It is becoming more evident that for Joseph Muscat’s Labour Party, packaging is far more important than the product itself. I dare say packaging is the means to hide its true colours.
Labour knows that business is wary of a potential Labour government, and the reasons are very simple- Tonio Fenech
The past weeks saw Dr Muscat’s Labour Party taking its packaging exercise a step further. Rather than telling us its plans to increase jobs, sustain our pensions or how to further improve our education system beyond the successes being achieved so far, Labour has come out with a two-fold rhetoric exercise packaged as proposals. At face value these seem like just a couple of political gimmicks. To me, however, they smell of an admission.
Through package one, Labour promises to be “safe for business”. If you were always safe, why do I need to tell you that you will be safe?
This is the most glaring admission that Labour was not at all safe for business in the past. It knows that business is wary of a potential Labour government, and the reasons are very simple. While the same people that today are being promoted as the front faces of Labour’s economic and financial programme, no real and substantive economic policies are being presented by the party.
Rather, we get the same people who voted in favour of 33 new taxes in 22 months;
The same people who raised electricity tariffs to exorbitant levels at a time when a barrel of oil cost just $12;
The same people who convinced small businesses into throwing away their cash registers with the vague attractive promise of the removal of a 15 per cent VAT, made to reinstall their cash register, and appoint an expert technician who could programme it to understand the complex new system that raised the tax rate much further than that;
These same people today are trying to come up with a more business-friendly Labour: a true case of new colours, old Labour.
This is what distinguishes the Nationalist Party from Labour. Yes, one may disagree with certain decisions taken. Yes, one may question why certain policy routes were taken and not others.
But one knows where he or she stands with us. This is why business has thrived. The entrepreneurial spirit was set free. We unleashed a gradual economic transformation process, where, through liberalisation and privatisation, the private sector had room to grow, expand and create tens of thousands of jobs.
Throughout the years, we have devised initiatives, incentives and schemes that supported business – whether larger industry and smaller business owners – to grow. Even when we were faced with a very tough international economic and financial scenario, we built our recovery by supporting business, starting from direct assistance – a stimulus package which assisted Maltese businesses in a manner we had not seen in any previous legislature. Listing all schemes would require more space.
The only uncertainty that comes along with talk of an early election, as fuelled by Labour, is the fact that businesses worry about a change in government.
If Labour believes election talk halts business, it should have a good idea of where the problem lies, it lies in the fear and uncertainty it fuels within business.
Package two: In exactly the same way that Labour is trying to win over the business vote, the ‘proposal’ of a ‘social impact assessment’ before major economic decisions is built around the same principle.
Social consciousness is the foundation of a Nationalist government. Every law brought before Cabinet is backed up by considerations of the potential social impact, and suggested solutions.
Major policy decisions are not only backed up by social reports but actually supported by a nationwide consultation processes.
For all the recent Budget documents, and important reforms such as those affecting rent laws, the transition between primary to secondary education, local councils, pensions, consultation documents and reports are issued to support a wide ranging debate that includes structured dialogue through the MCESD or MEUSAC.
Even when difficult decisions had to be taken, the social impact was given due consideration. When the government had to choose between increasing the tariffs or losing out on our factories, we took the former decision in parallel with additional supportive measures in favour of those who were hard-hit.
This is why we do not need to say we are safe and socially responsible. Ironically, Labour’s former leader Dom Mintoff described it as a party that had lost its social conscience when in government.
During the past weeks in Parliament, Dr Muscat’s Labour Party has revealed its true colours. It is a party which has just one aim, that of being in power. That is what Labour’s true colours are. That is what Labour stands for. That is why it is focusing on packaging itself as safe and social.
But the Maltese electorate is mature enough to see that behind the blue there’s red, and behind this packaging exercise there is a dangerous product, called Labour.
Tonio Fenech is Minister of Finance, the Economy and Investment.