The Labour Party is very strong on education. Its main asset in the sector, Evarist Bartolo, is cut out to be minister for education. An educationalist as well as a honed communicator he keeps abreast with developments in advanced countries which see education for what it is – an unfolding process seeking innovative ways to help students at all levels develop critical minds.
Labour cannot be all things to all men. Economics and social political choice require priorities- Lino Spiteri
Bartolo’s 22-month experience as Education Minister in the Labour government of 1996-68 signalled what he is made of.
Should Labour win the general election he would be a mainstay in Joseph Muscat’s first Cabinet. He is doing and saying the right things, and so is Labour as a whole in terms of looking forward.
The Labour leader a few days ago focused on how his administration would treat education. He placed it in context as the keystone to the people’s wellbeing and economic progress and prosperity.
All governments subscribe to that objective, though in the past education of the masses was seen as some path to hell. All recent governments started with a commitment to cut illiteracy, which stubbornly sticks to around 10 per cent of the school population, no matter how much time passes.
I recall Ugo Mifsud Bonnici in the first Nationalist government after the 1987 election expressing horror that he had inherited an illiteracy rate of 11 per cent. He vowed to attack it with vigour. And attack it he did, which also goes for his successors since then.
It remains very much around, as it were a genetic part of our make-up. It will be a primary challenge for the next government. So will cutting back rate of those who leave school early. At over a third it is a horrendous rate with deep implications for our society of the future, as for the individuals concerned.
One understands Muscat’s proposal, much under examination abroad, to provide training and work for people who, at 16, continue to fall out of the system. The proposal will have to be costed, but it is right to plan for more investment in human resources. Nationalist governments have done that to a considerable extent. Further innovative action is required.
Muscat presented Labour’s proposals and objectives in an important macroeconomic framework, relating it to social poverty and unemployment. It is a sad truism that as the education level rises, those with little or insufficient education fall further behind in what is a very real poverty trap.
Muscat put an old objective clearly. Investing in the education system in its entirety, he declared, should come first in order to tackle problems such as poverty, crime, unemployment and high rates of early school leavers.
In a rather grandiose elaboration he described the guarantee to 16-year-olds as an essential part of Labour’s horizontal strategy against poverty, precarious work, unemployment, crime, abuse, and in favour of work, women in the labour force, competitiveness, social inclusion, better quality of life and the family.
Even allowing for the flight of political rhetoric, one cannot cast the net wider than that. It is good, but is it enough? Like all visions, that of Labour on education looks to the future for effect, at least three, five years down the road.
But, what of the here and now? The problems the vision seeks to tackle exist today. We have a relatively low unemployment rate dominated by thousands of unskilled registrants. There is a degree of real, absolute poverty among us which is not acknowledged enough.
Election candidates knocking on doors are encountering it. I used to find it in my political campaigning. Fourteen years after I left politics, it is still there. I speak to various candidates, including ministers, who are shocked by it. Drawing up solutions for the medium term will be good in itself, but will do practically nothing for today’s poor, for those who live at the margins of society.
They require plans for immediate action. These have to include a new outlook on and commitment to spending. The poor and socially excluded, plus those in danger of falling into that socio-economic trap need more funds in their hands.
They need more public money and the many thousands in low-employment need enhanced disposable income. That must be accompanied by higher productivity, so that competitiveness is not affected.
Granted. But then, do more about productivity. Increase meaningful dialogue with the unions. Address people in basic or precarious employment di-rectly. Prepare for action now, even as the vision for the future starts being implemented. I expect that from both political parties. Given my social and political bent, I expect it more and more from the Labour Party.
It may well be that it is preparing measures for immediate implementation. Such measures will cost, and must make one think again about the structure of our social spending. On whether it is being prioritised enough. My short answer is that, no, it is not. Fearing to re-examine the welfare and stipends system in a context of mutuality, of ability to pay, is one indication.
If Labour wins office it too will have to work within EU financial parameters. There just are not enough public resources to do so and truly to alleviate the dire position of those who live at or outside the margins of society, plus spending on new plans for the future.
You cannot be all things to all men. Economics and social political choice require priorities. I look forward to further unveiling of its plans by the Labour Party. I have been less than impressed by its reaction to the Caritas analysis of poverty and recommendation, echoed in the vision for the future.
I would like to see Labour in office this time round, prepared to hit the ground running. Much more immediacy is required, without neglecting essential plans for investment in action yielding future results. I wait with hope in my heart.