When asked on Monday evening to describe the crux of Budget 2010 in a single word, most were stumped for a response. Now, with hindsight, that word would be ‘responsible’.

The budget for next year as announced on Monday was without frills and without cosmetics. It contained few, if any, populist measures and instead adopted a brass tacks approach to addressing the current and forecasted ills the economy is facing.

It aims to see Malta scrape through the recession, perhaps one of the most serious threats the country has faced in years, and while the scope of the recession has not been underestimated by the public over the last year or so, many have not realised just how fortunate the country has been to have avoided the major upheavals that so many other economies have found themselves immersed in.

Such woes were, for the large part, avoided largely due to the conservative philosophy of much of the country’s banking sector, which saw it being the most liquid in the European Union and as such still able to lend and keep the economy’s wheels turning, albeit at a somewhat slower pace but turning all the same.

The government’s job-saving manoeuvres, through the lateral-thinking task force set up to assist ailing factories, also saved hundreds of jobs that would have otherwise been placed on the chopping block.

Monday’s budget expanded on such damage control measures. It looks to create jobs and to foster more and better employment opportunities as Malta positions itself for the post-recession scenario.

Along such lines is the measure for the under 20s to encourage unemployed youngsters to train and receive a stipend for their efforts, and in the process contribute to narrowing the country’s significant skills gap.

Instead of falling into a life of menial labour, just the sort of employment the government is looking to dilute within the labour force, such young people will receive training for new skills so as to widen their horizons and better their chances to have more fruitful careers.

The budget also reconfirmed the government’s intention to re-tailor its Vision 2015 for the post-recession world. When this paper recently ran a front-page story about the move, it had expected the usual criticisms and finger pointing but none was to be had, perhaps because the usual critics realised the wisdom behind the concept.

Many, however, have missed the big picture in favour of searching for the ‘what’s in it for me’ factor. Being the second budget into the legislature, the easiest thing that could have been done would have been to simply raise taxes, as so many of Malta’s European Union counterparts have done in their own budgets.

Yes, energy tariffs are to rise. The price of electricity is a hard fact and people can no longer consume beyond their means but, nevertheless, the budget has provided a cushion of sorts through the tariff compensation measure, which, at the end of the day, amounts to yet another subsidy and which, it could be argued, should not have really been granted at all.

The announced establishment of a fair trade authority also sends out a positive message on combating cost of living fears while welfare and education expenditures have been increased rather than trimmed down.

A long awaited and long called for venture capital fund has been set up to help start-up entrepreneurs find their feet in the business world with precious seed capital, often the make or break element in any new business venture.

The list is long indeed, as is the list of capital projects due to begin next year, but the proof of the pudding, as the adage goes, is in the eating.

The government and the assorted ministries involved must now find the gumption to see the policies through effectively so that next year’s budget does not suffer from an implementation deficit as well as a public finance deficit.

Irresponsible

The character assassination campaign conducted against the Finance Minister in the lead-up to the budget, and even on the day before the budget, is not only deplorable but also speaks volumes of the Opposition’s attitude.

That a newspaper was, presumably, unwittingly used as a stage prop in the whole affair is another matter and one that will not be delved into.

But the sight of the Opposition’s front row of parliamentarians smirking out from behind a front-page newspaper story, used amply afterward by the Opposition’s television media outlet, instantly brought to mind a group of schoolboys playing a prank on a headmaster during assembly.

If this is the attitude of the people who aspire to govern the country, the country should think again. Ridiculing the Finance Minister before a budget was more than a mere cheap shot, which politicians are, after all, entitled to every now and then. The case was, however, far more serious in that it is symptomatic of the prevailing state of affairs between the two sides of the House.

Without going into the, somewhat dubious, merits of the article in question, the question of what the story actually has to do with the budget begs to be answered.

Through their actions, the Opposition sought to ridicule the budget before it was even read out – a far cry from the new style of politics the county was promised when the new Leader of the Opposition was elected. It is also noted that the former Opposition leader actually chose to read another daily paper and broke rank with the coordinated yet ill-calculated stunt. One could read a lot into this but speculation on that will be reserved.

Instead of hearing out the budget and reacting to its actual contents in the best interest of the country, what the Opposition did was seek to discredit it before the contents were even known. The Opposition’s refusal to answer questions at a press point in the budget’s wake ties in with this general attitude.

The Opposition’s focus should be on the budget’s policies and measures, and not on the Finance Minister’s private life. Regardless of how heinous the Finance Minister’s offence was deemed to be, if it was not directly related to the budget, the stunt should have been carried out, at the very least, at another time.

The stunt was politically immature and fell well short of what the country should expect of its elected representatives. If this is the level of political discourse and dialogue the Opposition seeks to engender, a monologue would be far more preferable.