The good news is that it would be a “landslide defeat”. Labour would probably stroll into government with a victory by default that affords it a “stable” three-seat margin (at least). Such a majority would ensure that Labour can afford to have at least one “Franco” or “JPO” without losing its parliamentary majority. If that’s what counts as stable government these days then Muscat’s dream team would be as solid as a rock.
If the stakes were all about getting into power and staying there then Labour would be the horse to bet on. The core voters would be joined by the disgruntled, the “about time we change” (it’s only fair) and the new clan of PN-haters to form an unassailable lead at the polls and Bob’s your uncle. Or is he?
Windows
Well it’s not all roses is it? Franco Debono is promising to be the hair that broke the (fragile) camel’s back. J’accuse has chronicled how his behaviour has exposed the weakness of a machine that was assembled solely for the purpose of winning an election to the detriment of any coherent plans and values of governance. Sure, economically an argument can be made that the Par idejn sodi motley crew has contributed to the weathering of the economic storm until now. Some circles might beg to differ and will claim that our micro-economy would never have really borne the brunt of the euro maelstrom anyway – so it’s not thanks to Tonio and Lawrence that we’re quite ok.
Although budget wise we got a half-hearted OK by the Commission this week (bar some expensive tweaks to the deficit) the government remains unaccountable for a long list of grudges and defects that is only aggravated by its perverse ability to antagonise through perceived arrogance. A disjointed team was exposed in the issues of Transport Reform, Divorce Legislation and social and criminal reform laws – not to mention the honoraria fiasco. There is much revising and soul-searching to be made.
For every mea culpa on the government side there was a mini-window of opportunity for a prepared opposition to shine. Do we have a beacon prepared to step in once the current set of governors crumbles? J’accuse is painfully aware of the over-used cliché of the “unelectability of the opposition”. The fact that it is oft repeated and the fact that it was a major weapon in the armoury of GonziPN’s last election victory does not make it outdated automatically.
Muscat’s Labour seems intent on repeating GonziPN’s fatal error of 2008. They prepare for some sort of electoral victory but is this a party that is proving that it has the right credentials to govern? The smokescreen of the Franco saga might invigorate Labour hopefuls and build their hope for a change in government. The removal of the power weary Nationalists would not come a moment too soon for them. The mistake they make is that they equate the satisfaction of removing an expired government with the automatic assumption that anyone who steps in by default will be good for the job.
Who do you want to be today?
As Anglu Farrugia and Joe Mizzi table a motion for a vote of no confidence (to be held on Thursday 19th) Muscat’s Labour is counting on a snap election and a short-cut to the corridors of power. What it will do with the power when it holds it is anybody’s guess. Until now we do know that Labour is not Nationalist. We have promises of utility bill cuts without an explanation as to where the money to cover these expenses will come from. We have a farcical approach to manifesto writing (the cards to my chest approach) coordinated by an old timer and now with an arriviste error-prone wannabe as a manifesto secretary.
At the moment when it could have made its will clear and its vote count – the divorce votes in parliament- Labour wavered. This was the party in opposition mind you, not the one in government. In that instance Muscat displayed an inability to muster his men and his party behind one clear progressive cause notwithstanding the fact that it was not nuclear science. Did Labour (in opposition) manage to block vote a YES to divorce? No it didn’t. Muscat – in opposition may I remind you – conjured up the FREE VOTE. What is the free vote other than an admission that the Labour leader could not really be sure which way his member’s consciences would be playing?
On a straightforward progressive policy that should have been a piece of cake Labour faltered. It failed to take a clear party position and was unable to be clear about the way it would vote. This was the party in opposition with no governmental power to lose. Opportunism dictated that Labour gives the impression of going both ways. Thankfully in the end common sense prevailed and parliament enacted a divorce law. But not thanks to Labour. Not thanks to the PN either but still… it’s not the point here.
From the Libyan crisis to the Euro Crisis to Transport issues it has been evident that Labour is operating on the knee-jerk opportunist basis. It is a short-term policy based on populism of the basest order. The error lies in the fact that Labour has chosen to emulate the PN in its worst form – that 2008 electoral bouillabaisse that Lawrence Gonzi is ruing to this day. this kind of electoral machine gets you to cut the ribbon but leaves you reeling under your own unmerited success.
Joseph Muscat might get to sit in the driving seat at a Castille office… the real worry is whether once the persian windows are thrown open and he is blinded by the sunlight coming from across the wesgħa tal-Furjana he better have a clue about where he wants to go next… otherwise he will find that it will take much less than a Franco Debono to bring him crashing down into reality.
5 replies on “Windows of Opportunism”
More pedantry:
‘The error lies in the fact that Labour has chosen to emulate the PN in its worst form’ – no, Labour is emulating its own form. 1996 was all about contradictory promises, trying to satisfy anyone from Mintoffjani (Mintoff ran on his own manifesto!) to ‘new’ labourites, and the lack of a clear agenda. The PN has learned a few of the wrong lessons, but it is entirely false to say that Labour is following anybody else’s lead.
Yes admittedly it is false or at the most a wild assumption to categorically state that Labour is following anybody else’s lead and if that is the impression I give allow me to clarify.
Labour might not be consciously emulating PN but the modus operandi for the gathering of every crucial vote is similar. Labour might seem more crass in its populistic approach to particular issues while PN 2008 was subtle. In the end though, PN’s formula hinged on a variety of candidates from different backgrounds and with glaringly contrasting values – so long as you guaranteed a chunk of first count votes you were in. Combine that with the “unelectable Labour” slant and you have Joe Saliba’s “winning” formula.
What’s so different with Labour? Non-commital on major issues as a party and a wide net of candidates. The “it’s time to change for the sake of change” is a flip side to “unelectable PN” and that is what Muscat hopes will be the killer punch.
In the end though what we have is spineless parties with no basic reference point. The election race has deprived them of crucial thinking time and of the possibility of gathering momentum with a purpose.
That, I believe is where the similarity lies – intended or unintended – our parties risk cloning themselves ad nauseam as empty vote gathering machines. And you know what…. I still blame the voters.
Very true. Labour had no balls to do the right thing with divorce while they were in opposition, so no real losses to be made. Can they be trusted to do the right thing if in government?
Jacques, we grew up in the 1980s under a Labour government. Now take out the cronyism and the violence from those times and you have a Labour Party that had, what you call, strong reference points (particularly on the economy and foreign affairs), a “spine” and ideologically-consistent candidates and MPs (Sciberras-Trigona, despite being of noble stock, still fit perfectly in the mould).
So, is the fact that today politics is more “ideologically malleable” (or “spineless” as you call it) a positive or negative development? I’m not so sure myself.
Please note that this is a question of form not content: I’d have been equally uneasy if the Nationalist Party of the 1980s were more Thatcherite than eclectic and pragmatic, as it was.
And please, let’s not make divorce the litmus test. Unlike the economy or foreign affairs which will always remain open-ended issues, the issue came up and was resolved at a very specific point in time.
[…] Windows of Opportunism Muscat’s Labour seems intent on repeating GonziPN’s fatal error of 2008. They prepare for some sort of electoral victory but is this a party that is proving that it has the right credentials to govern? The smokescreen of the Franco saga might invigorate Labour hopefuls and build their hope for a change in government. The removal of the power weary Nationalists would not come a moment too soon for them. The mistake they make is that they equate the satisfaction of removing an expired government with the automatic assumption that anyone who steps in by default will be good for the job. […]