The Malta Independent on Sunday
Two months have gone by since last election and this is just about the right time to start drawing some logical conclusions why things happened the way they did.` It is the right time because heads have cooled down and whilst the pain is still there one can reason with a cool head and a clear mind. It is close to enough to make conclusions worth drawing and distant enough to draw them objectively.
Labour had a two-pronged policy to militate for the aspired success at last elections.` On the domestic front Labour argued the PN in government for nearly 16 uninterrupted years had become a spent force neglecting domestic issues and pinning all hopes for a cure on discipline and magic through EU membership.
Labour argued that domestic problems, best typified by the dual mountains of debt and debris, were our own to address and we needed to find in the inner strength to do so without necessarily depending on Brussels to force us to do so. It was a matter of having the right leadership qualities so as we get inspired to do the necessary changes without having to take on board the whole load of excessive, stifling and unnecessary bureaucracy that came with the discipline of EU membership.
And to reinforce its case Labour presented its own model for relationship with the EU. A relationship which needed tailor-made negotiations outside the membership structure. A relationship that respected our own geo-political realities rather than accept the final destination of common this and that implied in EU membership.
Both these policies had their own merits. The feeling that it was time for a change of administration to give the democratic cycle a chance to check corruption, arrogance and inertia was widespread. The perception that Labour could do a better job on the domestic front was widely held and supported by scientifically held opinion polls.
Not the same could be said of Labour`s EU policy.` To people`s mind, Partnership` was a complicated arrangement needed long years or hard and tough negotiations for which there was small appetite in Brussels who were clearly eager to get Malta to conform with their great plan. Even if it had theoretical merits the feeling was clear that people were very doubtful about its practical application. The huge media resources available to the opposing political camp whose main argument for EU membership was that of inevitability,` rendered Labour`s EU policy very scant in mind penetrating properties.
As the EU argument warmed up it was becoming clearer that the EU issue would capture people`s mind and relegate domestic issues to second tier in their judgement for the elections. It started becoming clearer that Labour`s two main policies were not at all complimentary and reinforcing each other.` They were in fact conflicting.
The more Labour argued with success about the deficiency of the PN on the domestic front the more it weakened its own other policy for a special relationship with the EU outside membership and by consequence the more it strengthened the inevitability argument of the EU membership camp.
I had foreseen this trend and wrote specifically about it in several of my contributions but more specifically in my Friday column of the Malta Independent of June 28 2002 when under the title Ironic I said:
`How ironic! The most forceful argument in favour of the EU membership project is government`s own incompetence.
With increasing regularity I meet people who are forming an opinion in favour of membership not because they like what is being negotiated. Indeed they hardly know or care to inform themselves. They are starting to favour EU membership as they fear it is the only way to save us from our own incompetence and indiscipline.
They are realising that 15 years of irresponsible money no problem culture has landed us with mountains of debt and debris which are becoming unmanageable and` are threatening our sustainability as a truly independent state.`
So if there is one major fault with Labour`s plan for winning last elections it is that of not realising that its two main policies, while standing up on their own merits, were together appearing to conflict and were encouraging people`s mind to form in favour of giving superiority of the EU issue over domestic issues as one could not be solved without the other.
Labour blind insistence on bundling these two conflicting policies in one electoral decision was its downfall. The increased evidence of conflict in its main policies should have persuaded Labour to separate the issues as much as possible by making the people`s choice on each issue to be taken through a different methodology.` The domestic policy should have been the main topic of the general election whereas the referendum should have been the medium to choose the EU policy.
Bundling the issues where strict separations was called for was a fatal mistake which did injustice to Labour`s policies which could have been chosen by the electorate if presented separately and in the right sequence. The strategists within the MLP, who had all the fair warnings of the grave risks of their illogical choice, and who had already erred in a similar manner through bundling issues that should have been kept separate in 1998,` need to be held accountable to all those who are still hurt that Labour is not in government. Accountable even to those who were forced to vote PN because Labour gave them no option.
Two months have gone by since last election and this is just about the right time to start drawing some logical conclusions why things happened the way they did.` It is the right time because heads have cooled down and whilst the pain is still there one can reason with a cool head and a clear mind. It is close to enough to make conclusions worth drawing and distant enough to draw them objectively.
Labour had a two-pronged policy to militate for the aspired success at last elections.` On the domestic front Labour argued the PN in government for nearly 16 uninterrupted years had become a spent force neglecting domestic issues and pinning all hopes for a cure on discipline and magic through EU membership.
Labour argued that domestic problems, best typified by the dual mountains of debt and debris, were our own to address and we needed to find in the inner strength to do so without necessarily depending on Brussels to force us to do so. It was a matter of having the right leadership qualities so as we get inspired to do the necessary changes without having to take on board the whole load of excessive, stifling and unnecessary bureaucracy that came with the discipline of EU membership.
And to reinforce its case Labour presented its own model for relationship with the EU. A relationship which needed tailor-made negotiations outside the membership structure. A relationship that respected our own geo-political realities rather than accept the final destination of common this and that implied in EU membership.
Both these policies had their own merits. The feeling that it was time for a change of administration to give the democratic cycle a chance to check corruption, arrogance and inertia was widespread. The perception that Labour could do a better job on the domestic front was widely held and supported by scientifically held opinion polls.
Not the same could be said of Labour`s EU policy.` To people`s mind, Partnership` was a complicated arrangement needed long years or hard and tough negotiations for which there was small appetite in Brussels who were clearly eager to get Malta to conform with their great plan. Even if it had theoretical merits the feeling was clear that people were very doubtful about its practical application. The huge media resources available to the opposing political camp whose main argument for EU membership was that of inevitability,` rendered Labour`s EU policy very scant in mind penetrating properties.
As the EU argument warmed up it was becoming clearer that the EU issue would capture people`s mind and relegate domestic issues to second tier in their judgement for the elections. It started becoming clearer that Labour`s two main policies were not at all complimentary and reinforcing each other.` They were in fact conflicting.
The more Labour argued with success about the deficiency of the PN on the domestic front the more it weakened its own other policy for a special relationship with the EU outside membership and by consequence the more it strengthened the inevitability argument of the EU membership camp.
I had foreseen this trend and wrote specifically about it in several of my contributions but more specifically in my Friday column of the Malta Independent of June 28 2002 when under the title Ironic I said:
`How ironic! The most forceful argument in favour of the EU membership project is government`s own incompetence.
With increasing regularity I meet people who are forming an opinion in favour of membership not because they like what is being negotiated. Indeed they hardly know or care to inform themselves. They are starting to favour EU membership as they fear it is the only way to save us from our own incompetence and indiscipline.
They are realising that 15 years of irresponsible money no problem culture has landed us with mountains of debt and debris which are becoming unmanageable and` are threatening our sustainability as a truly independent state.`
So if there is one major fault with Labour`s plan for winning last elections it is that of not realising that its two main policies, while standing up on their own merits, were together appearing to conflict and were encouraging people`s mind to form in favour of giving superiority of the EU issue over domestic issues as one could not be solved without the other.
Labour blind insistence on bundling these two conflicting policies in one electoral decision was its downfall. The increased evidence of conflict in its main policies should have persuaded Labour to separate the issues as much as possible by making the people`s choice on each issue to be taken through a different methodology.` The domestic policy should have been the main topic of the general election whereas the referendum should have been the medium to choose the EU policy.
Bundling the issues where strict separations was called for was a fatal mistake which did injustice to Labour`s policies which could have been chosen by the electorate if presented separately and in the right sequence. The strategists within the MLP, who had all the fair warnings of the grave risks of their illogical choice, and who had already erred in a similar manner through bundling issues that should have been kept separate in 1998,` need to be held accountable to all those who are still hurt that Labour is not in government. Accountable even to those who were forced to vote PN because Labour gave them no option.
No comments:
Post a Comment