Labour leader Joseph Muscat talks about the need to step up economic growth as if he were reinventing the wheel or as if the work of other administrations in this direction had produced little or no results at all. Yet, in all his talk about the party’s determination to help generate growth, he has, so far, hardly made any practical proposals that could convince the country that Labour’s way forward is better than the one followed by the Nationalist Administration.
All that the country has had from Dr Muscat up to now are just declarations of commitment and intent, dressed up in attractive talk meant to impress voters.
Less than a year away from an election, the party does not even seem to have sorted out the road signs yet, let alone a programme. This is what he told an economic magazine, The Economic Update, in an interview in this month’s edition: “We strive to under-promise and over-deliver, to construct a robust road map for economic growth rather than compile an incoherent wish list.”
Never mind the fact that “robust” is a word that is greatly overused by politicians nowadays, Dr Muscat is here simply creating a new mantra unless, that is, he is prepared to back up his talk with facts.
Even when he is pressed for concrete proposals, the Labour leader usually manages to wriggle out of questions, as he did, for example, when he was asked by the same magazine what ranked high on the party’s priority list right now and in which way they will be implemented.
The magazine put this question to Dr Muscat in view of the fact that he had openly criticised the Nationalist Administration for having confused priorities.
In his reply, Dr Muscat attacked the government for spending €200 million on a new power station that consumes the highest and most damaging amounts of fuel. He also argued that, had the country made the right decision four years ago, perhaps it would not be in the situation it is in today.
Maybe he is right on this but when it comes to tackling the issue about the water and energy tariffs, he, once again, wriggles out of the question because he fails to explain exactly how his party in government plans to go about solving the problem.
Right now, he told the magazine, “we need to tackle the utility bills issue and we are convinced that, by lowering these bills, a brighter future stands ahead of us. The government has already been offered several alternatives to do so in the past and has blatantly shot them down”.
If a future Labour government means to lower utility rates for all, that is, for both the consumer and all the economic sectors, well, yes, this would help cut costs and give a boost to the economy. But how is the government going to make up for the shortfall in revenue from the utility bills? By adopting the “alternatives” which, he said, had already been offered to the government and which had been turned down? Are these “alternatives” practical to put into operation and to cut the cost of electricity generation?
Maybe the party will be able to answer these and other questions by the time the country goes to the polls. Of course, Labour would also say, as it has said often enough, that, ultimately, the answer lies in generating greater economic growth. But as to its ideas on this, the country has to wait for the party’s road map.