Not many people have pointed out a particular aspect of the Labour party’s grand plans for energy and the utility bills. Scratch that “not many” and think “nobody”. Beyond the partisan exchanges fuelled by marketing vs marketing, beyond all that the voter wishes for (irrespective of, and notwithstanding any critical reasoning) there is a peculiar characteristic of how this particular electoral bomb has unravelled. Let me tell you what that is.
In traditional PLPN discourse, Labour’s major “flaw” in its presentation has nothing to do with the lesser (though not less important) flaws of planning and detail. The major flaw is that this is the kind of project that is normally announced, embarked upon and bungled AFTER a party is elected to government. How is that a “flaw”? Well it would have been a flaw in strategic terms because under normal electoral circumstances Muscat would have got away with his tired phrase of “Inrahhsu l-kontijiet” plus a few clues about new power sources &c &c. Instead, also thanks to the dynamics of this particular election, we got the pre-project plans (yes, even if they are desktop plans) as a taster while in full election mode.
Labour is not in government. But imagine the PN had presented its White Rocks Sports Park project, SmartCity or Arriva plans with a Manuel Delia instead of Konrad Mizzi. Imagine Delia’s powerpoint on Xarabank with all the aiding and abetting of Peppi or Lou. Would things have been different? I doubt it. Political parties do not go into detail about their plans and projects before they are elected to government for two reasons:
(1) Because they can. They can afford to be superficial and speak in glowing marketing terms while burying any serious criticism under the carpet because this is a zero-sum game. It remains US vs THEM and reason has nothing to do with why they will get the ultimate voters preference. Labour can yell all it likes about efficiency and cancer but the truth remains that no matter how many technical flaws are found in its plan many many voters have already decided to go for them – because it’s either Joseph or MorePN.
(2) Latent Incumbency. I know we normally speak of the power of incumbency BEFORE an election. Government makes use (abuses) of its powers to favour the gain of potential votes. In this case the incumbency is useful for projects once you are IN government. MEPA permits? Directives? Seveso? It’s all relative. When it’s a plan for an aspirant governor that’s one thing but when you are in government you can conveniently play around these issues. Take the much touted SEVESO Directive on safety. It’s all ok for Miles Seaman to come and tell us about the need of insurance and strict safety compliance (more than ok actually) but then where have the PN consultants and experts been when we have had firework factory after firework factory blowing up in our faces?
Had Labour been elected (or once it is elected, to make the flag waving Historians, Musicians and Porta-Pundits of the world happy) many of the serious objections to its plan (and by that I mean security, safety, environment even before I start counting Euros) would be brushed aside because once in government YOU CAN. That’s the point really that should be drummed into all the asthma sufferers in the South. Once in government MEPA permits can be pressured into being, once in government a few “managerial” words about “one-stop shop permits, fast tracking, efficiency” will easily mask lax controls and the bending of the laws to the incumbents needs.
Need more proof? Ask the birds (or better the conservationists unless you meet some particularly intelligent Myna). Sure I am scandalised when I hear Mizzi dismissing legal requirements with all his talk about focus groups, expression of intent and roadshow politics but isn’t Mizzi just giving us more of the same? Same, same just different.
There is no real control of government and its power unless you get a fluke situation like the Franco Debono / Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando trap that GonziPN and its spin friends walked into in 2008.
This blog has recently faced an increased assault of being “nationalist” or “passive” simply because it has never wavered from criticising the criticisable. At this stage in the electoral campaign we still believe that both mainstream parties are pushing gimmicks rather than policies in the most populist of manners.
A concrete, long-term energy plan in the national environmental and economic interest will never be the bastard son of this election. Instead whoever is elected will soldier on with their particular version of energy plan basted together out of god knows what interests and god knows what political point of expediency.
And guess what. You’ll be voting them in. Thanks. But no thanks.
