‘Friendly fire’ as PBS debate yet again fails to break new ground

There were more sparks and even wisecracks than expected in the third PBS scheduled political debate of the campaign; but while the pace and tempo were undeniably an improvement over predecessors, the fact remains that neither Labour nor Nationalist Party has so far managed to elevate rise above the simple level of: 'This is our political manifesto, in which we are well pleased..."

Ironically, while there was more emphasis on 'friendship' than ever before, flickers of tension could occasionally be discerned: especially between Labour's Michael Falzon and the PN's Edwin Vassallo: both of whom at moments seemed to forget they were debating in front of a television camera, and instead engaged in what sounded like a private conversation between rivals in the Parliament's canteen.

Likewise, PN deputy leader Simon Busuttil and Labour;s new candidate Deborah Schembri often resorted to addressing each directly... almost reducing the viewer to status of an unnecessary voyeur.

However, the biggest drawback remains the fact that once again, neither side seemed keen to actually debate anything at all. With the possible exception of Labour's Deborah Schembri - who allowed a little personal frustration from the divorce campaign to animate her performance - all four speakers repeatedly fell back on exactly the same arguments and even examples. Busuttil, for instance, repeated the same line (i.e., that the Pn had created 20,000 jobs in five years) at least four times in the course of the debate - not bad, considering he only spoke twice. Likewise, Edwin Vassallo seemed incapable of moving beyond his initial questions regarding what a new Labour government intended to actually do if elected... to the point that almost every sentence of his second and final intervention was prefaced by the phrase: 'Once again I ask my friend Michael Falzon...". (Though it must be said, that  he did this with such ebullient enthusiasm that he succeeded in adding an element of fun to what would otherwise have been a crashing bore.)

But onto what was actually debated. This time it fell to Labour to set the pace and tone, and - surprise, surprise - the chosen theme for the debate was none other then the PL's own electoral motto, "Malta Taghna Lkoll" (Malta for all).

This served as a launch-pad for former PL deputy leader Michael Falzon to outline the broad change that had befallen the Labour Party since 1998.

He began by insisting that 'Malta taghna lkoll' is more than just a slogan, but an honest reflection of a new, different and better way of doing politics.

The difference, he said, was in the way the PL treated citizens: according to their merit, and not according to political allegiances, or to defend the questionable antics of a 'chosen few'.

Unsurprisingly the same theme would dominate all Labour's efforts in this debate. In a later contribution, Falzon pointed towards the presence of Deborah Schembri as further evidence of this change. And Schembri (herself a former PN supporter) built on this  by complaining at how the PN she once voted for had transformed into something she no longer even recognized. 

Both Labour candidates stressed that the PL's was not an aggressively territorial approach to politics: in Falzon's words, "other people [no prizes for guessing who] may claim that Gozo 'belongs to them', or that the fifth district is 'theirs' by right. However, we think differently."

But while there was no shortage of rousing rhetoric from Falzon, practical examples were rather thin on the ground.

Instead he fell back on the 'safer' tactic of merely pointing out the endless deficiencies in the PN's track record in government: a track record characterized chiefly by a litany of broken electoral promises. (Note: It was here that Falzon's 'friendly' mask slipped slightly, and he dismissed the PN as representing "yesterday's politics, the politics of tribalism" - later, he would go one step further and aggressively accuse the PN of 'stealing votes'.)

But Falzon's reticence on the PL's own manifesto was not lost on Edwin Vassallo, who repeatedly accused Labour of not actually having any real plans beyond winning the next election.
After an amusing prologue in which he questioned Falzon's use of the first-name basis (preferring to stick to more formal titkles of Dr, Mr, etc), Vassallo began to slowly pick and prod at the weak points in Labour's campaign - namely the many skeleton's in Old Labour's closet.

Falzon had talked in conciliatory tones, he said; but his fine words were belied by his body language. "The truth is that 'Malta for all' doesn't mean what it says: Labour believes in 'Malta for all' only insofar as the 'all' happen to agree with Labour..."

And as if on cue, out came the inevitable copy of the Anglu Farrugia's Sunday Times interview: this, Vassallo almost shouted, is the true face of Labour: one in which it's either Muscat's way or nothing at all."

What followed sounded much like a tit-for-tat in which the party exponents reminded each other of their respective backbencher problems. Deborah Schembri returned fire with the Franco Debono experience - arguing that unlike Debono, Farrugia was not expelled from the party and was even contesting the election with labour.

At this point it is fair to say that Schembri proved the real revelation of the evening, primarily on two counts. One, the new and rather restrictive debating format can be seen to work heavily in favour of the soft-spoken and unobtrusive. Two, despite being flanked by a party heavyweight, it was to Deborah Schembri that the PL chose to give the concluding word... which in turns suggests the level of confidence placed in the pro-divorce campaigner by Jospeh Muscat. And she didn't quite let him down, either... even if her insistence on reading from notes (especially towards the beginning) was a slight disappointment.

In substantive terms she deserves recognition for raising by far the most compelling arguments of the evening -  most noteworthy of which being her quiet but incisive remarks about the Prime Minister 'betrayal' of Euroepan values when he voted against the referendum result.

For all this, the most memorable lines of the evening fell spectacularly to Simon Busuttil: whose contribution was both memorable and somewhat disappointing at the same time.

On the downside, Busuttil at moments sounded almost like a stuck record - simply incapable of discussing anything at all other than the PN's record in the job department, and the failures of past PL administration.

Having said this, his analogy of the Labour Party's transformation will surely remain the highlight of the evening. New Labour, he said, had basically repackaged itself without changing the real contents.

It is only the 'wrapping' that is actually 'new', he added. "On the wrapping they put Deborah Schembri because - let's face it - she has the face of a Nationalist. But open he package and what do you get? Karemenu Vella, who was part of the Mintoff cabinet; Evarist Bartolo, who had removed stipends" - and here he turned directly to Schembri - "and you had protested against Labour at the time..."

As campaign images go it was a veritable masterstroke - I for one expect at minimum a cartoon - but equally impressive was Deborah Schembri's lightning quick repartee: "I've just found out I have the face of a Nationalist. Funny, I had no idea my face was so colourful..."

As far as light-hearted moments go, this one did much to alleviate the otherwise deadpan tone throughout this evening's debate. But while style is important, it remains a poor match for substance... and on both sides this was sorely lacking.