Sour grapes

The report went like this: 'Labour did not substantiate its plans to reduce energy bills,' the PN said in reaction to Labour's announcement of its plans to reduce energy bills by 25% and water bills by 5% by 2014.

'The PN challenged Labour to back its plans by producing all documents - including those prepared by Labour - which it received from its consultants and the dates and details of meetings held with private contractors.

'Inviting Labour to reveal with which companies it held discussions, the PN also challenged the PL to reveal 'details of the negotiations referred to by Dr Muscat who said were not a done deal'.

The Nationalist party also asked whether 'companies or persons who met with Labour donated money to the party or any of its candidates'.

Now, that kind of knee-jerk reaction leads one to believe that this is all a case of sour grapes. 

I mean if I were the Labour Party, I would ask the PN to list down all the companies that have donated to the PN over the past 25 years and their link to tenders and contracts.

I'm sure that they would be less than accommodating.

And more specifically, I would ask them to reveal what Zaren Vassallo - whose company dominated the Delimara extension works that ran into millions - has donated to the PN. And of course, all the other donations.

The PN should get over the fact that Labour has received more donations than they have, and instead concentrate on the task at hand.

And perhaps I would go on to ask if the idea to block any new technologies was led by those who had a vested interest to retain the status quo.

The energy policy proposed by the PL is not bad.

And the very fact that they are trying to come up with something realisable is positive.

Everyone will embrace lower tariffs because at the end of the day, it's all about the bottom line: be it business or family.

Days before the launch of the proposal for a gas-fired power station, the PN was talking of oil and the price of oil. There were also attempts to give the impression that the PL proposal was based on the Sargas proposal, which concerned the use of coal or biopaste.

It is not abundantly clear that the proposal is one based on what a number of Maltese entrepreneurs have been telling government: the use of gas, by bringing in gas through a terminal.

That proposal was refused over and over again.

And there is no doubt in my mind that the reason for this was probably based on the objection of top management at Enemalta who do not believe in gas, and secondly because of pressure from vested interest in government who wanted to favour one from another.

The Labour party could have easily lied through its teeth and said that the reduction in tariffs would happen in 2014 and 2015 for businesses.

But instead, it presented a calendar for the introduction of a gas-fired power station which looks credible and realistic, more so when the foreign consultants are the same consultants used by government in the Delimara power station.

The PN was ambitious in ridiculing this proposal.

It would be better if it could come up with a blueprint itself, and start thinking positive.

***

I do not usually defend PBS, but you have to agree that PBS are correct in withdrawing Ruth Amaira and Reno Bugeja from the broadcasting debates.

The BA wanted Reno and Ruth to be timekeepers, and not to ask questions.

PBS wanted the journalists to ask questions.

So they decided to withdraw their journalists.

So they got it right this once... it's just a shame that otherwise, PBS has a bad reputation as a harbinger of the untruth game.