister – having promised us “a safe pair of hands”, another simple, clear and consistent slogan – rightly felt insecure about all this but tottered on nonetheless.

The Prime Minister “that listens” didn’t even pay any attention to his own parliamentary assistant, to a member of his own parliamentary group speaking about the people’s grievances. How can he convince Joe and Josephine that he would listen to them?

What’s more, a private member’s motion was presented – again by the aforementioned Prime Minister’s parliamentary assistant – on the same day of the vote on the government’s confidence motion. This motion regards the separation of the home affairs and justice portfolios and a list of other justified demands on long-standing problems in these areas of policy.

What does this mean? Certainly not that the government listens. Had the government listened, these issues would have been dealt with; delivery on these matters is long overdue. But a member of the government’s parliamentary group, a parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister to boot, had to present a private motion to his own government. Evidently, nobody listened to this MP when he tried to push his proposals through the party and government channels.

This no-to-listening (the opposite of the slogan) seems to be endemic within the government and PN ranks. Two Fridays ago, Minister Gatt obviously spoke during the debate on Labour’s motion. He seemed to have no regrets on the public transport debacle. A clear indication that he was not listening to what commuters were saying about the new public transport system.

The minister wants us to believe that he did the right thing all along. So why did he hand in his resignation to the Prime Minister?

And if things are fine, why did the Prime Minister appoint a task force on the public transport problem? Why head this task force himself?

Had the government wanted to listen, wouldn’t the minister have appointed a task force at the outset? What kind of planning and policy implementation is this?

Don’t try to understand.

You wouldn’t blame me if I confess that the Steve Jobs biography I was reading got a bigger share of my continuous partial attention than the Prime Minister’s speech last Tuesday evening. There was nothing new in the latter which I hadn’t heard on the international news, all of which has nothing to do with the instability of the Maltese government. It was pure and simple fudge.

This latest parliamentary episode joins a catalogue of similar failures whereby the Prime Minister “who listens” has had to retract or change policy in order to keep his government afloat and not because he admits to the blunders. And this is hardly about the opposition delivering smart bombs down the Cabinet office shaft.

Some advice which the government will not heed is about the second essential rule of marketing and branding: your message must reflect the consumer experience.

helenadalli@gmail.com

Dr Dalli is shadow minister for the public service, government investments and gender equality.