The politics of envy – again
Some clever Dick on the Opposition benches asked the prime minister how many of those on the public sector payroll are paid more than the president.
I don’t imagine that the point this clever Dick tried to make was that the president should be paid more. This is but the latest volley in the old Labour war of the politics of envy.
When the governor of the Central Bank talked about profligacy and waste, the Opposition leader’s response was to suggest to him that he takes a pay cut.
Not being quite as vulgar, the governor didn’t respond by suggesting that the Opposition leader sells his famous red-faced watch and donates the money to the poor and needy.
Nor did he say that it’s all right for some, who don’t have to bother much about their pay cheque because they can always bank on daddy’s business and the reluctance of any government to do anything to curb or regulate the manufacture of fireworks.
The clever Dick who asked the question is clearly not an economic liberal but a socialist, or he would have torn his hair out at the thought of the waste of time and resources dedicated to researching the answer to his useless question.
That answer, when it came, was that 117 people paid by the state are paid more than the president. And the general reaction was: So what? Who cares? Why shouldn’t people be paid more than the president when the president doesn’t do very much anyway?
This was a miscalculation by the person who asked the question, who probably thinks, as such people do, that the more ‘important’ you are than the more you should be paid, and it doesn’t matter what you are worth or what you do because market economics just don’t figure for socialists.
The president is l-izjed persuna importanti f’ Malta and so he should be paid the most, more even than a heart surgeon working for the state hospital.
The Labour Party should understand that spreading the politics of envy might result in limited short-term gains but in the main it rebounds on the party itself, which is seen as ‘don’t-do’ rather than ‘can-do’, as negative rather than positive, and as carping, mean and envious.
Those are not emotions or attitudes with which proactive people, doers with initiative, wish to be associated. Losers think like that, which is why the votes that Labour tends to capture from the Nationalist Party – the so-called ‘floaters’ – tend to be those of people who have something seriously bad going on in their lives.
They are the votes of the bitter, unhappy and disillusioned. Think about it, and you’ll see that this is true.
Next time you hear somebody rage against the government, try to work out whether it’s really the government he’s angry about, or whether he’s just projecting his own personal anger and unhappiness onto something extraneous which he can blame. It’s like raging against your parents when you’re a hormonal teenager.
The Opposition leader may argue that they are votes all the same and will help him to secure his dream of becoming prime minister. But you can’t build success on other people’s bitterness, as Alfred Sant discovered before him.
JOSEPH MILIBAND
Joseph Muscat would do well to develop his own policies instead of cribbing Ed Miliband’s, because now that Miliband is Labour leader those policies are going to be minutely criticised in the British news and Muscat is going to feel the full effect of the fall-out here, where that news has a strong following.
First we had the living wage, torn to shreds in Britain and Malta as crazy and unworkable, a legacy from the historical age before the welfare state. Now we have the ‘squeezed middle’ – something which Muscat, like Miliband, has banged on about for months, but which is only now being scrutinised by the British press because Miliband speaks as Labour leader and not contender anymore.
The Conservatives pointed out immediately that Miliband is confused, that he doesn’t seem to know what the ‘middle’ is (Miliband was fastidious about using the word ‘class’) and that he used six definitions of the phrase in an interview on BBC Radio 4.
The definition of the ‘middle’, according to Miliband, ranges from “people who are working hard” to “those not on six-figure salaries, who are in the middle of the income distribution”.
Does this remind you of anyone closer to home? It certainly does me.
The difference there in London is that the press actually presses. Nobody here has bothered to try pinning Muscat down on what he means by the ‘mittilkless’. They just report what he says, as though it is the gospel.
Perhaps you remember the uncritical, unquestioning reports when he first flew his living-wage kite. They were pathetic, like something written by schoolchildren in awe of the headmaster.
Not so in Britain. Here’s the BBC’s online report:
“Pressed on whether he meant the median income of £26,000, the Labour leader said: “Well, I’m a bit confused now, I’m saying it’s above £26,000 and below and you’re talking about the poor. I’m talking about the people either side. I’m saying it’s either side of the average income.” On the broadest definition used by Mr Miliband, which only excludes people on benefits and six-figure salaries, more than 42 million people, or 88% of the UK adult population, would be included in the “squeezed middle”, according to BBC Research. BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the phrase was “deliberately vague”, adding: “Pretty much everyone – bar, perhaps, the very poor and the very rich – are meant to think Ed’s talking about them. (…) When I interviewed Ed yesterday, he refused to define his terms beyond saying it didn’t mean millionaires and that everyone knew what it meant anyway.”
What would Joseph Muscat’s definition of the ‘mittilkless’ be? We don’t know yet, because not one of Malta’s growing media army has bothered to ask. They just report what he chooses to say.
I have the sneaking suspicion that, just like Ed Miliband, Muscat thinks the ‘mittilkless’ accounts for some 88% of the population. You have to hand it to the man with the watch: he certainly does cast his net wide.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
19 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
In today’s Times
“Labour MEPs cost €1.2m”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101128/local/labour-meps-cost-1-2m
Enough said.
I insist on a discount.
SALE SALE SALE! Iva, smajtu sewwa!
Elect five MEPs and get one free! PLUS A FREE CO-OPTED LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION!
ONE-TIME-OFFER, not 2 b missed!
Are they willing to change places with the president?
Joseph Muscat has been leader of his party for over two years now.
I have no problem if the press has not pressed him about his definition of mittelkless – after all, in my view, class is an archaic concept.
But it is now time he explained to us all what vision he has, and what policies he proposes, in the areas of vital importance for our progress, such as: the economy, the environment and climate change, foreign affairs, law and order, health and education.
I would like to understand HIS UNDERSTANDING of the Maltese society, and how it all comes TOGETHER.
Here’s another clever dick from the opposition benches;
P.Q. 21695
L-ONOR. SILVIO PARNIS staqsa lill-Ministru tas-Saħħa, l-Anzjani u l-Kura fil-Komunità: Jista’ l-Ministru jara għaliex hemm nuqqas ta’ endoscopy fil-ward S4 tal-Isptar Mater Dei? Jista’ jgħid kemm hemm pazjenti jistennew biex jużaw dan l-endoscopy ? Meta se jasal Malta? Kemm ilhom neqsin? Kemm ġew ordnati?
18/11/2010
ONOR. JOSEPH CASSAR: Infurmat li endoscopy hija tip ta’ proċedura medika u mhux xi apparat mediku kif qiegħed jiftiehem mill-Mistoqsija Parlamentari. Apparti minn hekk, ma jsirux endoscopies fil-Ward S4. Għalhekk nitlob lill-Onor. Interpellant biex ikun aktar speċifiku.
Seduta 288
23/11/2010
I was wondering who the hell thought that the fact that there are people making more money than the President is newsworthy. Any businessman worth his salt makes more money than the President, and any job which requires a high level of expertise and responsibility should make more money than the President. This is common sense. Being a heart surgeon requires infinitely more expertise and responsibility than being a President. Heart surgeons in Malta are probably not paid enough anyway.
This news shows that Labour is still living in another era. We are living in an era where self-made people are, rightly, given the most importance. In its annual rich list, Forbes magazine doesn’t even list monarchs and heads of state anymore because they did not create their own wealth and because it’s so difficult to distinguish between their personal wealth and that which technically belongs to the state. And guess what? That list has its fair share of school dropouts, and that includes Bill Gates, who was the richest man in the world for countless years.
Looking important or having the much coveted Dott in front of your name doesn’t necessarily or automatically make you rich. Being President is not a real job. The President is there to serve the nation not to make money.
Sadly, this strategy of fanning envy might work. It has become an integral part of Muscat’s speeches.
The most disgusting was the attack on the Governor of the Central Bank, who must be autoomous at all times. Governors are paid adequately, and are protected against dismissal by the Central Bank laws, in order not to be influenced by the government of the day.
It might be hard for control freaks at the MLP to understand this, but this concept of autonomy is set in stone in most developed countries.
Can the opposition leader and leader of the Partit Laburista tell us, poor mortals what are his earnings?
My guesstimate is
Euro 20,000 Pl leadership
Euro 26,000 Opposition leader
Euro 20,000 EU MP’s retirement pension
Euro 37,000 family business
Euro 3,000 children’s allowance
Euro 6,000 investments
Over Euro 100,000 Plus perks.
Cioccio 2010 – Their Joseph has already given an indication of what his policies would be but he said you have to wait until the eve of the general elections, so he will give you a definite answer! Of course, we would like to know NOW what the policies of the PL are, but he persists in playing the ‘wait and see’ game.
He will tell us when he is in government, because NOW he has not got a clue. He’ll find inspiration as he climbs the stairs to Castille.
“But it is now time he explained to us all what vision he has…”
According to Joseph ‘vision’ means hindsight.
Waiting for an explanation? “Elect me first and then you will find out…”
Progress? Blocking (tried) funds for modernization of Sant’ Antnin recycling plant? Harping on BWSC contract when the Auditor General and an EU investigation cleared the government and the awarding of the contract?
The economy? Figure this one out: Less income tax = less revenue – Lower electricity bills = more (illegal) subsidy to Enemalta – Refund of VAT on car licences = e52 million cost to all taxpayers to please a few thousands and going against EU rules. Where will he be finding these millions other than the taxpayers, half of whom are his own supporters?
I shudder to think that there is a possibility that this joker may end up as prime minister in the next few years! Time for a reality check by the so-called ‘floating voters’.
Rumours are that some ‘inside’ Lejburisti are already thinking past Joseph.
As always your commentary reflects what most of us think. When I once said that I do not envy people who have high salaries as long as they deliver – some smart Alec answered ‘you must be one of those with a high salary’.
From then on I decided not to give such fools the benefit of a reply. It is useless expending energy trying to make such people understand because they have a one-track mind and they will never change.
Proof of this is the fact that practically every day we have a question in parliament about other people’s salaries and how much other people are paid. why? The answer is is your commentary.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101128/local/dalli-speaks-of-brussels-term-as-four-year-sentence
Can you believe the cheek of the man ? He just will not let go.
Envy, nothing less. We ex Barclays Bank employees went through this in the 70s when the benevolent socialist governement nationalised the banks.
We had massive salary reductions and were cheated of our pensions as we were put on the national pension scale with a maximum attached to the President’s (yes, the highest authority in the country in Labour’s mind) salary at the time to which it is still attached and never increased with the increase in his salary since.
A relative of mine at the time – a top civil servant – had remarked favourably on those measures, saying that it was not right that top officials in the banking sector should earn more than him.
I just could not believe my ears and my reply was that he should have joined the bank rather than becoming a civil servant.
For peanuts, you get monkeys – old and hackneyed I know but nevertheless still very valid.
X’irid JosephPL? Bhal meta konna fi zmienhom fejn id-differenza bejn supervisor u general manager kienet Lm60 fix-xhar? Dik zgur kienet ggib il-koruzzjoni.
And I am sure right now some lejborist is really wondering why you chose to put a green eye as a picture to accompany this article.
…he’s still wondering….
still wondering…
Hint: Try English Literature
Mela hekk sew – nimpalaw il-miljuni biex insalvaw azjenda li uhud mill-haddiema taghha ghandhom izjed paga mill-President! Hawwadni ha nifhem!
Since the PL identified the President’s salary as a yardstick, can anyone tell me how much the governor of the Central Bank would need to fork out to live in a magnificent palace with an army of servants? Surely perks like those must be factored into his salary.