As Joseph Muscat and Lawrence Gonzi faced off on Friday for a debate about the budget, I couldn’t help but think how both of them have changed physically over the last few years.

Muscat is now sans goatee – I think he should grow it back because his face looks too bland, too perfectly smooth and too colourless without it (it reminds me of that off-putting pasty colouring of so many English men). He has unfortunately gained weight, so bringing back the goatee would slim his face down as well.

The Prime Minister is showing the weary signs that the responsibility of his office carries with it; however despite the deeper lines in his craggy face, his dark complexion is preferable to Muscat’s pallor.

These might seem like trivial, superficial observations, but they are inevitable when one watches a TV discussion: let’s admit it, the first few minutes are spent analysing what someone looks like and only then do we move on to what they are actually saying. But even before I began paying attention to their discourse, I noticed that even their voices have changed. Muscat is now sounding more self-assured and confident, whereas Gonzi’s voice often ends up sounding unnecessarily aggressive, and at times rises unnervingly to a high-pitched squeak.

Then there are the smiles…I think Muscat was carefully and more judicious with his, perhaps having been briefed that too much smiling comes across as being smarmy. Gonzi, on the other hand, is still prone to smiling, almost smirking, at the wrong times.

His unfortunate-sounding chuckle is also still rubbing people the wrong way, as could be evidenced by the reaction of the audience in the studio, most of whom did not join him in his mirth – especially when he was talking about the country’s finances.

So who won the debate?

My analysis of the debate is that Muscat was marginally better.

He was quicker on his feet to pick up on parts of Gonzi’s statements, which he then turned around and used to score political points. For example, Muscat immediately pounced on Gonzi’s condescending analogy of a father taking the best decisions for his children, pointing out that voters are not children.

Muscat was also much more savvy than Gonzi in being the first to use the reconciliatory approach of agreeing with some of the government’s decisions (such as pledging Labour’s complete support on the handling of the Air Malta crisis). I think the Prime Minister only realised he had been wrong-footed too late in the debate, when he too began to adopt a less antagonistic approach.

Where Muscat slipped up badly was when he said that the certificates of international banks are not as important as what people were feeling – here Gonzi zeroed on this immediately and flogged it for all it was worth, justifiably calling the Leader of the Opposition irresponsible. After a commercial break Muscat recovered from this gaffe, by turning deliberately and with a new kind of self-assurance to face the Prime Minister, asking him whether he had read the full Bloomberg report or whether he was just relying on one page. Gonzi waffled and Muscat regained lost ground.

In dissecting this debate I’m not just relying on my own perceptions but also from the feel of the studio audience. I would think, knowing the Xarabank producers, that the audience was split evenly between Nationalist and Labour supporters. But what I was hearing was sustained applause and loud approval for Muscat, while the applause for the Prime Minister became more and more lacklustre as the programme ran on.

Muscat’s off the cuff quips were especially appreciated by those present, such as his wry remark that we don’t have anything to worry about as we now have the fountain in St George’s Square – the man has definitely improved in the way he is able to rally back.

Where Muscat slipped up was in his constant interruptions (which Gonzi was more careful to avoid). I hate it when people talk over each other or butt in when others are talking; it’s rude, full stop. Repeatedly calling Gonzi a liar was also not wise… and the Prime Minister spotted this error, urging his opponent to use less inflammatory language because it creates political tension. Of course, in saying this, Gonzi was still painfully recalling how his own “the Labour party is a disease” remark had caused so much upset.

To his credit, Gonzi showed that he has not lost his ability to use level-headed reason to win over the viewers (“would you rather I removed social benefits such as a free hospital, stipends, welfare”, he asked, knowing full well what the answer would be). He also made good points regarding encouraging people to improve their skills to get out of the poverty trap, and that compared to other countries our unemployment is still low.

However, there were also unattractive telltale signs that the man will not easily relinquish his hold on power. He was rather too insistent on using the word “my” government… and he also started off on the wrong foot when in answer to Peppi’s first question he replied that he had no intention of ever being the Leader of the Opposition.

That kind of statement simply reeks of arrogance and I can imagine how it rankled with the audience.

Facing the people

I think where Muscat really came into his own was in answering the questions from the studio audience. Again, the handpicked “members of the public” who posed quite intelligent questions were evenly distributed between Labour and Nationalist viewpoints. When one young woman asked Muscat why she should trust him when he only seems to realise he was wrong in hindsight, he did not hesitate to admit he has got it wrong many times, but he would rather have this flaw than be “an outright liar” like his opponent.

In fact, it was his insistence on harping back to Gonzi’s inability to keep his promises which probably gave Muscat an edge in this debate. Despite trying to explain why he could not carry out his electoral promises, Gonzi simply failed to convince and came across as sounding like a man who is simply interested in saving his own political skin.

Above all, certain complaints voiced by Muscat cannot be denied and are a true echo of people’s concerns: the way in which ARMS Ltd continues to dish out astronomical (and often incorrect) water and electricity bills; the fact that MPs who are also Ministers have been given an increase; the waste of public spending in unnecessary travel and parties when the public is being asked to be more frugal; the way money has been squandered in various high profile national projects.

Unfortunately for Gonzi, the questions from the audience did not help his case at all: he was not able to convincingly answer the woman about the black dust issue and the surprise appearance of the contractor who worked in Tonio Fenech’s house but was not paid was dismissed by Gonzi as “a legal issue” which should be taken to court.

You could almost hear everyone in the studio calculating how many years it will take for the case to be resolved in our overloaded judicial system.

[email protected]