Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Malta Post Franco (IV) – Labour
Never commit to writing a series if you do not have the time to write it. That should be a number one rule for bloggers. I find that having committed to a series I either finish it off or else I end up postponing about blogging in general. Anyways… in order to break this “writer’s blog” I thought of adding a sort of intermezzo for the series. I wanted to write about Labour after Franco. Joseph’s party was left with bad taste in its mouth when the result of confidence vote was clear. No rush to the polls. All that “Jiena lest biex immexxi” was futile in the end and Joseph was reduced to yelling “Bring them on!” for the Local Council elections.
Labourites and disgruntled voters alike were royally pissed off that’s for sure. One interesting aspect is the viciousness with which they attacked anyone like myself who had begun to remind them that electability is not about the other parties deficiencies but also about your party’s plans for government. “Don’t start with your unelectable Labour bullshit again” I was told. It must be so painful to be told that again… four years after your dear leader has supposedly had enough time to build a winning team with a plan that should breeze into Castille the day after a formality of an election is really announced. But that’s the point isn’t it? Labour’s “Hope” is built on a mysterious “vision” that is shared with no one.
Much like gonziPN in 2008, Labour are fashioning a campaign around the promise of one man: Joseph Muscat. Once you get over the noise about “Instability”, “gonziPN’s dismantlement”, “Inefficiency” etc, once the whole fracas surrounding Franco’s last hold on government is over… you will be left with the naked truth. Two parties geared up for election. What is Labour promising? Joseph Muscat that’s what. Peel away the complaints and the only inkling of a plan you have is a “vision” held closely to heart by Joseph Muscat. They tell us they trust him. On what basis? Because he SAYS he can run a country? On what principles? With what reference point?
After Franco we got a Labour party beating its chest ready for action. Franco’s shenanigans required that parties showed themselves prepared: just in case. To the observer on the sidelines – not particularly bothered with partisan flag-waving – it was evident that Labour was nothing but a party of words and slogans. I know you won’t believe me so here are three random interventions from Labour’s General Council. Chris Fearne, Chris Cardona and David Farrugia Sacco take to the podium. Do they mention one… just one… idea they might have as a basis for change? Honestly… beyond the plaudits for Joseph and the list of grievances (legitimate as they may be) is one of these potential election candidates telling us anything except that they trust in Muscat’s vision?
Lawrence Gonzi’s ridiculous show of leadership challenge and defence (the Soviet acclamation?) might have bought time for the nationalist party to get its act together for the eventual battle. Meanwhile Labour could do well to keep the public opinion momentum going with the drum beating it loves to impress… but it would also do well to come up with some homework pretty soon because if we were into voting for visions then we’d have Angelik as Prime Minister.
Here are the three interventions: (Cardona, Fearne, Farrugia Sacco) I could add more but you get the gist.
For starters, change has its intrinsic value. A new broom sweeps clean. OK so there are some old heads on the labour platform, a couple would probably seek to maintain the status quo but most but can balance experience with youth. But Joseph seems to have the head and heart in the right place (and yes he is ambitions, the noble Brutus told you so :) since when that has become a negative?) That in itself is reason enough for change. Then there are the macro objectives – recognition of the mediocrity, and even worse is the pseudo modernism – spending money on an acquired modern installation that becomes tatty in no time – that forms part of our current culture – from street furniture to service systems (arms and the rest of the bla bla bla).
There is also within labour a commitment to rationalize bureaucracy on the way to reduce costs of inefficiency (we can all feel and touch) and corruption. That is what i feel anyway.
Then there comes the detail. I have never seen any party coming into election providing detail for the simple reason that such detail is totally unreliable in nature and cannot be relied upon. There is now a much greater issue that impacts on current Government and a new Government of whatever hue – the constitutional obligation of balancing budgets (remember Mintoff anyone?).
The present Government is an actual Government that is governing now. Yet we are still waiting for details on how the promised 40m less spending in 2012 will materialise. I find it slightly rich that in these circumstances we still await detail from Government on the 40m slash that is after all a small fraction of total expenditure, let alone no idea how the 3% contraction will happen. Hopefully we shall not have any new papering over as Government runs for cover behind unrealistic revenue streams. Indeed Labour will be a closed box as most new Governments will…but I do not see why we should be so apprehensive when we also see the quality of manpower within the labour ranks. Is that not the underpinning to propaganda that personally targets these individuals?