“We continue from where we left in 1996 and 1998 …” (Labour Electoral Manifesto, p. 18.4 – electronic version). Does this sound like a “new beginning”? Since Labour lost its identity, one of the PRoblems of the party and its leadership is that they are living a contradiction. They wish to paint a negative picture of the past 10 years, and sometimes they tend to believe their own rhetoric. But then, unwittingly and reluctantly, they have to acknowledge the successes achieved by the present government and its predecessor!

At first, when one reads Labour’s manifesto one gets the impression that the Labour Party and its leadership are oblivious of what was positive in the past 10 years. They try hard to remove the last 10 years from our collective memory, but they have no choice other than to admit that they need to build on the progress achieved by this government. In a more careful examination of their aims one finds that the manifesto is a good certificate of this government’s policies!

Incidentally, the title page of Labour’s electoral manifesto refers to 2008. It is not known if this means that Labour expects to go down again in the same year instead of 2013! The manifesto starts as a plan and a series of aims, and concludes as a programme. Who knows who wrote the introduction and the conclusion?

The Labour Party and its leadership seem to be suffering from amnesia, but then they give credit to the investment that has come this way, and they wish to sustain it and enhance it (page 2). They want to build on the success achieved in the financial services sector (page 6). In the field of information technology and communications they refer to Smart City, as if it were their brainchild (pp. 6-7).

The party and its leadership want to put the self-employed at the centre of Malta’s economic motor (p. 8). I happened to be present, several years ago, when a late Trade Minister showered a representative of a UN agency with the Labour government’s antagonism to the private sector. The local councils are a success, and now they have an important role in the administration of this country (p. 29). They forget that they were against such councils, apart from so-called independent candidates.

When one discards all the partisan disparaging remarks from the manifesto, one realises the progress made by this government. It is the Labour Party itself and its leadership that need a new beginning. The rest of us want to continue on the way that the present government has successfully led us. Labour supporters and sympathisers benefit more under a Nationalist government than under Labour. Look at some of our ambassadors and career consuls.

The manifesto also reveals that in some sectors the Labour Party is not prepared at all, as is the case of pension reforms. Labour wants a year or more - 2009, “to hold wide consultations on a national basis” (p. 18.2). After these consultations they will “convene a national conference of experts to draw up a White Paper.” They need a national congress in 2010 for an agreement on how to implement these reforms, which will take effect from 2011 onwards.

This means that we have to wait for another four years to find out what kind of pension reforms a so-called efficient and competent Labour administration has in store for us. Is this the electoral manifesto for 2008 or 2013? What has the Labour Party and its leadership, including the shadow minister, been doing in Opposition during the past 10 years? Why have they not performed most of what they are proposing during the past 10 years, and let us know exactly what their position is right now? This is just one classic example of the “new beginning” without any form of substance, and ignoring what has already been taken place.

Re-inventing the wheel, which has already been turning during the past 10 years, or fixing the PRoblems created by Labour itself with their labour corps under military discipline in the 1980s are only minor PRoblems. There will be more serious PRoblems if the electorate does not appreciate the excellent work done by the current administration.

Relationships

In addition to trust and sound political judgement there is another major issue in this election, namely the question of relationships.

Moderate Labour shadow ministers give the impression that they genuinely mean what they say, even though they add a number of sweeping statements and several partisan political arguments that do not always make sense. Judging by past experience, some of their aims might be considered as wishful thinking.

The PRoblem is how could the apparent idealpolitik orientation of some moderates expect to outweigh the seemingly perverse realpolitik attitude of the leadership? It would be interesting, if not tragic, to see, for example, the division of labour – excuse the pun – between Leo Brincat and Dr George Vella in international and EU relations. What guarantee do any of them have that their views and opinions would be treated better than those of Lino Spiteri? Experience has shown that Mr Spiteri was the most sensible and correct Labour minister between 1996 and 1998.

The Labour Party in government under the current leadership insisted on a flawed policy with the result that the finance minister had to resign. At that period of time there was no level playing field under Labour for one of the best ministers, let alone for the man in the street.

We may recall that the playing field was not so level for Dr George Abela either, and he also had to move away. If some of the best brains in the Labour Party between 1996 and 1998 could not continue to contribute to and participate in the Labour political field, what guarantee do we have that some of the current moderate exponents will be allowed to influence decisions on the current vague proposals?

Good relationships among key players, unlike resignations, were conspicuous by their absence between 1996 and 1998. On the contrary real leaders like Dr Gonzi and John Dalli found a way of resolving their perceived differences. Malta needs leadership more than micro-management, and there was no evidence that a positive dose of the latter was present under Labour.

The Labour leader and his deputy have advised us against fear and scaremongering. But if Labour’s recent – and not so recent – past was scary, who is to blame for it? This is not a question of scaremongering; it is a question of once bitten twice shy. Malta does not need a new beginning to Labour’s old PRoblems. It needs to continue to prosper on the way paved by the current administration and under the proven leadership of Dr Gonzi.