Change is in the air. The Nationalist Party, said Lawrence Gonzi, was all the change the people needed. Unconsciously sweeping his past away, he stressed and swore it would be change. But he failed to say how his party would change; what it would change into.
It will somewhat change its candidature, as all parties do at an election. A few seasoned faces will drop out. Some new ones will step in.
But, is that it? How do you reconcile the promotion line that the party in government has done wonders with the loud promise that it will change in an unspecified way?
Joseph Muscat too promised change, stressing it at an impressive weekend meeting at Ta’ Qali. In his case, he suggested how. In general terms, yes, but significantly so in ideological meaning.
The Labour Party would bring about a new middle class, he stated. Again, we had no definition of what that meant. Presumably, it does not mean the social democratic party will be all out for the bourgeoisie.
The objective, in modern terms, is probably to broaden the middle income category. If so, that will require an economic policy yielding growth, definitely accompanied by a revamped income tax regime to accelerate redistribution of income and wealth.
The existing thousands of minimum wage earners will be excluded from that policy. To be included, their relative position – frozen for 33 years – has to improve, meaning the wage has to increase faster than other incomes. But, according to both Labour and the PN, the wage will not be raised at all, let alone more than the median and higher incomes to start bridging the relative gap.
So, what will change in Labour’s case? A change for the better will be a promised increase in resources to the disabled, following on a passionate, articulate letter and speech by Philip Rizzo, the father of a 35-year-old intellectually-challenged girl.
That is welcome news. But not enough to blot out the implication that middle-class new Labour will no longer be Labour. Its broad social cutting edge differentiating it from the PN might be gone, leaving the political differential to be efficiency in managing the country. That will be a sad day, to me, anyhow, much as I believe in a business-friendly approach.
There was another significant change. For months, years even, Labour has promised it will reduce the water and electricity tariffs now crippling economic agents and, more so, households.
The Nationalists pooh-poohed that as pie in the sky.
Then, fearful of the popularity of the promise, they tried to anticipate it by doing exactly what they had charged Labour it would do. Ditching their full recovery principle, they froze bills, subsidising Enemalta out of taxes or a higher public debt, thereby also distorting the price structure.
On Saturday, Muscat trumped that humiliating U-turn. He declared that the funds to finance reduced utility bills would not come from tax increases but from better use of new technology and management of the country.
That was still a bit of a generalisation. But an interview in yesterday’s The Sunday Times added beef to Muscat’s opening.
The person working on the Labour’s energy proposal is Konrad Mizzi, an energy consultant. He will be one of the party’s new candidates at the election. He opined to The Sunday Times that the high utility rates structure is the consequences of choices and decisions by the Gonzi Administration. For instance, in 2006, they were advised to go for gas but did not.
The tariffs, Mizzi said, can be decreased firstly by building a gas infrastructure and converting the power station to gas. The transition to (relatively cheaper) gas would ensure lower tariffs. Labour, he added, also has a number of proposals for alternative technology, including more widespread use of solar energy. Labour would also look at Enemalta’s efficiency and procure fuel more efficiently.
So now we are beginning to know. Except for one thing: how long would it take to be able to reduce tariffs without placing the cost on the Exchequer? That might be revealed in the due course. Meanwhile, here is a warning to the PL. Should it win the election there would be a likelihood that thousands of households would stop paying utility bills, waiting for the tariffs reduction. Enemalta’s cash flow will look like it had suffered an energy explosion, gas or whatever. That is what happened to the Nationalist government in 1995 and 1996, when Labour promised to abolish the VAT.
Labour, justifiably worried about the state of the public finances it would inherit, had better be prepared for that as well. Old habits do not change easily.