Tag: Simon Busuttil

Categories
Immigration Values

The push-back effect

As the dust settles on the 24 hours push-back saga we can begin to draw a few conclusions as to how the different participants fared. Away from the noise and static of the instinctive reactions there might be an opportunity to examine whether or not the issue of “immigration” has seen any development. First of all there is no way we could ever conceive of a policy on immigration that is apolitical. That is a load of rubbish. A policy on immigration is by its very nature political. Parties are not there to simply echo popular demands but they should be clearly stating their position on the matter and offering their ideas.

In fact what we really do not need is the “partisan” approach where policy is either pulled out of the pocket in a knee-jerk reaction or simply phrased in such a manner as to serve short-term government or opposition goals without any eye for a holistic policy that clearly enunciates Malta’s position vis-a-vis the complex problem of migration. Let us see how the participants fared then:

The Sabre-Rattling Prime Minister (or The Blind Man’s Bluff)

Joseph Muscat has a problem. He is now being judged by what he does and not simply by what he promised to do. There’s a huge difference between Jane Marshall saying she believes in Joseph because he does what he promised (and he still had done nothing yet) and what every citizen is able to see for his own eyes now. Muscat is finding it hard to understand that while promises only have consequences in the mind of whoever wants to believe them, real actions have consequences in the real world and these consequences cannot be as controlled or doped as a propaganda message.

Does Joseph genuinely believe that he could pull off such a stunt as he did yesterday? Is it possible that his was an elaborate bluff full knowing that in the end the planes would leave for nowhere? Even if we did consider it to be such an elaborate bluff it falls apart immediately as was said so well elsewhere. The reason is because his bluff involves stoking the flames of intolerance and racism. Joseph created the expectancy of a full-fledged push-back programme turning the insipid Times commentator’s dream into reality – a ro/ro service of planes sending the despicable pest back where they came from. Taghna Lkoll had a new corollary. It was go back to your country.

And who was the bluff supposed to impress? Ah yes. Joseph’s second protracted gaffe. He insists on dealing with Europe as though it is somebody else. He insists on reinforcing the idea of Europe and Brussels as the enemy. Many a bleating donkey will repeat this notion before sundown. There might be an opening here for insisting on more burden sharing but Joseph simply ploughs his way into any hope of EU solidarity and reintroduces the Mintoffian roughness and lack of diplomacy. Sure he got plaudits (“Leader bil-bajd”) but is it from the right crowd?

The third gaffe from the supposed sabre-rattler is the appalling idea of showing publicly that our government is prepared to flaunt international law and join the ranks of international tantrum throwers like some latter-day Ahmadinejad. Only a while back somebody was calling Joseph Muscat a mature PM – we already struggled to come to terms with that before this charade. Now that it is over we see nothing more than a man incapable of understanding his role and the importance of international law.

Finally Labour’s treating of immigrants as pawns in this sabre-rattling saga was the cherry on the cake insofar as proof of Labour’s absolute loss when it comes to the real treatment of real human rights. The fallacy of all things progressive from gay rights to emancipation of different religions and more was never more evident than with Labour’s “selection” of which migrants to send back. In the same week when our Foreign Office had issued a travel warning for Maltese in Benghazi (Libya) we had a nazi-style selection progress to send the strongest among the lot (we care about women and children) to face the troubles. Weep if you remember how to.

Simon and the Moral Issue

The nationalist party had a hard time getting everyone to forget the ugly baggage it has stored in Dar Centrali when it comes to immigration policy. Over the years in government we cannot really say that the PN had provided some sort of moral standards when it came to dealing with immigrants. It’s all too well for ex-PM Gonzi and co. to stand up in parliament and insist that morality should come before the law (which we agree 100%) when not too long ago a nationalist government had no qualms in using a boat-load of immigrants as a negotiating pawn with that sans-pareil of democracy from the Italian government – Mr Frattini.

It would always have been hard for the nationalists to appear genuinely concerned on the matter what with all their footshuffling on all things immigrant when they were in the driving seat. Conditions at the immigrant quarters, backing of Italian push-back policies and that ill-fated planeload of Eritreans would still return to haunt the sons of the Ugandan exiles. Only three years ago MEP Simon Busuttil was comfortable writing the following words in an article entitled “Why the hypocrisy must stop” (Times 28.07.2010):

“It is all too easy to condemn and to play the moral card. Bet there is a hint of hypocrisy in those who do so at the international level. For they have no reply when we ask them who is going to shoulder the responsibility”.

Which is where the PN still needs to grow up. As I said I am all for a revamped Nationalist position on immigration. Ideally this would involve a long term approach putting their policy in black and white. I am sure there would  be place for defining moral priorities and help the PN avoid a pick’n’mix approach depending on the latest crisis. As things stand though it is hard to be convinced by a leader who only in 2011 (March 25th) was still prepared to argue in legal terms over and above issues of morality (See “Libyan crisis caused migration policy rethink – Times of Malta). Which is not to say there is not place for hope.

What the PN needs to avoid is gimmicks such as the “65 lawyer” lawsuit. Call a spade a spade. Say that 65 lawyers from within the PN set-up signed a document that would allow the party to bask in the limelight. If it had to be a real lawyer’s lawsuit then why not open it to the whole of our professional brotherhood? Better still why not make sure that you actually have locus standi to see the thing through – as did the very commendable Michael Camilleri in his lawsuit for and on behalf of a number of NGO’s? There was something that smacked of the incredibly opportunistic in this lawsuit business (the PN’s not Michael’s of course). It was the PN trying to do a PL (remember the class action stunts?). A clumsy attempt at flashy PR. Failed.

The Bigot among us

Yes the issue has also shown that there are many, many among us who would have no qualms putting a couple of hundred innocent souls on a plane and send them to their doom. Just pop into facebook or the comment boards and you will see how this is not a case of the factitious loony few. It was not just Normal Lowell popping up his racist head to applaud Joseph Muscat. It was a slew of comments all over the place. It was a train of misguided thoughts and ill-informed criticism. At least Muscat could rest assured that there is more than a modicum of support for his theatrics.

The irony is that those who claim to be acting in the interest of the nation seem to be oblivious of the fact that a push-back policy risks making Malta a pariah in the international community. Their idea of making the country proud (and yes, of standing up to be counted) is one that flaunts international rules, defies moral duty and packages human beings in a lead box with wings before sending them out to the slaughter. Din l-art helwa my arse.

Utopia

Back in the days of the Crimean War Malta was a floating hospital receiving the wounded and injured from the battleground. The country can once again develop its capabilities as a safe harbour, promoter of Universal Rights and liberties, protector of the weak and beacon of light in an indifferent Europe. It is not just barracks for the migrants that could be built but centres for dissemination of information and education, events that focus on the plight of brother human beings across the world. All this and more would allow Malta to become a leader among nations in a Union that is shuffling its feet.

Being at the forefront of this human tragedy is not a danger to flee from but an opportunity to be grasped. A sense of duty is required. A moral fibre and a will to toil with sweat. These are real sacrifices that would not only make a country proud but would make us all better humans. Such a programme would require parties that think above partisan vote-winning interest. It would require genuine commitment and real men (and women) not rhetoric sabre-rattler or opportunistic bandwagon riders.

The Mediterranean sea is our history and our future. We cannot choose to only accept the Saints that are spat onto our island in some shipwreck two millenia ago. Destiny has put our islands at the crossroads of great events. We are either going to choose the path to be men and accept this challenge or tread the paths of many cowards before us who easily bully the weak and cower before the strong.

What will it be? It’s time to stop flogging the sea.

THEN Xerxes made vast provision for his invasion-for the building of a bridge over the Hellespont, and the cutting of a canal through the peninsula of Athos, where the fleet of Mardonius had been shattered. And from all parts of his huge empire he mustered his hosts first in Cappadocia, and marched thence by way of Sardis to the Hellespont. And because, when the bridge was a-building, a great storm wrecked it, he bade flog the naughty waves of the sea. Then, the bridge being finished, he passed over with his host, which took seven days to accomplish.

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Snapshot #1: Busuttil – the gaffer from Europe?

When the John Dalli musical chairs finally came to an end the Nationalist Party thought that it had found itself a new champion. Simon Busuttil, the new party deputy leader was supposed to help start lifting the party out of the doldrums and more importantly he was to be the projected face of change. This blog took all this with a pinch of salt and even after the other new addition from Europe (Grech) was added on the Labour side of the equation we remained cautiously observant for one simple reason. We did not take the “new style from Europe” as an automatic given.

Simon had taken to stressing his lack of experience in the local way of doing politics and was a ready accomplice in the implication that he had developed a “european” style of politics in his stint at the EP. At the time J’accuse stopped short of applauding and simply asked: Show me the money.

Well by now we can definitely say that the nationalist party has been short changed. From his first exhortation to the PN masses to take their message to the grocer’s (did someone mention the moonies) to the latest slip regarding Deborah Schembri’s supposedly nationalist face, Simon has betrayed a knack to slip incredibly on all sort of contrived bananas. There’s something more than these obvious warts underlying the former EP star’s foray into Maltese politics. His reported interventions are still straight out of the partisan textbook – an us and them approach peppered with the kind of style typical of PN politicians that has often attracted the “arrogant” label. If change was meant to be then Simon did not deliver.

What seems to be at work here is the effect of the chasm between Brussels and the various locations of PN’s Tined ta’ Djalogu (Dialogue Tents). As a friend put it, Simon is suffering from the effects of on-the-ground politics that is ever so different from the detached picture he could have received in his time in Brussels. The EP after all is an (important) talk-box that cannot afford to work on partisan lines in the same manner as our “winner takes all” politics does. Simon would have liked to reap the benefits of his success in the EP and bring them over to Malta but he ignored one important factor.

The EP ambience creates success stories of MEPs across the political spectrum. There is no “winner takes all” in the EP, rather there is an institution working in its interests and (sometimes) in the interests of those who elected its members. The mere fact that so many political formations are represented proportionally in the parliament obliges MEPs to engage in reasoned discussion on real issues. Simon left that fertile ground and mistakenly assumed that he could achieve similar results in the Maltese environment.

What he did find is the antagonistic bipartisan system engaged in yet another nihilistic electoral campaign. Auctions for gimmicks, personality clashes and the media wars leave little space for Simon to practice what he had appreciated and benefited from in a European environment. So Simon switched to his instinct. He may deny having been active in party politics before leaving for Europe (even though he claims to have written the 2008 manifesto and programme) but he managed to adapt very quickly back to the old style partisan style.

Once the sums are made up it will probably turn out that the PN’s Simon gambit has not really paid out. The direst verdict is on our political system – the fields in which our politicians are allowed to flourish – it has proven to be much tougher and much more resistant than any supposedly “European” style that could have been imported.

Once again the greater losers are the voters. That, at least, remains an immutable universal truth.

Categories
Campaign 2013

From Brussels with love

In tennis they don’t use the word zero when counting scores. They have a fancy name for it – they call it love. Some say that the name came from the tennis courts among the nobles in France when they used to call the zero “l’oeuf” (the egg) thanks to its ovoid shape. A tennis match kicks off at “love all” before moving on to other weird ways of adding up scores to find out the real winner. In any case for a tennis player love is nothing. Zero.

And Labour have got themselves a spanking new deputy leader just in time for the ball. We’ve already said much about how Labour have played to the PN’s tune when it comes to hyping the importance of deputy leaders and their “relevance” in politics and party programmes. We have also seen how Labour’s move is a clear demonstration that there was a moment of panic at the poll readings, that Anglu Farrugia was identified as the weakest link and that Simon Busuttil needed to be countered at all costs.

It is a battle of image and definitely not of substance. The supposed charm that oozes out of the newly anointed PN deputy leader was wreaking havoc with Labour’s plans. Somehow (and surprisingly) the PN bluff about having a “change card” in hand was working. So Labour needed to act fast. What better way then than to call the PN’s bluff? How? Short of cloning Simon they could only get as close fitting a substitute as possible. Enter Louis “Connery” Grech. Charm? Plenty. Affability? Truckloads. Substance? Come again?

For yes. We said it when Simon was anointed and we will repeat it with much greater force now that Labour got their clone. Where’s the substance? Show me the money. Grech shot out a speech about accountability, respect, managerial style and all that FEMA-speech yada we have long been hearing from Joseph. For a bit of added value he stole a few leaves from Franco Debono’s routine about meritocracy. Beyond that we just have image and the spiel about “experience gained in Europe” – Simon Said, Louis Did too.

So do we have anything new in our political constellation? Not really. We’ve got nothing. Love. The mad political extra-time before the end of the year has simply been an appendix of new-style valueless marketing. For now all we get are Simon and Louis… from Brussels, with love.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Resigned to reason

The “Christmas Truce” has gone up in ashes with a Ho! Ho! Ho! and without so much as a by your leave. It was obvious from the start (as we had predicted) that the two parties would be unable to contain the inertia of the electoral swing. The 9th of March has a gravitational pull of its own that knows no truces and acknowledges no pauses. Even before the big Anglu Farrugia bomb had fallen into the atmosphere like a big party pooper, the two parties were still heavily active on the promotional front but nothing really changes there.

Anglu’s resignation promises to be much more than a blip on the “truce” agenda. Labour have been forced to hold an extraordinary council meeting between Christmas and New Year. No time to unwrap the presents and no time for Luciano to regale us with the latest news from under the Christmas tree at Casa Busuttil (Labour). Instead Labour will be cooped up voting for their new Deputy Leader for Parliamentary Affairs. Which is quite a bitch really. In the first instance, Parliament is all but wrapped up now and Labour could have provided an interim leader without having to go through the pains of an expedited deputy leadership campaign. The post itself – as was the case with the PN – is not an issue really. Labour’s deputies have been useless props all along – causing more harm than damage (and you cannot say we didn’t tell you so before this happened) – so this is nothing to do with the post per se.

So what IS happening? Why has Labour so evidently gone for this step? Let us see what we can read in them while the facts are still fresh:

1) The Truce

The run up to the truce was an all round victory to the nationalists. Poll gaps were softened and thanks to the shenanigans of Anglu Farrugia (and the complicity of TVM) , the last memory before Christmas would definitely be the bumbling deputy’s antics on Xarabank. Not good, Labour would say. What Labour needed was not a truce but a “casus belli” – an excuse to reset its train on tracks. Ironically Anglu’s perceived moment of triumph over Simon – the very appeal case of which Simon was absolutely ignorant – turned out to be his cup of hemlock. Comments made by Anglu later in the week would become the excuse for Labour to dump excess baggage and to keep the momentum going. Forget Santa… this Christmas the people will have “a new deputy leader”. It was a bit like wishing for an electric car racing track and getting a woolly jumper instead. (Ghax dak ghandek bzonn).

2) The Resignation

I’m quite sure that whoever is supposed to be planning Labour’s campaign must be believing that they have carried out the smartest of moves. In one fell swoop Labour rids itself of an inconvenient bungler, keeps the electoral momentum going and has paved the way for the election of a deputy leader who is capable of returning the swings from that supposed Goliath called Simon. Wrong. We do not need to wait for the election of the new deputy to find out why. First of all Labour has shown once again that it is reactive and never proactive. They allow the Nationalist Party to dictate the rules of the game once the election is in full swing. No matter how much Joseph twists and turns about a “culture of resignation” he will never sell it through. The real reason is that Labour needed a replacement and they needed it fast. In falling for this trap they have allowed the discussion to shift into the barren (and relatively irrelevant) land of Deputy Leaderships. Again J’accuse asks: Since when do Deputy Leaders or Vici Kapi run the country?

3) The Culture of Resignation

Yes. Labour do have a point to win here, albeit a very minor one. Nobody is kidding anyone – this was not an automatic resignation by Anglu Farrugia. He was asked to resign and as we have seen from his reaction and letter, he was not exactly pleased with the result and showed so clearly. He DID resign though – which is the point I mentioned earlier. Muscat still CAN move his people around with relative ease something that Lawrence Gonzi plainly could not do throughout this legislature. It’s a damp victory of course since I am quite sure that the mechanics of this system depends very much on whether you are in government or still desperately aspiring to get there. Farrugia was not in the same position as a Pullicino Orlando or a Debono to mention the obvious two.

It is also about a culture and approach to resignations. I still cannot understand Labour’s fully. On the one hand they are rather cynical and are prepared to break up Christmas in order to realign their electoral plans. On the other hand this resignation turns out to be weakened and diluted by Joseph Muscat’s offer to Farrugia that “the door is still open” for him. How exactly Joseph? What does that mean to us idiots who still believe that a party candidate is accepted when it is clear that his opinions and ideas conform with that of the party ticket? It’s the “anything goes” mentality really – and it also goes to show why the resignation was more about replacing Anglu than about removing him.

4) Teamwork

A small word about teamwork. Joseph got to kick out Anglu without too much squealing and protesting. Labour is taking a risk (whether it is calculated though is another thing) here. An internal election in this period is either going to be a doctored affair – with the anointed one already chosen and pushed – which will make it look fake. It could also be an acrimonious affair that exposes certain faults in the party. The PN media have already started pushing on the weak link of Jason Micallef (as though electoral district rivalries were non existent in the PN camp). Joseph Muscat has been forced to declaim one of his usual tautologies: after a break from promising the eradication of poverty (St. Francis will not be proud) he came back with the assertion that “anything that the PN says is a lie”. If I were the PN Communications office I would issue a quick festive press release in the light of this statement: “Joseph Muscat ragel tal-ostra“.

5) The Nationalists

They’ve definitely been thrown by this sudden earthquake. They might smile while gritting their teeth at any mention of the culture of resignation that so plagued them during the last legislature but that will be a small price to pay. What they have to hope is that the new deputy leader from Labour HQ is not a clone of Simon – which he can very well be. Bar the fact that such a deputy will inevitably have militated against membership of the European Union (or protested mildly) we can expect another person with experience in the EU – an MEP. They’d be surprised at how fast the Labour supporters and the ditherers might warm up to a Louis Grech or Edward Scicluna di turno. Simon’s call until now has been “to bring something new” to Maltese politics since he always worked in Brussels (although he DID write the last electoral manifesto for the PN). Well, Labour might just be about to clone Gonzi’s new toy and in the local world of zero sum assessments it might not be too long before the “Simon move”  will have been replicated.

So the nationalists are right about the Simon effect. Anglu Farrugia did end up resigning after that ill-fated debate on Xarabank. It was not because of any kind of outstanding performance by Simon though. This was a delayed reaction by Labour who has realised very late in the day how badly one of its deputy leaders was effecting its points at the polls. The truth is that Anglu should never have been on the team – or at least he should have been hidden smartly in the same manner the PN hides its more embarrassing (but vote promising) candidates.

Conclusions

There’s much more to be read and seen in this but these are the first impressions. The main certainty we have is that this Christmas will be tinged in red with a couple of PN sideshots every now and then just to keep us in the spirit. The early impression I get is that Labour was pushed to immediate action because of the results that it was seeing the polls – which can only mean that the great divide is no longer so great. It also means that the next campaign promises to be much much more than a simple walkover.

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Not Simon Busuttil

Much is being made by the nationalist party and its faithful supporters about the goodwill that the election of Simon Busuttil to vice-leader has brought about. We have heard plenty of words about the change that Simon is supposed to bring about to the nationalist party – presumably the same mistakes of the past will not be committed again, particularly in the arrogance department. Presumably (again) the nationalist party will take care before fielding candidates whose ego will barely fit in one seat of our hallowed chambers in parliament.

With these thoughts in mind I found this video doing the rounds on social networks rather intriguing. It’s a perfect picture of “old vs new” – hosted on a labour station of course – a clear effort to expose the warts (past and future) that the PN carries. And they seem to have been quite successful in doing so (forget the title chosen by the uploader – I don’t think any one of the two egos was comfortable here).

I wonder what Simon makes of this (witt rispekt).

 

Categories
Campaign 2013 Politics

The charm offensive ?

So Simon Busuttil, il-wiċċ taz-zokkor, is now officially deputy leader of the nationalist party. The last person to really care so much about the post of deputy leader must have been Guido De Marco (bless his soul) and probably that was because the post meant so much to him in terms of the position that he never obtained – that of leader of the party and prime minister of a nation. De Marco was a giant figure in Maltese politics and his political career outshone whatever disappointments he may have felt with regard to the failure to become Prime Minister – if anything Guido gave added value to the post of deputy leader.

Let’s face it. How often have we even taken any notice of the nationalist party’s deputy leader and his role within the party? Before all the hullabaloo of the Busuttil vs Fenech contest can you really honestly say that anybody anywhere gave two hoots about who sat at the right hand of Lawrence Gonzi? Look at Labour, they had a sort of big deal about their triumvirate until the two deputies became too embarrassing to flaunt and they too were relegated to token appearances. But back to the PN. The post of deputy leader was as effective as that of receptionist at Dar Centrali. In the past the PN has been all about Leader, Secretary-General and a distant third would be the President of the Party. But deputy leader? Who?

But now we have Simon. And it behoves the nationalist party’s poll ratings that Simon’s ascendancy to the deputy leadership becomes the greatest deal this Christmas. If necessary, he’s got to be bigger than Santa Claus. Jesus even (with apologies to the Beatles).

Fresh Sweep

The election for the post had been billed, for good reason, as a battle between old and new. Simon banked on the idea of change while  Tonio backed by the old guard and all the cabinet but one was the symbol of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The glossators of the PN school of thought tried to play down this dichotomy but no amount of dampening could hide the fact that this was just that – old guard vs fresh babyface.

Not that Busuttil did anything to hide this aspect of his election. Speaking to the press and at first meetings he has described his election as “renewal” and his mission as “regaining of trust”. There would be nothing to renew if there was not an element of mustiness and passé feeling around the current batch of PN exponents. You would not speak of “regaining trust” without implicitly acknowledging that this has been lost – and we all know where the fingers are being pointed. So yes, Simon’s election included the admission of the problems that the current strand of GonziPN is facing. They had to.

So far so good. Simon Busuttil, the champion of new and change trounced Fenech at the voting counter by garnering two-thirds of the vote of PN’s councillors. A message had been “sent” also to the cabinet old guard. What next though? What is this “charm offensive” all about?

What change?

Let us begin with the obvious. As we stated earlier the post of deputy leader is quite a cameo role. It has been for a long time and the first question to ask is “What clout does Simon Busuttil have as deputy leader?” On the one hand he has to fit in and “work with others”. There’s the party leader who cannot be seen as too weak himself – so Simon will speak about “working in tandem”. He speaks of combining Gonzi’s experience with his. His what exactly? Apart from the smiles and monotone affirmations of his will to change what does Simon bring to the PN? He has already been part of the “listening exercise” – having exalted the “MYChoice” and “MyVoice” experiences as being useful. Is that enough?

Simon has rebuffed Debono, Mugliette and JPO so thankfully his early entreaties to reconciliation have been banished to the bin. What will he do to win the trust of the voters? Will Simon only serve as a dilution of the GONZIPN trademark in order to save the PN from the negative connotations that the GonziPN brand has come to mean? Politically – policy wise – Simon does not seem to think that any form of change is necessary. His emphasis in the message to voters is simply that they cannot abandon a team that works: “if you do not want to put all our achievements in jeopardy – and that includes achievements in jobs, health and education – then please put your trust back in the Nationalist party“.

So what change exactly? Apparently Simon puts his finger on the issue of arrogance. It would seem that the polls within the Dar Centrali are pointing to arrogance as the number one problem within the PN. It goes like this… the policies are ok, the system is working (no matter how much Labour depicts a failing economy and country)… all we need to change are the arrogant bunch of bastards who have been there for too long. Enter Simon, il-wiċċ taz-zokkor, and he will give the machine a new wrapping. Do you think I am hallucinating? Really? How about this gem from the horse’s mouth (speaking at Tarxien PN Club on Sunday):

“People say they want change, but of faces, not of policies or results. People are happy with those. And we’re giving them exactly that,” he said.

Provare per credere – as the Italians would say. Unless Simon was misquoted by Bertrand Borg of the Times we have quite an “admission” on our hands. On the other hand you cannot fault him for thinking that way. Tonio Fenech’s budget was so good that even Labour want to adopt it. The Labour alternative insofar as economic planning is concerned is an absolute mess – just look at the abysmal performance of the Vella-Scicluna-Mangion triumvirate at the press conference. So the people want change because they are bored with the current batch? Let’s give them change – we’ll give them new faces.

Only that Simon is banking on a new army of what he calls “high-calibre” candidates that are the product of the same system of vetting that gave the nationalist party Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliette. You just have to look at the posturing of Austin Gatt’s minion Manuel Delia (last seen speaking about “intelligent transport systems” as though Arriva was a nightmare that happened to others) to see that Simon’s “new faces” are not all that tip-top as he is gearing them up to be.

In buona sostanza

And finally substance. There’s the whole business of the liberal democrat orphans that might need to be addressed. The last in a series of budgets might have been criticised for being too gracious with the haves and too little for the have nots but there is an uncanny consistency in the PN economic model that is far from being negative. Notwithstanding the political rollercoaster caused by the one-seat majority, Gonzi’s PN has managed to steer in a clear direction economic crisis notwithstanding. Budget measures and incentives remain strongly family-centred (as always) and the business model is based on give and take (to qualify for incentives you are expected to invest) which is not all that bad given the scenario. Apart from the energy fiasco you could also find it in yourself to accept a graduated approach to the utility bills.

Having said all that the social rights issues remain GonziPN’s weak point. Their association with the conservative agenda (or opting for it) means that they risk abandoning a part of what hitherto has been an important contribution to bulking up their mass of vote. They may still be lucky that such voters as give priority to their social issues (censorship, gay rights, lay model society, criminal law reform) are unable to put their vote where their mouth is. GonziPN + Simon will still bank on the endgame played out on the eve of an election – It’s either us or them (them being Labour – AD don’t count).

What with all the talk about change and European Values, Simon has failed to hint whether his “change” will also include a rapprochement with the liberal elements that have until now served to beef up that crucial vote. I doubt very much this will happen this time round because Simon probably believes that between changing faces, a bumbling opposition and a few overtures of trust and openness (known colloquially as bżar fl-għajnejn) PN might once again snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Sadly, the charm offensive might prove just right and the PN will have forfeit an opportunity for real change.

Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi.