Not signed, not sealed, never delivered

The latest Labour billboard tells us 'GonziPN promises, Labour delivers'. Attractive? Maybe. Inspiring? Certainly not. Just the latest installment of Labour's billboard politics.

The first thought upon seeing the billboard was 'Deliver what?' Labour has no track record in government except the short-lived 18-month stint between 1996 and 1998. It's obviously understandable that Labour is desperately trying to project a positive image of itself as a viable and dependable alternative government, but there is no evidence of this.

Instead of retaining the relatively progressive tax bands or easing the pressure on low-income earners, the Nationalist government chose to reward its own electorate by cutting income tax for the top earners.

Labour's reaction to Wednesday's socially regressive budget was meek and all Muscat could muster was to say that Labour will deliver Tonio Fenech's regressive budget.

Instead of adopting and outlining a Keynesian economic model, the self-declared progressive Muscat endorsed the socially regressive budgetary measures and timidly promised to keep the lower-income earners in mind, once he is in power. Well... thanks! I guess the low to middle-income earners breathed a huge sigh of relief on hearing that.

Muscat's claims that he will uphold all the positive stuff in the EU-approved budget may be an indication that he has no ideas of his own. Others would argue that this could be used as an excuse to exonerate Labour from reducing utility bills in its first year in government.

While Muscat insists that Labour is a responsible party, in the last few weeks he repeatedly warned of the dangers of going into the New Year without a budget: disaster for the country, no more growth, heightened unemployment, and general economic and political uncertainty.

With the excuse that the Prime Minister is tying his budget to a vote of confidence, Muscat has declared Labour will vote against the budget.

Of course no politicians wants to see his country take the kind of risk that could see the country possibly enter recession, so would Muscat rather enter the New Year without budget so that he walk into Castille? Or does he want to stand tall among the moral gnomes who have ran this country for too long?

You can fool some of the people all of the time...

If Labour really is responsible, why doesn't Muscat break with tradition, vote for the budget, and steer Malta away from the risk of recession as he has predicted? Labour should stop hiding and show that it can, and wants to do things differently.

And if a responsible Labour party has no confidence in the Gonzi administration, it should vote for the budget, then table a motion of no-confidence immediately.

It's a move that can do him no harm: electoral victory appears all but secured, and his bold move could only enhance his reputation. Whatever happens in the next few months, only a miracle can save Gonzi's government. The Nationalist Party has proved itself to be tired, arrogant, dishonest and out of synch with the rest of the country and I honestly cannot see it regaining the lost ground.

Otherwise suspicions that Labour's strategy is solely based on the actions of Nationalist MP Franco Debono and independent MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, will only be strengthened.

All Labour wants is an imminent election and face a weak and battered PN. It wants power after having missed a million opportunities.

But what we need is a party that can aspire to be different.

Take the utility bills issue. Had Labour given us the magic formula four years ago, we would have revered Muscat for saving us millions of euros and he would have revolutionised the political landscape by putting country before partisan interests.

Instead he waits for Gonzi to blow the whistle. Only in Malta do the two big parties believe they have a right to govern alone. In Malta's zero-sum political landscape the end justifies the means for Labour and the PN.

At least, spare us the bull about being different. Muscat would have us believe that he is not at the head of a party but that he leads a movement. In reality he is the leader of a rudderless party with no identity or authenticity. Once it is in government it will only mean one thing, a new beginning which will take us to the place we are in today.