• 
• 
• 
• 

It's not quite that time of March yet. The time to make up your mind to go and vote and for whom will come later, though I hope you've decided to vote, at least. As to which candidate you want to vote for, that's up to you - here's your chance to give your verdict on any particular individual's performance.

That's the beauty of the transeferable vote system - you can vote for the PM you want (in effect) and also have a say on who he sticks into his Cabinet. I don't imagine there's anyone out there has the slightest illusion as to which contender for PM I favour and no, it's not Josie Muscat with his peculiar hat, more peculiar side-kicks and even more peculiar policies. But I challenge anyone to predict how I'm going to cast my secondary preference, because this is where I'll be sending my own small message to the various hopefuls.

Actually, looking at the lists of Ministerial hopefuls on both sides, and having watched them in action (or reaction) over the years, I've formed a pretty good idea of what's what in the Cabinet-filling stakes.

If Gonzi is PM, he's as good as promised, there will be a pretty radical shuffle. My own idea, if I were King-for-a-Day, would be to cut down on the number of ministries, and put the closest to technocrats I've got available into second level ministerial slots. I don't think we need all those ministers and I don't think we need all those Ministers - and that sentence was deliberately structured.

What I wouldn't like to have is Sant's job, in the event that he gets the keys to Castillle. Assuming for the sake of argument that he wins, he's going to have to juggle internal loyalties against the crying need to make the best of what he's got at his disposal. The two sides of this equation don't necessarily add up, as his experience in the 1996 - 98 interregnum showed. What many recognise as the "acceptable face of Labour", namely George Abela and Lino Spiteri, turned away from Sant, leaving him with a rump of support that reflects only one aspect of the MLP grass roots.

The split between those for whom The Leader is the be-all and end-all and the rest became apparent in the run-up to the EU Referendum, the one Sant still says he won. Many, many MLP voters voted "Yes", ignoring Sant. There's no reason for them to do the same to him now - the problem for him is that many of them, one hears, aren't.

Ignoring him, I mean. Quite a few people still admit, in trusted circles, that with Sant at the helm, and with the people with whom he has to hold things together, the MLP is not prepared to govern and they're not prepared to help them try.

Whether this will be enough to land Gonzi another term in office, and rid the MLP once and for all of the problems it still has, remains to be seen. As they say, it remains too close to call - which is not a major surprise, considering that this is a country where even after the shameful excess of 1981 - 1987, the PN virtually scraped in.

And then there weren't the AD and AzzNazz and Lowellites lurking in the wings sweating blood trying to pick off votes here and there.

Give us the truth

I know electoral manifestos bear as much resemblance to reality as Harry Potter (though the Vatican seems to think otherwise about the latter) but would the MLP please try to be consistent with itself?

They've been going around boasting that first-time home buyers are going to be given a grant to help out with the expense of buying a house. Sounds like a plan, that, who wouldn't like a freebie, even if it does come out of our taxes?

The thing is, if you look at the relevant small print in Karl Chircop's paper on the subject, you'll find it's not a grant at all, just a loan and at commercial rates, at that. The only difference is that it will be repayable when you sell the house on, which is a measure that will, if only someone had bothered to think it through, put house prices up. Might as well borrow from the bank, which at least will let you pay back slowly, rather than having to stump up almost double the amount of Euros you were "granted" in the first place.

This is as misleading as Sant's infamous "we'll remove VAT" before 1996, which quite a few people fell for, only to find themselves faced with CET. A more ludicrous tax-system has yet to be devised, though I'm morally convinced that the convolutions Sant got himself into then will be as nothing compared to what he's going to have to do, if he's given the chance, to remove tax from overtime.

Whether he knows how he's going to do this (and subsidise the electricity surcharge cut, at the same time as re-negotiating the Accession Treaty, which he's been told is not even possible) is not immediately clear. All I know is, on past evidence, that he will find a way to weasel out of the commitment, just as he did on removing VAT.

Overtime at hour for hour, anyone? Increased tax rates for normal working time pay, perhaps? Your guess is as good as mine: wouldn't you like to have the truth before you vote, this time? The Labour latest tag-line is actually a perfect fit, the only thing is, they left out a tiny word: "is" - "Labour, the only way [is] out."

• 
• 
• 
• 
•