Political leaders go head-to-head in last debate

There were no dramatic twists of the Mistra contract variety during tonight's leadership debate. Nor was anything said on the night that hadn't been said several times before in the longest campaign since independence.

Instead it was the speakers' vastly contrasting body language that injected fresh insights into what was otherwise a spectacularly predictable showdown.

Reflecting the meticulous organization of his party's campaign team, Joseph Muscat presented himself to the viewer almost as if he had just stepped out of a New Persil Automatic ad.

His teeth almost literally flashed as he spoke, and both his choice of tie (pale blue, just in case you hadn't already guessed which voter segment he was trying to appeal to) and his immaculate, heavily starched suit attested to the overwhelming cosmetic effort that went into Labour's election bid.

As for Lawrence Gonzi, the visual impression was less immediately revealing... though it must be said he looked infinitely fresher and less tired than some of his more recent appearances. But his body language, and especially his tone of voice - which at moments he came perilously to losing altogether - spoke volumes about how he himself perceived the lie of the land just a few days before the election.

At moments, he gave the impression just couldn't understand why so many people (according to polls, at any rate) seem not to see things his way. And while the words that left his mouth were carefully chosen not to sound divisive or aggressive (no mention at all was made of the drugs allegation, for instance) Gonzi's demeanour seemed to be telling us, 'But how can you not believe that I am the better choice here?'

Coupled with the trademark laugh which seemed to intrude at the most inopportune moments (especially towards the all-important last few minutes), the overwhelming impression was that of a Prime Minister in a state of denial or disbelief.

But onto the messages imparted by the two leaders... which effectively formed a synthesis of various highlights from their respective electoral programmes.

As is traditional in such debates, the Opposition leader took the floor first. Starting off with the rather obvious reminder that "we have to choice to make next Saturday", Muscat proceeded to spell out the dynamics of the choice itself.

On the one hand it is a decision based on such considerations as job creation, education, health and civil liberties. On another level, it is a choice between two different ways of doing politics: the politics of tribalism, whereby people look at the 'colour of faces'; and a politics that places national unity as the fulcrum on which its policies hinge.

This was an exciting prospect, he added; especially for first time voters, who now have a chance to be protagonists instead of merely spectators in a decision that will shape the country's future.

Addressing such voters directly (as in fact both leaders did throughout) Muscat urged people not to listen to voices which would discourage them from dreaming about unity. People say that Malta will always be divided, because that's how things have always been. But Muscat himself does not accept that view. There is a desire for change among the people at large, and his part is responding to this demand.

Here followed a first round of repetitive electoral promises. Within a law a new Labour government will introduce three laws to 'clean up the country': a whistleblower's act to combat corruption; the removal of time-barring for corruption cases involving politicians; and a law to regulate party financing (which, he said, would address the perception of 'hidden obligations' in government decisions.)

Turning to civil liberties, Muscat expressed pride at the fact that 'from day one' he had campaigned in favour of the introduction of divorce in the recent referendum. And in what would emerge as a constant theme, both leaders were careful not to take the fight directly to their counterpart: Muscat reminded us how he had voted 'twice' for divorce - first in the referendum, then in parliament... in what was effectively an indirect reminder of how Gonzi had voted against the referendum result in parliament.

Immediately Muscat went on to (somewhat triumphantly) declare that the "disaster" predicted by "some people" failed to materialise as a result of the introduction of divorce... a line of argument which culminated in Muscat's strongest statement of phase one, which was : "the politics of hate does not work. It did not work with divorce, and it won't work today either."

Labour, he went on, has run a positive campaign rooted in a 'clear roadmap': and out came the electoral manifesto, with allusions to all the many campaign pledges you've all heard so often.

Over to Gonzi, and almost immediately he defended his choice of a long campaign, because "it was worth it." Saturday's election represents a crucial decision, and as such it was good to discuss the issues in depth. And in what would have been considered a major gaffe in any other European democracy, Gonzi described it as a "great privilege to elect your leaders" [Note: electing one's leaders is actually is a sacrosanct right - the 'privilege' actually belongs to the elected leader, not the other way round).

But the lengthy campaign also gave us time to weight the option very carefully, he added And here Gonzi returned to a theme that has permeated the PN campaign: it is now time to think about the really important things in life: e.g, whether we will still have a steady job after March 9; the quality of the education we receive; the health services that are available to us, and so on.

Reminding viewers that Malta lies in the middle of a raging international storm - with all our neighbours struggling to cope with inordinate debt-levels and mounting unemployment - he pointed out how, under his government's stewardship, we have nonetheless avoided the disasters faced by other countries.

Our beautiful island, he said, may have little in the way of natural resources, yet at the same it also has so much... namely its human resources, though whose hard work the country was able to weather the storm and register an impressive string of successes.

These are the important things that we must bear in mind next Saturday.

Gonzi here informed the viewer that he had not come to the debate empty-handed. And sure enough, out came the PN programme (which from a distance seems indistinguishable form the Labour, though I can't say who copied whom), and leafing through the document the Prime Minister listed out several of its key proposals: namely in the health and educations sectors.

Several of these proposals were tailored for an elderly audience: and seizing on one issue for which his government has been criticized over the years, Gonzi made a very clear commitment that he would not cut pensions if re-elected on Saturday.

Waxing lyrical about the importance of keeping the elderly active in their communities, he outlined his government's initiatives to help the elderly remain in the workforce for as long as possible, and to keep living within their own homes.

All this wound up to a flurry of electoral slogans along the lines that a new PN government will guarantee yet another 'leap forward in quality' in order to ensure a 'futur fis-sod' for everyone.

Joseph Muscat's turn now, and in what would prove a consistent tactic he almost immediately contradicted his earlier message of 'national unity' by launching into a polite but ultimately incisive attack on Gonzi's credibility.

Seizing on the pensions pitch, Muscat reminded us that these were the exact same promises Gonzi had made in 2008. Likewise Gonzi had made promises of job security which he would later forget to implement: and Muscat listed out the public corporations (Enemalta, Air Malta, Dockyard, etc) whose employees had received letters signed by Gonzi in which they were promised they would not be made redundant.

But citing the economic storm as a pretext, Gonzi would go on to renege on those promises... even if the same economic storm did not stop him from raising his own MPs' salaries.

Quoting Gonzi himself (who was actually quoting Jesus Christ, in case Muscat didn't realise) the Labour leader exhorted us to judge on the basis of one's actions, not words. And the time to judge, he added, was now upon us.

Gonzi has said a lot of things in this campaign, and many of the promises he has made are also on the PL's manifesto. People expect him [Muscat] to engage in a political 'auction sale' - matching and outdoing each other's promises - but instead he preferred to choose the path of responsibility. Labour has a clear roadmap, he said, which was drawn up on the principle that Labour would be careful in spending taxpayers' money.

A Labour government would lead by example. Not only would it not raise MPs salaries, but it would make existing salaries subject to parliamentary attendance. This, he said, is the accountability that the Labour party proposes.

Here he launched into a breakdown of the savings a family (and a business) might expect on their electricity bills thanks to Labour's energy proposals: 27,000 households will benefit from 35% reductions, 105,000 will see their bills slashed by 30%... and this would not be a case of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', but rather the result of a 'tried and tested' system (referring to Labour's power plans).

The rest of Muscat's second intervention took the form of a long list of facts and figures lifted directly from the manifesto: bureaucracy to be reduced by 25%, €5,000 refund for each job created in Gozo, part-timers to pay less tax, health services to be expanded and improved to make up for shortages of bedspace at Mater Dei, and many more.

That, he concluded (half-turning towards Gonzi), is how you create prosperity. That is how do it.

Gonzi replied by informing us that he "enjoys" listening to Joseph Muscat - though to be honest, if true he masked his feelings remarkably well - especially when Muscat says one thing, but does another. Here he alluded to the 'revelation', during the recent Times debate, that Muscat disagreed with the Dockyard privatization... which means that if Muscat were in power today, Malta would still be pumping millions in subsidies to this moribund enterprise.

But let's talk about serious things, he added. Muscat's words, Gonzi said, hide a reality that he doesn't like to talk about: the reality of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece. All those countries are all passing through turmoil, yet we are doing well. Here Gonzi mad ea somewhat plaintive appeal: Don't you conclude from these facts that we must be doing something right? Malta has the lowest unemployment figures in the EU. Factories which were threatening to shut down in 2008/9, are now investing more and employing people. Yet for Muscat, all this is absolutely meaningless, Gonzi declared. It's as though nothing is happening at all.

What followed was a heartfelt effort on Gonzi's part to inject a much-needed dose of enthusiasm to the PN campaign. Gonzi reiterated his promise to create 25,000 jobs, and specified that the figure was based on expected graduates to be churned out of MCAST, the University, ITS and other educational facilities in the next five years (significantly, however, he stopped of explaining exactly who is going to employ them all).

Similar 'records' had been achieved in tourism, industry, manufacturing, and even the EU had given us all a certificate of excellence in the economic growth department. Indeed Gonzi sounded at this stage as if he were actually delivering his Oscar acceptance speech for lifetime achievement... culminating in the resounding question: why change direction, when everything is clearly going hunky dory?

If it marked his most convincing moment of the night (which it did), the sustained bravado also inspired a calculated and effective response from Muscat, who asked the viewer a direct question of his own. Does this vision correspond to the reality that you experience every day? Is this sense of prosperity and abundance what you feel inside your own pockets? Is this what you talk about in your family?

The Prime Minister, he said, is cut off from reality. Yes, his government has achieved successes, and the Opposition is not only happy to acknowledge this, but will also retain the good that has been done by this administration.

But - and a heavily emphasized 'but' it was too - the same government has ignored other problems; it looked the other way while the middle class felt its standard of living was slipping out of reach. Maltese salaries are 13% lower than the European average; credit rating shave downgraded Malta; and Gonzi was refusing to admit that unemployment is once again on the rise.

All this had taken place on Gonzi's watch. And much worse, the same government also delivered the fatal axe-blow to Malta's economy by hiking the prices of electricity: crippling families and destroying businesses.

The truth is that Gonzi had jammed the economy... but that's OK, because the Labour Party has a 'cunning plan' that will restore dignity to those families and reroute the country in the right direction.

The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has no plan at all. His has been a piecemeal approach to issues... such as energy, where questions remain unanswered about the interconnector, and about whether the European Commission had indeed allocated funds for the pipeline to Italy.

The PL's plan, however, was meticulously spelt out in the roadmap contained in the manifesto, etc. etc.

Once again, the debate sounded at this point like a 'war of the manifestos'. Labour's manifesto, Gonzi said, 'made him laugh'. Indeed it seems several things make Gonzi laugh... and laugh he did: especially towards the end, when he looked momentarily as though he had simply run out of electoral steam.

But the most amusing part (to Gonzi) of Labour's plan remains those two gas tanks "each the size of Mosta dome", which they planned to dump for the middle of the power station itself. And like a NET TV journalist earlier this week, Gonzi said that he had leafed through the PL manifesto and found no reference to the power station anywhere. [Note to Labour: next time, please insert a searchable index... it will make all our lives so much easier.]

Muscat would later return fire by pointing out that he expected the PN manifesto to contain at least one reference to the 7,000 jobs at Smart City. But as this represents the least smart aspect of the debate (i.e., a tit-for-tat which we have all heard dozens of times before) I will not make a full list of every single blow traded.

Suffice to say that Muscat landed perhaps the hardest punch, when he pointed out that the €1128 million obtained by Gonzi in EU funds (and Gonzi had earlier boasted about) would all be spent on oil over the next three years... seeing as Malta was currently spending one million a day on oil, thanks to the flawed choices made by Lawrence Gonzi.

Incidentally, this marked the only oblique reference to the oil scandal - which Muscat seemed to float as a possible explanation for those same energy choices - and also to the 'oligarchy' (which the Labour leader solemnly vowed to hunt down one by one,  and ultimately destroy).

All this paved the way to Muscat's final pitch to the audience that 'we will do things differently'.

As always, the last word fell to the Prime Minister, who admitted that "it was his pleasure to end this debate" (not the most fortunate choice of words, I must say; though I don't doubt his honesty). And he ended the debate by hammering home the message that the electorate faced a 'grave risk to the country'.

Remember the last time Labour was in power, he intoned... it had promised a 'breath of fresh air' yet on its first day in office it introduced 33 new taxes and turned university stipends into loans. Now the electorate faces a choice - a choice between political colours, whether we like it or not.

"We may not be perfect," Gonzi stressed - marking his only self-critical moment of the entire evening - "but we try to be on the right side of history."

Certainly his last moments were not 'perfect'... Gonzi closed the debate with a confused spate of declarations: mostly variation of earlier claims to have done all he could, to have secured successes, to have made mistakes (all thanks to the international crisis, naturally) but to have nonetheless created a pleasant and stable environment, etc. If we did all this in five years of stormy weather, why can't we do the same again?

In the end there was little doubt whose was the most confident performance of the evening - indeed it would have astounding had Muscat not emerged the more self-assured of the two, given the prognostics for Saturday. All things told, however, I for one would be mightily surprised if anything that was said tonight actually impacted voter intentions in any way.