If Labour faced a degree of indifference when its individual policy documents and vision statements were published, I will not be surprised if the same approach is adopted in its regard now that all the revised and updated documents have been published in their finalised version.

The lack of any editorial press reaction in most of our local newspapers – by the time that I am signing off this article on Saturday morning – seems to confirm my hunch.

Nevertheless, although I should be among the last to pass judgment, since I was directly involved in coordinating two separate vision statements – on foreign affairs and ICT – I can proudly say that never have I been involved in such an extensive outreach exercise, where we literally took on board a number of practical and feasible suggestions put forward by a number of constituted bodies and interested parties during the meetings we had.

The fact that consultations were held with some 300 organisations over more than 2,000 hours of discussion is impressive in its own right.

It goes to prove that not only is the Labour Party a dynamic movement with a sense of vision and purpose, but also – and most important of all – that it is a party that is prepared to act as a “listening” party too, both in opposition and in government. It is only this way that we can ever dare put forward holistic solutions that make us confident that they benefit from the support of civil society itself.

The reaction by the Nationalist Party was not only curt, dismissive and predictable but it seems to have been written by someone who, without being unkind to him, must be somewhat “as thick as a brick”.

Their reaction was that Labour did not have the “courage” to publish its original proposals and only published its modified version.

Such a comment shows that these people do not even know how our consultation process works, which is as follows:

a) a draft policy document is published and disseminated among constituted bodies;

b) consultation meetings are held with said bodies and organisations, during which their reaction and/or suggestions are tabled and discussed as well as being noted by our rapporteurs;

c) amendments are made internally to the document on the basis of suggestions received;

d) a revised draft document is prepared and distributed to the parliamentary group and the national executive committee;

e) if it is a vision statement, it is discussed at this level and approved by these two party structures;

f) if, on the other hand, it is a fully-fledged policy documents then it is first discussed as per e) and eventually submitted for approval by party’s general or extraordinary conference.

The fact that a number of documents have been changed from their original version shows that we were not solely interested in photo opportunities but that, as an inclusive party, we were genuinely interested in beefing up our own original proposals.

Although most of these documents were available in original draft form on the party’s website through the new publication Pjan Ghal Bidu Gdid, the general public is now being given the opportunity to scrutinise and examine the revised and final version of documents covering all sectors.

What intrigued me most was that during the launch, leader Alfred Sant made it clear that if elected to office, the Labour Party’s strategy would be one of a calm and rational change.

His message was loud and clear: we will continue building on things that are going well and change things that are not.

While strategy and tactics might differ, we must strive for a consensual approach in at least three key pivotal areas: financial services, information technology and maritime affairs.

This is important because the success of our financial services sector in particular is mainly attributable to the fact that, in spite of our differences as political parties, we have always striven to achieve consensus in Parliament on such matters. Which we invariably did.

While it is evident for all to see that the PN government’s pre-budget document is likely to be the first draft of their election manifesto, one cannot but take note of the fact that when projecting his so-called Vision 2015, Prime Minister Gonzi is merely identifying six important areas: ICT, manufacturing, education, tourism, financial services and health, without setting out a road map on how to get there. Even more so when his “vision” is meant to take “us” conveniently beyond the end of the new legislature.

I am not excluding the possibility that there could be strategic documents published by the government in the coming weeks, as is likely to be the case in the IT sector where I believe plans are underway to have a user-friendly document ready well ahead of the election.

Yet no one can blame me for being or sounding cynical.

After all, last week it was a daily Radio 101 commentator who wrote the following in an article Il-vizjoni 2015 after praising the government for identifying these six strategic areas: ‘….izda nhoss li (il-gvern) mhux qed ifiehem bizzejjed din il-vizjoni biex il-poplu jaghmilha tieghu…’

In the words of a leading Nationalist propagandist, the government is not explaining its strategic thinking in sufficient detail to enable the electorate to “own” such objectives.

This is quite a far cry from the lengthy consultation process that went into the preparation and finalisation of the Labour document Pjan Ghal Bidu Gdid.

The Richard Muscat

saga continues

The Foreign Affairs Minister apparently chose to ignore the opposition’s advice not to renew Richard Muscat’s term as ambassador when it fell due for renewal – to the extent that it has now been extended until the end of July next year.

The Voice of the Mediterranean saga during Mr Muscat’s helmsmanship still lingers on in our memory.

The argument that the Public Accounts Committee’s deliberations on the running of the radio station were inconclusive is irrelevant, because one could expect no better from a committee, the majority of members of which happen to sit on the government side and who, through their actions, had seemed far more interested in bailing out Mr Muscat rather than in seriously probing whether there had been any lack of good governance during his days in charge of the station.

The minister’s counter statement that he was keeping the matter under review pending developments in no way cushions the fact that he arbitrarily chose to extend Mr Muscat’s appointment, in spite of the Auditor General’s damning report and the disclosures made public during the public hearing of the PAC.

This is a slap in the face for transparency and accountability, as well as an insult to the host country of the ambassador in question.

e-mail: [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the

opposition spokesman for foreign affairs and IT