[ANALYSIS] Busuttil punches hard, but where’s the beef?

Simon Busuttil has shown his best in denouncing the excesses of the Labour government. His jibe at former One TV journalists having ‘one big party’ as political appointees may have resonated with the popular mood. But there is a snag. As he points fingers at one government member after the other, a repeat (of last year’s speech) after the Sheehan shooting incident that cost Manuel Mallia his job, he looks less of a statesman in this repeat of 2014’s trick. Already Busuttil comes across as scholarly and legalistic. Does he risk appearing sanctimonious when pointing fingers at others given the PN’s past record?

Busuttil’s problem is how far people will believe that he will act any differently if elected to power. The PN leader tells sceptics he is an idealist, a character trait that is met by even more scepticism at hearing that come from the leader of a party that once ruled the country for 25 years.

Busuttil is capitalising on the growing distrust of Muscat’s government based on appointments and consultancies given to Labour party officials – including deputy leader Toni Abela – activists and even some of their relatives. Everybody is for sale under Labour, it seems.

Busuttil harps on the appointments of former One TV journalists, the least dubious of political appointments. Which minister would not appoint a politically loyal person for spokesperson? And herein lies the rub, for Busuttil came with no concrete and credible proposal on how to deal with these posts, which necessarily must go to persons of trust.  Defining such posts while ensuring meritocracy in others would go a long way in addressing this problem.

Milking the transport blues

Transport is another issue on which the PN is trying to capitalise on popular anger. 

MaltaToday surveys have shown that transport is topping the list of concerns of the Maltese and that Transport Minister Joe Mizzi is the least popular member of Muscat’s cabinet.

But on this point Busuttil made a colossal mistake of reminding people of the Arriva debacle, by accusing this government of “having done everything to destroy Arriva”. It’s statements like these that expose one of Busuttil’s major shortcomings, as he fails to distance himself completely from Austin Gatt’s legacy.

It is true that in opposition Labour had done its utmost to undermine confidence in public transport. But present-day problems also have roots in the lack of vision of previous governments which boasted on increased car ownership as a sign of prosperity, while dead-legging the bus reform as a simple act of reduced government subsidies; it undermined Arriva from the start as it operated less buses than required to cater for people’s real needs. We are yet to hear what Marthese Portelli will be proposing. So this will be a major test on the PN’s ability to come up with a plan on an issue where long-term solutions may be unpopular with some segments of the population.

Indeed Busuttil finds it hard to disassociate himself from the past, but he brims with pride when referring to past projects started under Lawrence Gonzi.

One of Busuttil’s best sound-bites in his budget speech was his challenge to government to mention any one completed capital project by Labour, and those projects started under Lawrence Gonzi that had reached completion. “Where are the capital projects of this government? Renzo Piano? Fort St Elmo? Interconnector? Oncology centre? Coast road? Flood-relief project? There are all projects of the PN administration.”

And he’s right. But Busuttil spent little time milking these successes.

Secrecy in energy deals 

Busuttil is also right to hit out at the government’s secrecy in its energy deals.

He is right in demanding the full publication of agreements signed with ElectroGas from which Enemalta will buy LNG.

And if energy from the Sicily interconnector is significantly cheaper from that established in the power-purchase agreement with ElectroGas as Busuttil claims, it’s only logical that Enemalta buys energy from the cheapest option. For while it is clear that Enemalta will be contractually bound to buy energy at a fixed price from ElectroGas for the first seven years, it is not clear how much for our energy needs will Malta be obliged to buy from ElectroGas. And since Enemalta is bound to buy all of ElectroGas’s energy, Malta’s flexibility in the use of the interconnector is already severely limited.

In this sense it is up to government to clarify whether it has retained its sovereign right to determine Malta’s energy mix or whether it has relinquished it. But Busuttil went one step further, committing himself to renege on a legally binding agreement and allowing the government to throw the ball back in his court, by questioning his credibility in honouring commitments made with the private sector.

Busuttil’s hardline stance may be reminiscent of Alfred Sant, who when elected found himself unable to honour major commitments to reverse contractual decisions taken by the previous government. Busuttil affirms his party’s independence from ElectroGas consortium while trying to throw Labour in the uncomfortable position of sounding like the mouthpiece of energy oligarchs.

But is Busuttil’s unwillingness to accommodate big business on this issue helping him make inroads among a category of Labour voters averse to Muscat’s pro business stance? Government is yet to silence him on this front, and this can only be done by confirming whether the ElectroGas agreement obliges Malta to buy a set amount of energy and for how much. If it turns out that government is contractually bound to buy a fixed amount of energy from ElectroGas, Busuttil will be vindicated. On this major transparency issue the onus is on government not on Busuttil. 

But Busuttil’s criticism on energy pricing lacks the populist bite for one simple reason: his criticism is that prices have not dropped enough, an argument that’s much harder to sell considering that previous PN governments raised tariffs. It is ironic that the interconnector and the more efficient BWSC plant started to reap fruits under a Labour government, enabling it to honour its electoral pledge to cut rates despite the LNG plant delay.

But voters are more likely to remember the higher tariffs than the investment made in the energy infrastructure.

Environmental contradictions

On the environment Busuttil’s approach is contradictory.

Malta is risking a property bubble, he warns, adding that even ODZ was no longer safely ODZ.

But is still not clear how far Busuttil will go in excluding ODZ development. “We are not against development but we want sustainable development,” is something Leo Brincat would say to justify his own government’s abysmal record. So how can one trust Busuttil if he considers a tunnel linking Malta and Gozo as “sustainable”?

This is his greatest environmental contradiction, a proposal which is bound to impact on marine habitats while increasing the flow of traffic in to Gozo. Busuttil actually expressed his disappointment that the government had wasted three years by not immediately following up the former government’s plans for a tunnel between Malta and Gozo.

So Busuttil speaks lyrically on the environment but remains lukewarm on any proposal which may cost him votes. He remains silent on the theft of water resources and even criticizes the 50c tourist tax as a ‘hidden tax’ instead of welcoming the enactment of a measure first proposed under Gonzi as a contribution to the environmental fund.

No blueprint for change

Also striking is Busuttil’s failure in outlining the basics of a Nationalist blueprint for the country’s future.

The only hint he gives is that he is averse to government spending and any increase in jobs in public sector. Busuttil’s contention that economic growth cannot be sustainable if the government continues to employ people in the way it was doing – 5,500 in two years he claimed – needs to be qualified.

His claim would be more credible if he distinguishes between those employed in ministries for administrative jobs and those like Learning Support Assistants employed in important sector like education. 

Moreover Busuttil may have been too trigger-happy with statistics – some of which open to interpretation – giving Muscat ammunition to hit back by belittling the Opposition leader in his reply. In tackling the government’s economic record Busuttil seemed more interesting in sowing doubt than in presenting his own blueprint.

Busuttil also hints at low wages and increased poverty risk, but he fails to make one concrete proposal to alleviate these hardships. On the other hand this government has taken steps in making work pay, introducing free universal childcare and increasing benefits for those entering the labour market. This is one case where Muscat delivered on the narrative he formulated in his own Budget speeches.

Busuttil so far has failed in coming out with his vision. Much is expected from Claudio Grech who has been trusted by Busuttil to draft the party’s economic vision. In outlining a more social vision, Grech would also be exorcising his own reputation as Austin Gatt’s disciple.

Ultimately Busuttil sounded more like an Opposition leader bent on narrowing the gap between him and the Prime Minister by capitalizing on the shortcomings in governance characterizing Muscat’s administration, than a future PM with a compelling narrative for change.

But with Labour’s elves going into overdrive to depict Busuttil as being “negative” and “destructive” confirms that the PN leader is indeed scoring a number of points in his bid to narrow the gap by 2018, to remain in the game to become PM by 2023. 

Once again as happened before local elections, which saw the PN narrowing the lead, attempts to belittle the PN leader may backfire.