The political week has been dominated by the speeches given in Parliament regarding the budget for 2012, first by Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat and later by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi.

Actually, the debate started last Sunday when, while closing the Nationalist Party general conference, Dr Gonzi challenged Dr Muscat to answer 10 questions. It was a move from which Dr Gonzi knew he would have emerged victorious, whatever Joseph Muscat decided to do.

If the Labour leader had opted to reply, it would have appeared that he was bowing to Dr Gonzi’s request. That Dr Muscat chose to ignore the questions meant that he had no answers, and his refusal was a mini victory for the Prime Minister.

Instead, Dr Muscat came up with a list of what he said were 51 proposals which, he said, would be implemented if he became Prime Minister.

There are various things to say on this – and I’m afraid it will take me more than the 50 words I was asked to contribute on Dr Muscat’s proposals by the newspaper KullĦadd.

I received a request by the Labour-owned newspaper to write 50 words on Dr Muscat’s 51 proposals – not even one word per proposal. I did not reply, mostly because I find it strange that in my position I write for another newspaper, but also because the word count was ridiculous.

Just to give you an idea, that last paragraph was 50 words long.

First of all, I did not like the constant repetition of the phrase “gvern ġdid immexxi minni” (“a new government led by me”) to which Dr Muscat resorted each time he wanted to state one of his proposals. He laid too much emphasis on the word “minni” (“by me:), coming across as someone who is solely interested in becoming head of government. Egocentricity and power are a dangerous combination.

It would have sounded much better had Dr Muscat simply said: “gvern Laburista ġdid” (“a new Labour government”). He would have still passed on the message, but there would have been less focus on himself, and he stood to gain more ground with the floating voters.

Secondly, there is a not-so-subtle hint as to why he chose to put forward 51 proposals. The number 51 is strongly linked with the majority a political party needs to win an election, and I guess Dr Muscat went for 51 proposals with this in mind. The thing is that, in order to stress this “51” concept, the Opposition Leader stretched his “proposals” too far.

This is because – and here’s the most important point – most of the proposals were, as the Prime Minister said in his reply, either already implemented or about to be, or else ideas that seem to have been thrown in just for the sake of adding up the numbers.

For example, making tourism a pillar of the economy cannot be considered as a proposal. The tourism industry has been such for decades, and the fact that in three out of the last four years Malta has achieved record figures – and this in spite of the economic difficulties the world is facing – is proof enough of the good work that is being carried out by the government in the sector.

Proposing that incentives should be offered for more women to work or to return to work after having children is not a Joseph Muscat discovery – the government has been doing this for years; and the number of women getting a job is climbing steadily.

I just hope Dr Muscat does not expect us to thank him for his “proposal” that university stipends are here to stay – it was a Labour government that had converted them from a grant into a loan in 1996 – and that MCAST is to be developed – it was a Labour government that had closed it down.

That he then went on to say that, under a Joseph Muscat government, the Forum Unions Maltin and the Gozo Business Chamber would be given a place on the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development is quite worrying too. Not because of the idea itself, but because of the way it will be imposed on the social partners.

Dr Muscat seems to have forgotten that all decisions taken at MCESD level – including new membership – must be taken by consensus. When the General Workers Union was the only member to turn down a social pact agreement in 2005, the idea for a social pact fell through. So what Dr Muscat proposed comes across as an imposition by the Labour leader, and this does not sound right.

He continues to say that he will reduce water and electricity charges, but we are still waiting to know by how much, and whether new taxes will be introduced to make up for the lost revenue. Were it not for the fact that it is such a serious matter, Dr Muscat’s reluctance to give more details on this issue would have become the joke of the year.

His idea to eliminate the €500 weekly salary increase for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, but then form a committee that will decide to give the increase anyway, is a political gimmick. And here I wonder what his colleagues, who aspire to become Cabinet members if Dr Muscat’s wish comes true, think about giving up this kind of money.

This takes me to what the Prime Minister had to say. Frankly, I believe that Dr Gonzi was in much better form on Sunday than he was on Wednesday – and by this I mean the force of his arguments and, most of all, his delivery.

His strongest argument is that the country is doing wonders when one considers the problems being faced elsewhere, problems that the Opposition seems to want to ignore. I think that his message can be encapsulated in something he said at the beginning of his speech in Parliament: “Malta obtained the best results possible”.

These few words show a Prime Minister who is cautiously optimistic – he knows that the results are good, but he also knows that the situation can change at any moment, seeing that so many countries in Europe and the eurozone are facing a crisis.

His confidence in the abilities of the Maltese people never wanes, and this is sharply in contrast to an Opposition that thrives on doom and gloom.

[email protected]