Much Anton Refalo about nothing

The Honourable member from the 13th district has published an article in today’s Independent that deals inter alia (amongst other things) with the concept and history of the “minimum wage”. The issue itself has probably been milked dry and I strongly suspect that bar for a few smartarse reminders and quips it will be banished to the annals of history as yet another exercise of empty media marketing.

The most striking part of this whole “minimum/living wage” debate has been the fact that the two main parties have absolutely no use for it in their plans. Look at it like this. The only reason why the nationalist party mentioned the minimum wage is because some minion in its spin machine decided to make it seem that Joseph Muscat would “freeze the minimum wage”. Muscat had intimated his intention not to touch the minimum wage – very much in the same way that successive governments have generally done since 1974. The whole “freeze” business sounded hipper to the nationalist spin crowd – given the logical and associative leaps it allowed to the Labour economic management of the eighties.

Labour on the other hand is busy denying any form of freezing and has spent most its breaks from calling anybody in the nationalist party “liar” explaining that it has absolutely no intention of doing anything with the minimum wage (because growth will help us all equally – see Debating substance with regard to the logic of this argument). So two parties – both of whom have no practical plans involving “minimum wage” and yet we have been exposed to noisy, useless spin from both sides. Great.

Anton Refalo is an expert at useless and noisy. Which is probably why he regaled us with a history of minimum wage in Malta followed by the usual diatribe about those lying, scheming nationalists. Any ideas or concrete plans about how the minimum wage can actually be used by a potential progressive government. Does Refalo know one more than the devil (or Karmenu Vella for what it matters)? Does he rubbish. The only positive from this article is the attempted (though vague) reference at some actual statistics about persons on the minimum wage in Malta (though no reference to the source is given):

Studies, both local and international, consistently show the amount of employees that earn the minimum wage in Malta amount to less than one worker out of 20 while the ratio declined by definition when compared to the total working population. The studies also confirm that around one-fourth of the persons on minimum wage are employed in the wholesale and retail sector. The sector with the second largest number of people on minimum wage is the manufacturing sector.

Other sectors employing a significant number of persons on minimum wage are the construction sector and the hotel and restaurant sector. This, however, does not mean that many thousands of people do not have to survive with wages just above the threshold. In fact, there are thousands of workers whose income is close enough to the minimum wage that they fall in the bracket of people classified as being in risk of poverty.

In any case, Refalo hardly bothers to tell us what he, or his party, proposes with regards to all this. He limits himself to a concluding tirade at GonziPN: “Instead of spinning stories and perpetuating lies, GonziPN should focus on creating real jobs. The minimum wage is an issue only when those seeking employment are at the mercy of events.”

Yeah right Anton. So you still have no idea how all this wealth will be generated do you? All we get is much Anton Refalo about nothing.

 

Facebook Comments Box

Debating substance (it’s lamb this Christmas)

So the first round goes to Romney. Or so they are saying. Is it possible to draw conclusions from the electoral run-up in one of the world’s largest democracies and apply them to what might happen in the island-democracy (tal-klikek) some time soon? Well, with a modicum of restraint peppered with huge doses of realism the answer is in all probability a resounding yes. Election hopefuls in any nation are definitely part of a generation that cannot and need not be envied. Their hope is to get elected to govern in a time when the business of governance is difficult and that is putting it mildly. Aside from the normal considerations (all things being equal) of the responsibility and gravity of government the economic woes of the western world make the creation and putting into practice of new policies a tough balancing act.

Whether you are Obama, Cameron, Rajoy, Merkel or Gonzi you have found yourself in the driving seat at a time when traditional party policies and programmes for a nation will perforce have to be tweaked in order to take into consideration the difficult environment and context within which such decisions will be taken. Welfare, health, standard of living, taxation – the pluses and minuses of economic policy – are no longer cocooned from the outside reality and every government’s decision is straight-jacketed by external consequences.

When you set aside the incumbents you get to look at those vying to replace them. Hollande is the first signal of a possible wave of change most likely caused by the increasing discontent of the masses at the handling of the period of austerity. Following his first 100 days in office the verdict was out and it was not so positive. That is partly because Hollande was guilty of doing what other oppositions are tempted to do in order to get to the seat of government: oppositions riding the wave of discontent need but promise the world and pander to that huge bulk that is the “middle class” while promising to “punish the rich”. Their programmes might avoid the blatant diabolical pacts but the devil is in the detail.

Take a look at what the Times (UK) leader (October 3rd) had to say about Miliband for example after his latest conference foray in Manchester:

This speech will go down as the one in which Mr Miliband announced himself as a politician not to be written off. But in the longer view it will be regarded as a missed opportunity. This was a moment at which the leader could have told the country why they should vote Labour. Instead, he told us about a distant land he would like to live in and revealed that his plan for the country is not yet that of a serious party of government. (Vintage Labour – might require subscription)

The analysis of what could have been a plan for government is even more damning:

(…) he offered a nod to future cuts in public sector pay and ill-defined difficult choices in the years to come. This was vague; a dogwhistle, not a plan. He painted, in broad strokes, the sort of plan for government that will not stand up to scrutiny. His section on the economy was jejune but it was enough to show that he, and it seems his party, has no feel for what makes an enterprise tick. (Vintage Labour)

Sound familiar? Well get used to it. It’s what oppositions the world over seem to have to offer. What’s that I hear you say? A sweeping statement? Here is the International Herald Tribune (New York Times) today analysing Mitt Romney’s tax plans for the middle class (there it goes again):

In the first minutes of the debate, Mr. Romney defended himself against the charge that he would cut taxes for the wealthy and raise taxes on the middle class. The lack of specificity of his tax plan opened him to the charge.

Here’s why. Mr Romney says he wants to cut marginal tax rates by 20% while having the government bring in the same amount of revenue, meaning that he would not widen the deficit further. He would accomplish that goal by clearing out the underbrush of credits, loopholes and preferences in the tax code. He has also promised that his plan will be “distributionally neutral” – that he will not raise the tax burden on the poor or middle class.

Here’s the problem. As explained in a detailed paper by the Tax Policy Center, if you cut rates by 20%, you give the wealthy a multibillion-dollar tax break. Even if you take away all of their credits and loopholes and preferential rates, they still do not owe the government as much as they did before. If the rich are paying less, then the poor and middle class must pay more in order to raise the same amount of money.

Mr. Romney’s campaign argues that the math does work out, in no small part because they expect their tax plan to help bolster growth. Still, independent economists question whether this is possible. Of course, rather than breaking his promise not to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, Mr. Romney could break one of his other promises. His tax plan could widen the deficit. Or he could lower marginal tax rates less than 20%. – Annie Lowrie reporter (retyped for J’accuse – original text on NYTimes).

Substance. From what I gather, the verdict in Romney’s favour is based on rhetoric. Romney’s style during the debate was based on brevity and generally unquantified assertions. Obama’s biggest drawback, it seems, is his inability to rein in his instinct for long-winded, detailed explanations that he feels his audience deserve. The stage is set for the next debates – will Romney keep the momentum going on his own turf : where rhetoric and promises to move away from austerity measures that Obama was at pains to justify are the routine?

The world is listening. Remember the adage that turkeys would never vote for Christmas? Well it would seem that to a general extent those who are battling the incumbents have caught onto the trick and are planning to capitalise on the fact that a whole mass of innocent lambs could be gullible enough to swallow the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric that is not fit for government but fit enough to get elected.

If you cannot get turkeys to vote for Christmas… it’s a slaughter of lambs that’s the most likely menu.

 

Facebook Comments Box

That elusive middle class

I was listening to yet another radio discussion on France INFO about the Salon d’Automobile that is on in Paris at the moment. It’s actually called the “Mondial d’Auto” but nostalgics still refer to it with the original name. Listening to the experts debating the dwindling fortunes of the European auto mobile industry in these times of crisis was very revealing. One word that kept cropping up in the discussion was “la classe moyenne” (the middle class) – the main reason being that this was the social class that was most hit by the economic crisis and that risked changing its purchasing habits.

The vehicle industry turns out to be an interesting laboratory for assessment. Vehicles are either a utility or a luxury depending on how you see them but in any case, the vehicle industry needs to get a good feel of its clients and their needs if they want to keep selling new models. The first interesting observation I noted was that when clients buy a car they do not give price the highest priority. There’s a load of technical details that come before the consideration of price.

There’s that and there’s the very remarkable statement regarding the fad retro models – from VW Beetle to FIAT’s 500 to the Mini Minor to the new 2CV Citroen that is being launched at this year’s salon. According to one of the speakers the kitsch attraction of these cars allowed manufacturers to price them way above the actual cost. The 500 for example costs very little to produce and the final sale price is nowhere near the original production cost. Yet people rushed to buy these cars – and it seems that they still do.

Then there was Renault and their subsidiary Dacia. When Renault bought the Romanian company Dacia their intention was to sell these cars in Eastern Europe. The line of Dacia cars is basic and their entry price is very accessible. What Renault did not expect is for Dacia to do very well in France and Europe. Exceptionally well. Which would seem to contradict the fact that clients will not give price much consideration unless you also consider that the Dacia line seems to guarantee a sturdy reliability at a good value. All the marketing experts at Renault failed to predict the success of this car – they failed to understand what the middle class really wanted.  In the case of the Dacia the success came more of a hindsight than as an inspired marketing move.

What about the middle class then? Well the middle class is in trouble all over the place. The middle class in Europe was sold a dream that fit cleanly into a mixture of consumerism and government cushioning. The key to the growth of the middle class was linked with more spending and a constant pressure on one’s conception of “status” – what Alain de Botton famously described as Status Anxiety back in 2004. It is a bit worrying then that the classe moyenne – a preferred target of the automobile industry in times of recession – is in more than a bit of status crisis itself.

Which makes it all the more baffling that the very notion of “middle class” is being sold as something to aspire for by at least one of our political parties for the next election. Go figure.

 

Facebook Comments Box

Il-politika tal-friża

Aħna li ngħixu il-bogħod minn xtut gżiritna inbagħtu l-iktar mill-bard u kesħa li taffliġġi l-ambjenti illi naħdmu fihom tmenin fil-mija tas-sena. Filgħodu naraw it-tbassir tat-temp b’għajnejna jaqgħu l-ewwel fuq it-termometru u imbagħad inqabblu malajr malajr mat-temp f’Malta. Dalgħodu per eżempju jien u nsuq minn fost l-għelieqi fit-tramuntana tal-belt ta’ Lussemburgu tajt daqqa t’għajn lejn x’immarka t-termometru ‘abbord il-vettura’… tlett gradi ċentigradi (bis-sinjal ipetpet jiġifieri possibli li ssib silġ fuq it-triq u suq bi prudenza). Il-kesħa u l-friża … ma nħobbuhomx.

U dan l-aħħar id-diskors politiku reġa’ waqa’ bl-ikreħ fuq l-iffriżar. Xejn ma nħobbuh l-iffriżar f’pajjiżna. Tiftakru lil Sant hekk kif ġie elett fil-gvern x’għamel? Iffriżajna t-talba ta’ sħubija fl-Unjoni Ewropea. Tfajniha fil-kexxun maċ-ċanga u mal-pork tistenna li tiġi xi ruħ tajba u tħollha (kif ġara ftit wara – ukoll grazzi għal Mintoff, ma setax jonqos). Imbagħad ġew Eddie u Guido u x-ċuċ hu il-majkrowejv.

Imma illum il-friża hija l-iktar waħda tal-biża. Qed jitkellmu u jixlu u allegatament jillibellaw lil xulxin kawża tal-misħuta iffriżar tal-paga minima. Din tal-iffriżar tal-pagi kwistjoni kurrenti ħafna. Ara biss x’ippropona fil-baġit tiegħu il-gvern ta’ Hollande. Il-ħaddiema tal-gvern Franċiż se jkollhom il-pagi tagħom iffriżati – ma jistgħux jieħdu iktar żiediet. Minn x’imkien kellhom jibdew jissikkaw iċ-ċinturin. Kellhom xorti il-ħaddiema tal-gvern għax oħrajn bħal dawk ta’ Arcelor-Mittal fil-Lorena ġirien tagħna sejrin saħansitra jitilfu xogħlhom meta tagħlaq waħda mill-aħħar fabbriki siderurġici f’żona li żmien ieħor kienet il-pulmun ekonomiku tal-Ewropa.

Imma konna qed ngħidu. Il-paga minima. Mela qed jgħidu li Muscat qal li se jiffriża l-paga minima (u ejja ninsew il-living wage) għax qal (u dan qalu) li ma hux se jżidha. Sewwa. Imma imbagħad kif spjega sew mingħalija Spiteri – kemm ilha teżisti il-paga minima l-ebda gvern ma żiedha u dan qed ngħidu mill-1974. Sewwa ukoll. Jiġifieri biex niftehemu jekk iffriżar ifisser li ma żżidx il-paga minima oltre il-COLA (Cost of living adjustment – li ġeneralment jittraduċi f’pakket sigaretti) allura kemm in-Nazzjonalisti u kif ukoll il-Laburisti ilhom li tefgħu il-paga minima fil-friża u insewha hemm għal 38 sena. X’bard.

Iżda anki jekk nieqfu hawn u naħsbu ftit fuq verament x’inhu jingħad mill-partiti nindunaw li l-friża hija ukoll tal-ideat. Għax tal-Lejber sabu x-xoqqa f’moxxtha u erħilhom jgħajjru l-PN giddebin għax Muscat ma hu se jiffriża xejn. Tal-PN għadni ma fhimtx eżattament x’jaħsbu għax jew se titkaża bl-iffriżar u allura inti se tieħu azzjoni differenti i.e. mhux tiffriżaha imma żżidha jew tagħlaq ħalqek għax inutli tgħajjar lil ħaddieħor li jagħmel eżattament li qed tagħmel int. Tal-alternattiva kienu ċari … bl-alternattiva fil-gvern togħla il-paga minima. Imma l-AD fil-gvern? Il-votant ilu li tefa’ dik l-idea fil-friża.

Il-PLPN moħħom biex jiġġieldu u jillibellaw dwar dak li mhux se jagħmlu. Sadattant il-valuri u pjanijiet ċari dwar dak li forsi se jagħmlu jekk jiġu eletti għadna ma rajna xejn minnhom. Billboards kemm trid imma fi żmien ta’ baġits awsteri fi Spanja, fl-Italja u anki fl-Ingilterra, il-partiti tagħna moħħhom biex jittrasportaw id-diskussjoni fuq l-eventwalitajiet ineżistenti.

Fi kliem ieħor ħafna paroli fl-arja, ħafna xinxilli, mass meetings, kungressi u x-naf jien… u l-ideat, pjanijiet konkreti u rieda ta’ tmexxija għaqlija ilhom li intefgħu fil-friża.

F’dan il-pajjiż ma nsolvux problemi… nindukrawhom.

Facebook Comments Box

Talk is cheap

The reports from Malta are beginning to make the island sound like Italy in the famous “anni di piombo” – only that stabbing, and not shooting, seems to be the preferred form of violence in 1/3 of the cases reported in the last three days. Sadly all the victims were of the gentler sex and ,coming as the they did after Josie Muscat’s unfortunate choice of words, the crimes have somehow been linked to some twisted train of thought that might exist in the mind of the aggressors. It goes something like “Hey, that nutcase Josie said that most times when a husband beats his wife this boils down to having been provoked. So let me get out my special Laguiole knife and find ma biatch and stab her to kingdom come”.

Tenuous? Very much if you ask me. I’m thinking that it does not really take a very wrong idea being expressed publicly for it to trigger off this kind of crime. In most cases these are crimes of passion – and the kind of passion we are talking about is far far beyond the realm of “first transport of sudden passion inspired by Josie Muscat’s non sequitur of a statement”. Besides, what about the Moroccan lady also found “in a pool of blood” but about whose death there is no suspicion of foul play? Respect for the deceased prevents me from passing observations that would be more appropriate in the case of Frankie Boyle but surely the asses out there braying about Josie’s Provocatory Inspiration should know better?

Then there’s the political side. This morning’s standard read through my FB wall led me to the tiny post by Labour’s president Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi. This other course colleague of mine (a vintage year that class of ’99) posted:

“Three grave crimes in three days – three women victims – action is required! Do you remember “at home and at work without fear?””

The last reference is to an old PN electoral slogan. Stefan probably does not see the irony that the “fear” in question at the time managed to hit home to many people because it was the kind of fear instilled by the Mintoffian regime. Like it or not the culture of not being safe at work or at home (and I would add “at school”) was very much the result of thuggery and violence that was rampant in the late seventies and early eighties. So yes, Stefan, I do remember the slogan and it’s rather funny that you’re asking us to remember it seeing how your movement is so adamant about how useless these Mintoffian flashbacks are.

As for the link between the three crimes and some implied inactivity by government this is even more tenuous than the Josie Muscat link I mentioned earlier. It is stomach churning material how members of both parties find it so easy to throw illogical leaps and links at what they must assume is a very gullible electorate fully believing that anything goes. A Moroccan woman died in a fall – the cause of death is still uncertain – at home, a former policeman shot his wife and an MMDNA nurse was stabbed in Qormi – and whose fault is it according to Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi? Why obviously it’s the fault of the party that once had “at home and at work without fear” as its slogan.

To be fair to Stefan it’s not just him playing this game. PR man Varist has already regaled us with a couple of insinuations too while a couple of sanctimonious bloggers are “guilty” of playing both the “blame Josie” and “blame Gonzi” game.

It’s going to get hotter as the election date gets closer. Hold on tight and try very hard not to be provoked.

Facebook Comments Box

Those Lazy Parliamentarians?

For a while I too had got caught in the whole spin business about “our lazy parliamentarians who have delayed the end of summer recess unashamedly”. Having rightly sussed the nationalist ploy to survive to the start of the recess and then hopefully plot the end of Franco over the summer, I wrongly assumed that the October return to business was something extraordinary and that this year’s parliamentary break was a little OTT. Enter Fausto the nitpicker and lo and behold.. there’s no such thing as an abnormal October return to work. It turns out that parliament summer breaks normally end on or around the 1st of October.

There is, after all, nothing strange for parliamentarians to get back to school almost a month after the last school bus started its routine rounds.

For your perusal here is the list of opening sittings after summer recess for the current legilature:

In 2011 the parliamentarians brought their sun-tanned behinds back to the seats on the 3rd of October.

In 2010 they left their yachts and summer houses on the 29th of September. 

2009 marked their “earliest” return to their seats – the 28th September.

In 2008, the first post-election relative minority government and opposition sat down for work after summer on the 29th September.

There. Franco. No need for so much fuss aye?

Facebook Comments Box