Spinning has become an integral part of the political game. At the moment, a monumental spin is taking place. Those peddling it are not quite the new team in the Nationalist Opposition. Rather, they are the old team, led by former finance minister Tonio Fenech. Helping out is the larger part of the media.
He [Muscat] is putting the national interest before Labour’s political interest
What I cannot understand is the Labour Government’s reaction to it. Or, if I do understand it, I find myself lacking in agreement with the stance evidently chosen by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.
The spin concerns the state of the public finances. Before the general election, I and a small group of fellow economists were in agreement that, whoever won the election, the next Minister of Finance would inherit a poisoned chalice.
The poison has been carried forward for years. It was there again in the Budget for 2013 present by Fenech. Revenues were overstated, padded with unsustainable revenue. Expenditure was window-dressed, part of it to be financed from outside the immediate government coffers so as not to impact on the mounting public debt.
All that has come to pass. The poisoned chalice was inherited by the Labour Finance Minister Edward Scicluna. He soon discovered that the deficit for 2012, the last full year under Nationalist rule, was about half as much again as a proportion of GDP as forecast by Fenech. That was the umpteenth time Fenech had got the forecast wrong.
Amazingly, that is when the spin started. The Nationalists began attributing the increase in the 2012 deficit to Labour, though it was in opposition at the time.
Accompanying that was the Budget for 2013. That was prepared, again, by Fenech. Labour undertook to implement it if elected so as not to cause further uncertainty. Elected it was, and, on going through the Fenech figures, it found that once again the deficit had been underestimated.
On top of that there were collective agreement outlays that Fenech had not included in his expenditure forecasts. Very lamely, he replied that he had not known how much they would cost, forgetting what the words forecasts and estimates meant.
Labour added additional expenditure of its own on an outsize Cabinet. Though each ministry should on average cost less than the Nationalist counterparts, overall the outlay of the cost of government would be higher.
These increases taken together did not add much to the forecast deficit, which the European Commission now found unacceptable. Among other reasons it did that because, it said clearly enough, promises by the Nationalist Government had not been kept. Even so, the Nationalists once again are using massive spin to blame the Labour Government for the overall deficit and the Commission’s demand that it be reduced.
Fenech said a mini-budget should have been presented, forgetting he had done nothing of the sort a year ago when the Commission ordered him to slash expenditure by some €40 million.
I can understand the Nationalists’ dishonest spin. As the Labour Finance Minister left to carry the baby, I recall 1996 clearly enough when they were saying money was no problem despite a secret report by then Finance Minister John Dalli to Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami that showed it was very, very much a problem.
What puzzles me, at first blush, is Prime Minister Muscat’s reaction. Instead of setting out the full picture as inherited from the Nationalists, and saying this is the mess Labour found, but will work round the clock to cure it, he is bending over backwards to make light of the situation.
Deeper reflection convinces me he is doing this so as not to dishearten the Maltese people. He is putting the national interest before Labour’s political interest.
Bully for him. But nobody is showing much appreciation, least of all the media. For various newspapers, the big story is not the state of the public finances. It is the appointments being made by the Labour Government to the myriad boards and committees that are reconstituted every time there is a change of minister, let alone a change of government.
The background here is being totally ignored by the media. It is that during the 15 years of unbroken Nationalist Government these boards and committees were not staffed by a single Labourite, as if none were meritocratic enough to offer their humble services.
Lawrence Gonzi pretended to realise the error of his ways, and in the 2008 electoral programme he promised to make such appointments subject to application by interested parties. That remained a dead letter. Though he won the election by a handful of votes he again stuffed every committee and board with Nationalists and fellow travellers.
The Labour Government, as any government would, had to start from that basis. It did appoint a handful of unhappy names, but the vast bulk of its appointees are as meritorious as can be, including a strong sprinkling of non-Labourites.
The media outcome has been ferocious, as if Labour had invented the game. I suggest a comparative picture. The Government should publish the committees and boards as they were packed by Gonzi and his minions, and as they are staffed now. Then let the people decide on the true meaning of meritocracy.
It does not mean you do not appoint Nationalists or Labourites. It means the appointees should be up to scratch and worthy of the trust shown in them.
There are other things that are not being highlighted by the media, including the tempestuous drive to enact liberal legislation, tempestuous enough to carry the Nationalists with it after they had neglected taking action for years.
Spin does remain part of the game. It is a pity that the independent media, rather than exposing it, fall party to it.