Tag: budget

Categories
Politics

Ġej budget li ma jitwemminx

budget_akkuzaDifficli li timmaġina li dan il-baġit ikun wieħed li jitwemmen. Difficli, biex niftehmu, li jkun xi baġit fantastiku. Roħs ta’ prezzijiet u taxxi. Jekk jgħidulek li se jseħħu wisq probabbli tkun int l-ewwel wieħed li jgħajjat “Ħożż fl-ilma”. Kumpens għall-għoli tal-ħajja? Insa. Tmienja u ħamsin centeżmu x’ħa tixtri bihom? Forsi pastizz. Tad-dawl u l-ilma aħjar ma ngħidu xejn. Għax roadmaps jiżżerżqu f’kemm ilni ngħidlek u ħadd ma jerfa’ l-icken responsabilta’. Ħadd, biex niftehmu, m’hu se jilgħab il-karriera tiegħu fuq xi wiegħda li jseħħ dak li għandu jseħħ. Għax ifhem, kieku kien Casino ilhom li spiccaw bla cips. Muscat, Mizzi, Cardona, kollha xi ħin jew ieħor qalu li jirriżenjaw jekk ma jwettqux il-pjanijiet tagħhom – jekk hux dawl u ilma jew White Rocks. Hemm għadhom. Xi skuża dejjem se jsibu.

Insa’ ħabib. Dal-baġit żgur mhux ħa jħallik mistagħġeb, b’ħalqek miftuħ.

Sakemm… dejjem… m’intix wieħed minn dawk il-babbi, għadek hemm tistenna il-bajtra taqa’ f’ħalqek.

 

 

Categories
Energy Middle East Politics

Tan-Numri

This blog never had aspirations to being a number cruncher and we always begin our budget-time assessments with a caveat the size of Manwel Mallia’s mattress. While I do not feel that the minutae of budget balancing is within my sphere of expertise (nowadays everyone seems to be an “expert” in something “f’hiex jifhem?”) I can and will assess the noise created by and around it.

It does not take much to see that as a general line the “state of the economy” bit of the affair tells us one simple message: that the economy was being safely marshalled by the previous PN government and that the PL financial gurus simply had to hold tight to the rudder and control an already steady ship. How does an ignoramus like me notice that? Simples really – there are no groundbreaking measures that would signify a sudden change in direction – little wonder that Muscat expects the Commission to approve his latest milestone in the mysterious roadmap.

When it does boil down to the nitty-gritty Muscat seems to be making much of the fact that he is putting his money where his mouth is. True, we are surprised in the sense that this is the first time that Labour seems to be actually acting in the manner it had promised before the election – and this with regard to one very particular item on the budget list i.e. the cost of water and electricity. Surprised we are because given Labour’s haphazard approach to accountability, environmental transparency, meritocracy etc we should not be blamed had we expected even the black and white promises on the utilities bill to be thrown out of the window.

In his intervention with the press, Simon Busuttil tried (rather vaguely in my opinion – could have been clearer) to explain how the money saved on electricity and water will be repaid threefold via the newly introduced or increased indirect taxes. That’s one for the number crunchers to confirm/contradict. If it is so (and quite frankly it must be so since the money must come from somewhere) then Labour’s deceptive basket of “cutting the utilities bill” will turn into a time bomb ready to explode when the voters realise that their pennies saved have actually transformed in pounds pinched.

What did jar insofar as the opposition reaction was concerned is the assertion that this budget contains no job-producing measures. Given the noise coming from other social partners this particular reaction might turn out to look like one of those that is simply “negative for the sake of being negative”.  The MEA (Employers), MDA (Developers), MHRA (hotels & restaurants), GWU (you know), and the Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise all seem to have hooked on to more positive aspects of certain measures in the budget including job-creation. Bar the angry nurses (MUMN), the FORUM seems to have had positive words for most of the budget plan, leaving Simon Busuttil and the echoes in a few blogs/columns sounding like lone negative voices.

I am (painfully) aware that the “negative” mantra is something close to Joseph Muscat and believe you me I am not using it in the same sense. Labour’s little measures (COLA, petrol prices, cigarettes, educational footballers) might have served as a little decoration around the most awaited measure of cheaper utility bills (let’s face it, it was the only thing most people were looking at this time round). Some other measures such as the incentives for first time house buyers will be warmly welcomed (for a better highlight of positives and negatives check out Mark Anthony Sammut’s early assessment).

Should Busuttil have focused so strongly on job-creation? I believe that the biggest flaw in Labour’s budget hype is the very fact that it is much ado about nothing. The bigger emphasis should remain on the citizenship for sale system that stinks from top to bottom. other than that Busuttil should have thanked Muscat for confirming that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the direction in which the PN was heading finance-wise and allowed this first Labour budget to shine by reflecting the light shone earlier in the year by its predecessors.

As for the cut in utility bills. While Muscat played his little fiddle in parliament last night, East Libya (the oil rich East Libya) declared an autonomous government and gunshots were being fired in Tripoli. Meanwhile we have obscure deals built on Chinese whispers and a not too tenuous link between the latter and our new citizenship scheme.

When it comes to surprises Muscat cannot be more of a jester than this.

 

Categories
Politics

The Emperor’s Purse

Much like what happened in the case of his new clothes, the emperor’s purse and his dealings with it tend to be talked about in a very circumstantial manner. The norm is either that of criticising the corrupt wastage or applauding some genius plan – much depends on which side one’s bread is buttered. There are a few reflections to be made as to recent developments in matters relating to the Emperor’s purse.

First up, the Emperor in government. We read that the Commission has recommended the opening of an Excessive Deficit Procedure against Malta and that Malta is the only EU state that will be facing this predicament. What it means is that since Malta has exceeded the 3% deficit threshold it will have to succumb to recommendations and suggestions by the Council as to how it could reduce that figure to below 3%. Still geared in “opposition” thinking, the Taghnalkoll government is eager to put the blame on its predecessor – insofar as the existence of the excessive deficit is concerned (and this even after Muscat claimed that he did not want to make a political football out of it).

There is a contradiction that was identifiable early on – while cost-cutting measures such as creating the world’s first part-time eternal flame were still being announced  (and less than 10,000 euros will be saved by the cabinet that is costing the citizen 60 million 6 million euro more than the previous per year) we heard this absolute gem from the government in reaction to the Commission’s assessment:

Although Malta is the only country set to be placed under fresh EDP, the Maltese government insisted that the Commission’s recommendations were a positive sign for its own economic and fiscal plan in its reaction to them this afternoon. It pointed out that the Commission did not impose additional measures on the country’s budget, stating that this showed its confidence in the new government’s plan.

Which is great no? Only there is one big flaw. Everybody who is anybody knows that the budget referred to in this quote is the same budget that was first voted against by the current government (disguised as a constructive opposition) then approved quickly once it was in government (disguised as a progressive government). Whatsmore that budget is the very same budget devised by that devious and scheming ex-Minister Tonio Fenech – yep, the Nationalist Party In Government Budget. So the emperor is lying… because if anything the fact that the commission did not deem fit to impose additional  measures on the country’s budget only goes to show that the previous stewards of our financial ship had steadied it in the right direction.

Which brings me to the stewards’ current predicament. The appointment of Ray Bugeja to head the PN commission on party finances has been hailed as excellent because the commission is supposedly full of competent people. The whole hand clapping and back slapping exercise might still prove to be futile because what many people are failing to see (or to want to see) is that this is not the case of a company with a profitable product needing tweaking. This is a political party that operates very much in the PLPN tried and tested system of bartering that is only another way of trading in influence.

Short of recommending a complete meltdown of debt-carrying party “resources” there is little that any bunch of King’s Men could do in an honest fashion to put this particular Humpty Dumpty together again. Though the work of Bugeja’s commission is shrouded in economic terms (Sibna sponsor!) the truth remains that it is an issue of party finances and financing – one that has recently been pushed to the discussion table without any particular happy ending in sight. It is a political and maybe even a constitutional issue that will only be solved superficially by an internal party committee. Bugeja’s work seems doomed to be a rubber stamp for more bartering systems, more trading in influence… in short more of the same.

Unless of course the PN gets serious about the business of politics and abandons that very damaging route of politics of business. Int taf x’ifisser!

Categories
Campaign 2013

He cannot be serious

Joseph Muscat’s reaction following the budget must qualify as one of the most unpredictable reactions ever. You’d expect him to state that this budget was a bloated cornucopia of pre-electoral gifts. You’d expect him to state that he did not believe the government would take it seriously given that Franco Debono’s (and don’t forget the Birthday Party man’s) threat loomed ominously behind it like a badly scripted haiku. You’d expect him, on a normal day, to dig into whatever he perceived as the flaws of the budget and (if there were any) the contradictions to be found therein.

But not Joseph. What does he do? Well he basically says that there is nothing wrong with this budget (he had already hinted that he would keep the “good bits” – that’s right I hate the blue M&Ms too) and then proceeds to say that the best government to implement this budget would be his labour government.

In the words of the tennis champion: “You cannot be serious!” After months upon months of faffing and foot shuffling about giving away an iota of a plan as to what labour would do once it is in government we now get the leader of the opposition seriously informing us is that his plan to come first in class is to steal his friends’ homework.

In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Elephants, rooms and budgets

This budget is as much about the elephant in the room as it is about financial measures and planning. We came to the budget after almost a full calendar year of “will he, won’t he” insofar as Franco Debono was concerned and we had the extra leverage by the man who will henceforth be called The Birthday Party. We assumed that the PN would use the summer to pull its act together and prepare for the inevitable arrival of elections. Summer would allow PN to go into top gear and to stop playing second fiddle to the Labour party’s constant taunts – as well as to the opposition from within the party.

The battle has not been without attrition. Along the way Lawrence Gonzi publicly “lost” one of his greater generals (although there is no doubt that he is operating in the sidelines). Then came the Dalli tsunami. Convenient for the conspiracy theorists, it rid the PN of what most of the current crowd consider to be inconvenient baggage. That gave rise to the musical chairs that we are all familiar with. Tonio Borg was moved upstairs. Whatever blows that would be dealt to the PN with regard to the “conservative” label were considered to be fair game. The PN is cocksure enough to believe that the “liberal mass” can still be thumbscrewed into involuntary submission with the usual endgame formulas of “wasted votes” and “responsible government”. The social rights agenda will eventually be trumped by down to earth contrasts of the “old hat” type.

Tonio the homophobe will be replaced by Francis Zammit Dimech in a sort of prize for past performances – a Ministry for at most six months. Nobody’s kidding anyone. Zammit Dimech may be affable and loyal but under other circumstances he would be anything but top choice for the job. He is being trusted to muster that part of the ship until the elections (and yes, for the punctilious, a little after). Meanwhile the post of deputy leader is the subject of a trumped up battle between old and new while other stalwarts chose to sit back and watch. Will Simon or Tonio F. do the job? That remains to be seen. They still remain distractions from the final target.

Which brings me to the budget. Franco Debono has long called dibbs on the right to bring the government down by voting against the budget. Everybody knew that but the PM and his crew have been acting as though the elephant is not in the room. Which leaves an ugly sort of damocles sword on the whole business. How credible is a budget plan if we know that they knew it would not be approved? What is to stop the PN from promising the earth. Joseph Muscat tried to call the bluff by claiming he would keep the “good parts” but of course he will vote against the budget. Let’s leave him to his contradictions for now and ask the question: what is this budget for exactly?

Well the Pn obviously thinks that this budget will be an integral part of their pitch for a new mandate. They don’t care if the PL and Franco will not vote in its favour. They want to take it to the people. And the people as we know are not easily swayed.

Back to Joseph Muscat. He is displaying an amazing level of shortsightedness in this business. It is all about parliamentary custom and tradition. First he gives us the contradictory message of wanting to vote the government out by disapproving the budget but promising to keep the good parts. That was very much what the government wanted from him – to be able to expose the opportunist, power-hungry man that he is. The second, more important, mistake lies in Joseph Muscat aiding and abetting the lone rebel backbencher.

If Muscat were half the statesman he wishes to be then he would be operating differently. The interest of governance and governability would trump his greed for getting into government. He should not be reinforcing Franco Debono and that parliamentarian’s hara-kiri. At the end of the day the election is months away in any case – budget or no budget. Muscat could use this opportunity to pull the carpet from under Franco’s legs and be in command of his own party’s destiny. His best move would be to instruct two or more of his MPs (how many are necessary) to abstain in the budget vote. The budget would pass, without the vote of labour who would go on record as having voted against.

What would NOT happen is a backbencher being the cause of the downfall of a government. That is an important precedent for parliament. It would be an important precedent for Muscat’s party too. The PLPN would be sending out the message that they would not aid and abet any backbencher who suddenly develops a god complex. It is another important element for our constitutional democracy. Something that the progressive labourites should be able to understand without too much of a struggle.

Is Joseph Muscat capable of such a groundbreaking constitutional manoeuvre? I doubt it. His every act ever since he was made leader of the party has been directed to getting into Castille. Many would argue that that is his business. It may be, but it is not the primary duty of the leader of the opposition. That duty is to constructively oppose and contribute in the development of our fledgling democracy. But Joseph is too busy dealing with the elephant in the room.

In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle.

Categories
Campaign 2013 Politics

So it shall be done…

Simon says, Tonio does

The contest for Tonio Borg’s seat is giving us another very interesting glimpse into the workings of the nationalist party. Lawrence Gonzi believed that a contest would be healthy for the party, that still remains to be seen. The impression we get is that no matter how united a front the two candidates will show before the media (and the united grilling of Joseph Muscat is an example of that) this is a battle that has inevitably reopened old scars and divides within the decision making bodies of the PN. This kind of battle would have been postponed to after the election. Instead it will be held right on the eve of an election almost contemporaneously with one of the latest budgets in Maltese history. Did you say healthy Lawrence?

Simon Busuttil. The (relatively) young lawyer is supposed to be the breath of fresh air that is much needed by the PN. Like Obama he has invested much of his campaign in the concept of “change”. Unlike Obama he has a habit of hitting obvious bumps as his strategy unfurls – not the best sign for a future leader. He started with the big bump with regards to Franco Debono et al. The doors are always open he said. That made him sound like Joseph Muscat at the start of his leadership – a bit of a contradiction really because it is (Inhobbkom) Joseph’s openness that led to the PN criticism of his new team (cue billboards). It also turns out that Simon had voted against Franco’s interests in the original vote at PN HQ – which makes his appeal for inclusion sound a bit superficial.

Simon’s strong point seems to be media coverage. He is everywhere – and even gets weird boosts such as when (Greek PM) Samaras barged into an interview in order to tell a stunned Times interviewer that Simon is the best MEP. It is not clear whether the “too good” image of babyface Busuttil is sellable as leadership material in the future – I am sure the polls will help in that respect. It is one thing garnering votes on the basis of expertise in a field that has been plugged to kingdom come (viz EU) and another to suddenly become the all round politician – warts and all.

The latest forays by Simon Busuttil make a very interesting read. Judging by some media reports he seems to have been the first PN politician to give a clear indication of a time-frame for both budget and elections. Was this on purpose? Did he pull the carpet from under both the Finance Minister’s legs and the PM’s? It is no small detail that the Finance Minister happens to be his rival in the upcoming deputy leader showdown.

In the same interview on TVAM, Simon Busuttil told viewers that he was writing the new PN manifesto and that he had also written the 2008 manifesto. Where do I begin? Let me start from the end. It is ever so easy to own up for the writing of what ended up to be a winning manifesto. Nothing was mentioned of Simon Busuttil’s role in 2008 so why should we hear of it now? The only reason we can think of is for Simon Busuttil to pin the  medal of the 2008 victory firmly to his chest as being his own. Not that the manifesto had much to do with the victory did it?

Which is another interesting point. Does Simon really want to arrogate to himself the ugly baggage of PN2008? Did he form part of that strategy team that called the shots with regards to the JPO lies and the anything goes philosophy that lumped us with this rainbow value government for five years? What does that say about change?

Which brings me to the now. Simon says that he is writing this year’s manifesto. The most obvious reaction has been universal: so it’s not just Aaron Farrugia and Karmenu Vella who are late with their homework? And then a myriad questions more. Such as is this Simon’s manifesto? What about all the dialogue and consultation? What values will Simon’s imprint leave on the manifesto? We’ll need another blog post just to see the implications of this decision. One thing that we hope is that Simon is a little more creative with his slogans – from Obama’s “Change” to Sarkozy’s “Together everything is possible” there seems to be no end to the amount of leeching going on.

Also with regards to this point, the day after Simon had announced his authoring of this election’s manifesto, PM Gonzi sat at his computer for a Q&A session with voters in order to listen to their suggestions. Was this another case of Simon grabbing the limelight?

At this point we can only measure Simon by these “moves”. His novel, clean act might be just what certain disgruntled PN voters will look forward too. The danger is that it is a thinly constructed mask that counts too much on being pleasant and that continues to drag the PN into the field of ambiguity, much in the same way as Joseph Muscat has done with the PL and its non-agenda.

Tonio Fenech on the other hand is fast proving to be the champion of the old guard. His nomination to the contest was a statement in itself – getting 136 endorsements compared to Simon’s 26. The Minister carries a difficult portfolio to sell and is also responsible for the budget – which Simon reminded us that Tonio is writing. He is definitely tied to the conservative wing of the PN and is less of an agent of change than Simon Busuttil in that respect. In many ways, the vote that Tonio Fenech manages to garner within the PN council will be a clear indication of exactly what dose of change the PN wants. This is not only the result of Simon’s pitch for the “change” corner but also because Tonio Fenech has become one of the current government’s representatives of the “nothing’s really wrong” policy.

Therein lies quite a tough nut to crack. While Busuttil’s pitch seems to include an implicit admission that change is needed because not everything is right, Fenech’s pitch includes an element of continuity because “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Insofar as leadership qualities are concerned, Fenech too does not cut quite the imposing figure that we have come to expect of the nationalist party. Often in his impromptu interviews (not Q&A’s on a paper) he seems to be unable to keep his calm and manages to lose his nerve and become imprecise. Nothing that a few coaching sessions with the right people might not fix mind you but a telling factor just the same.

Round up

Elsewhere I have described the deputy leader race as an irrelevant distraction. In many ways I still stand by my original assertion. I still believe that the real race for posts within the PN will happen after the election should there be a Labour victory – and so far the polls seem to point in that direction. On the other hand, the gamble that is being made on this race might turn out to be an interesting weapon for the PN. First of all it allows them to gauge the feel of their own electorate. By creating a battle between two possible alternatives (and styles) the PN might be allowing their faithful to do the talking.

The distraction from the real election that is to come is minor, granted, but a distraction it remains. And now we also know that the race involves the two men who are responsible for two very important documents : the PN electoral manifesto and the budget. There is another point that cannot be overlooked: the PN is parading its assets with this race. This hits home hard to the undecided and the garrulous. For you see, while Simon Busuttil writes the PN electoral manifesto, the PL manifesto is written by … Aaron Farrugia and Karmenu Vella. Tonio Fenech is responsible for a financial situation that is winning plaudits from the Commission and the EU – while we still do not know how MuscatEconomy will work.

That simple contrast is more than enough to justify the collateral damage of a bit of resetting within the PN before the big war. Everybody seems to be writing something at this point and soon it will be time to produce the wares. Scripta manent indeed.