opinion

A new leaf needed for new Labour

It is the lack of a powerful opposition, not people’s satisfaction with the PN’s performance, which will probably guarantee the Nationalists another term in office, says RAY ABDILLA

Suddenly a few alarm bells are ringing within the Nationalist party walls.

No one can deny the economic slowdown that has hit our country, although surprisingly, new shops are still opening up, which, inevitably Radio 101 tells us, signals that the country is doing as well as ever.

But the truth is that the people are not spending much – they are playing a game of wait and see.

In football the tactic of waiting plays a major part in the game. Inter managed it in the days of Herrera, in the late sixties and seventies and now interestingly Liverpool are doing the same thing.

But it is a dangerous one for the PN to play. Or it would be if the MLP were up to scratch.

It was no surprise that a recent Nationalist party survey suggested that people are more interested in a European Union referendum than the general election itself. The impression is that people now recognise that accession to the European Union is the only way forward for this country.

The Nationalists are not delivering to the maximum but they are lucky that they aren’t facing any particular opposition at present.

The Opposition is floundering; its policies in some key areas are unclear, it has not been successful in portraying its ‘Swiss in the Med’ option and it has hardly been helped by the Old Labour legacy that still hangs around. If we needed any further evidence that the Labour party is still divided, the behind-closed-doors meetings at Dom Mintoff’s residence are enough.

So, unfortunately in Malta there is no alternative. The majority are fed up with the Nationalist government, but are not confident enough to give the Labour party the job of governing.

Many believe that if the MLP were in favour of the EU and VAT, then they would have no trouble in winning the elections. History shows that Labour party politicians are better negotiators than the Nationalists are.

But the main mistake being made within the MLP ranks is that of taking too long to get to grips with the issues that matter.

And backtracking. Instead of taking a positive stand on matters as they come on line, first they oppose, and then they make a u-turn.

Look at media pluralism – they opposed it and then they recognised its advantages when they were the first political/private station to start transmitting. The same happened with the local councils.

And two years in government followed by three in opposition have done little to change things.

One question doing the rounds is whether Dr Alfred Sant should give up wooing the "middle ground" and concentrate more on "core" traditional supporters instead.

But this is not an easy task, since he has opposition here as well, in the form of Dom Mintoff, Alex Sceberras Trigona, Lino Spiteri, Sammy Meilak, Maria Camilleri, Tony Nicholl and their die-hard supporters.

The leader’s opponents are almost resigned to thinking of another electoral defeat as being the best thing for the MLP, since it will, surely, force Dr Sant to step down.

But the division within the party is undisputed and brings into question the whole identity of the MLP.

Should it remain essentially a ‘democratic socialist party’, as some Labour MPs believe, or does this ignore the fundamental changes it has gone through?

The members of today’s modern Labour party say that Dr Sant came into the Labour party to help make much-needed changes and modernisations.

He did a good job in many ways, mirroring trends that took place in the Labour party in Britain.

More parallels can be drawn here.

In England, old Labour can be summed up by a quote from its party constitution clause IV, part 4. "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Meanwhile the current Labour party constitution states: "The Labour party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

The two quotes are evidence of how the party has moved forward. But the big question is how come, with the obvious parallels between the MLP and the British Labour party, Tony Blair is riding high while Alfred Sant is struggling?

I believe the answer is easy! The MLP must change its view on the EU and must start delivering concrete plans. The people want to know now about the VAT issue, they want answers about the ‘poll tax’ which was going to be introduced by an MLP government, and they are asking whether free medication will remain just that.

Will pensioners, the unemployed and minimum wage earners be given a helping hand? After all, these were the reasons that the Labour party was born and why it flourished. It must not forget its roots, and it must disentangle itself and rediscover its identity if it is to be successful again.