The expression ‘where is the beef” became famous during the UK election campaign in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher won the political argument against Labour Leader James Callaghan. Yet, in Malta, this expression assumes political significance, for the reason that on the eve of the bus drivers’ strike, ordered by the General Workers Union, it was the subject of an editorial of the newspaper L-Orizzont. Normally, political editorials are taken for what they are. But this editorial was extremely interesting due to the fact that a union newspaper ended up comparing Joseph Muscat to the Conservative politician Margaret Thatcher. On the other hand, Simon Busuttil was compared to the Labour leader James Callaghan. I think that Busuttil should take this as an unwanted political comment since Callaghan stood for the values of Old Labour in Britain. These types of political comparisons can please some of those who voted Labour for the first time but definitely should send out alarm signals to the rank and file of Labour’s political core.
In truth, having an editorial in a workers' newspaper full of praise for Margaret Thatcher and contempt towards the British Labour leader James Callaghan leaves much to be desired. One expects this type of political jargon in a conservative newspaper, and not one run by a union of Labour workers. But this type of editorial is a reflection of what is happening today within the GWU and the Labour Party. It reflects the political ideology adopted by the local Labour Party in Malta. In itself, this comparison exposes the state of confusion that is starting to appear within the Maltese Labour Party by pretending to be Conservative and Progressive at the same time. The Left in the UK is defining this form of ideology, so at heart to Muscat’s Labour as “red neo-liberalism”.
All this explains why last Friday’s strike was a general flop. First, it was a flop in terms of its effects on the transport system in Malta. Perhaps, I am still conditioned by the bus-drivers’ strikes in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s. Practically, they used to paralyze Malta. I still distinctly remember, Labourites complaining, each time that the bus drivers went on strike in the 70s that Mintoff (the former Labour Leader and Prime Minister) found a solution for everything except for the bus drivers (the expression in Maltese was “Mintoff sab irkaptu ta’ kulħadd barra tax-xufiera ta’ tal-linja”). So effective was a bus service strike in those days that Government called out all military vehicles for public service. Police transport buses and other vehicles that could be used as a substitute for public transport, including trucks and vans which belonged to the British Air Ministry, joined the fleet of an ad hoc passenger transportation.
The only effect that last Friday’s strike had on the general public was a slight increase in the use of private vehicles on our streets. But even here, I am not so sure as traffic on our streets is intensifying in an alarming way and the new bus provider has not put the minds of the Maltese people at rest. The general perception prevails that the best transport system in Malta is the use of private cars.
On a political level, this strike expressed the internal malaise that currently exists within the Labour ranks. It was not only ordered by a Union, which is traditionally associated with the Labour Party and therefore pro-Government, but also against Transport Malta; a company with which the General Workers Union is a business partner. One needs to remember that the General Workers Union is currently renting some of its property in Marsa and offices in A3 Towers at Paola to Transport Malta.
However, when one looks at how things were conducted, one becomes extremely suspicious of the mechanics used in this industrial action. Transport Malta and the service provider went to court, and the court ruled that this strike was illegal. The Union could not order a full-scale strike but according to law, it had to ensure at least a 50 per cent of service. Transport Malta and the bus service provider immediately reacted by forcing 50% of the drivers to return back to work. More serious, the union and its striking workers are now exposed to legal action.
Secondly, one should ask what type of legal advice was the General Works Union getting from its lawyers? I am sure that before going on strike the Union sought to get legal clearance but the assistance received leaves much to be desired, unless the Union was not itself a victim of possible bad advice or worse, ignored sound counsel.
Thirdly, this strike did not help solve the problems related to our public transport. Despite all the negative criticism towards Arriva, the new service still leaves much to be desired. The transport system is shabby and unreliable. The new service provider has not succeeded even in rebranding a new bus service image. A number of buses are still carrying the Arriva colours. The only thing that has changed is the bus fare. This has gone up while the quality of the service continues to decline. In such circumstances, it is very difficult for any Union to get public solidarity for its actions.
What are the political consequences? I presume that, in case of a reshuffle, Minister Joe Mizzi will lose his portfolio. His behaviour is serving as cannon fodder for the Opposition. It is no longer a question of bad behaviour with the press, which has dented his image and tainted all the good work that he is doing in restoring historic buildings in the Cottonera. I bet that the ex-Labourite Stakhanovite, Manuel Calleja, was referring to Joe Mizzi during the Independence festivities, as the Minister who has given him the cold shoulder.
The protagonists behind this strike show that they are no longer in tune with the feelings of the country, with the same electorate, which voted them to power. Having a local Labour Union admiring Margaret Thatcher, who in the UK was tantamount to all that, which is anti-Labour and anti-Union, explains why, in a very short time, the Labour Party and its Union will be going through an inevitable identity crisis.