Political party stations are bad news. I always feel uncomfortable when invited on either of them and nearly always regret accepting.
Their raison d’être is propaganda. So-called debates are overtly one-sided, with a couple of well-primed party faithful, one of them usually a young person who will exaggerate how bad things are for young people (the Opposition) and how bad they will be if they are not returned to power (party in government).
Now I don’t mean to bitch about the people who work on the stations, most of them are hardworking enough. But they cannot be objective, which loses them credibility and hinders creativity, because everything is stage-managed to look good for their party and bad for the other.
Presenters, some too inexperienced to be leading serious debates, ask obviously loaded questions, which kills a programme for me. I refuse to spout endless inane comments and find it difficult to suppress smiling at the leading questions, which usually have the affect of veering me right off their intended course.
I was amused to be told after one such recent programme on the Opposition channel that one of the SMSs sent to the programme, while I was on, claimed I was "mera ta’ Gonzi" (meaning I was reflecting the Prime Minister’s views).
It was also disconcerting to learn, days later, that SMSs about the opinions I was presenting were being aired during the programme without my knowledge. Is that ethical?
Party channel viewers are so unused to unbiased opinions that if you do not praise their leaders to high heaven and trash the other side, you must be against them and favour their rivals.
Television programmes are meant to entertain and inform, at least that used to be the formula for success. But the party broadcasting stations, and I am afraid many programmes on the State channel, have succumbed to focusing on mainly banal entertainment and the "inform" element has lost its focus and integrity.
With an election not far off, the party stations risk descending into the mire of spiteful and vicious attacks on each other and will only serve to put off the undecided.
It is fair to say that the nastiest and more malicious attacks are directed at Alfred Sant, and not only by the political party stations. Although the Prime Minister stated on the Church radio station, in a debate with the leader of the Opposition, that one of his minister’s, Austin Gatt, was "wrong" to pass malevolent remarks (claimed to be a joke) about Dr Sant, Dr Gonzi could have been stronger in chastising his minister. As I have said elsewhere, serious allegations made about a possible leader of the country are not to be joked about.
If I might digress a little here, the last sentence has reminded me of one of the PM’s weaknesses. He seems to lack the chutzpah to deal effectively with his Cabinet colleagues, who are either not performing well or need restraining.
His stubborn refusal to make any changes to Cabinet throughout his term of office has been one of his failings.
He gives me the impression that he thinks that as long as he is performing well, he can carry the weak among his colleagues, warts and all.
To get back to the party political stations, as far as I am concerned they are only there for the party faithful. After all, it is their contributions that keep them going. Then of course there are the advertisers who might not vote for the party whose station they are advertising on, but who still want the custom of their viewers. There is no partisanship when it comes to business.
Considering the state of play in broadcasting because of the partisan stations, the national station has an enormous responsibility to ensure that political debates are objective and light entertainment is not used for partisan agendas.
It is also not enough to just have the main contenders, party officials, MPs, known party supporters or 'friends' on a forum that is meant to help the electorate make informed choices.
The Maltese public deserves to be given unbiased and fresh views, which it can see as such, to help it decide on the future of our country.
The next election is going to be a difficult one for the electorate, although the budget has appeased many, and money talks.
Nobody likes taxes and everyone likes to be subsidised. However, it is middle class people who have gained most, on the other hand the ones with the least clout have got the thin edge of the wedge, except for pensioners, in the budget.
Those who send their children to private schools will be helped. Something I feel is unfair on those who wish to send their children to private schools but cannot afford it despite tax relief, or because they do not even earn enough to pay tax.
Why should our taxes subsidise the private schooling of those whose parents can well afford it? Although, I can understand that a middle class family with more than four children might need help in educating all their children equally. But of course, real equality in education can only be achieved when all schools, including State schools, maintain the same level of success.
Easier said then done, I know. The same level of education for all our children is a tough nut to crack. It is understandable that middle class parents do not want their children to be held back in classes which are too big, are taught by demoralised teachers and might have disruptive pupils, not to mention some of the parents, but those concerns are also held by parents of children who can only afford to send them to State schools.
It is true that private schools are now not only attended mainly by the children of the comfortably off. However, with VAT on school books, school uniforms and other related items, the children of low earners are losing out.
And the same can be said for child maintenance. Does a working couple with good salaries and with one or two children really need child maintenance? It would be fairer if more were given to single parents and lower income families, and less to those who don’t really need it.
One of the main objectives of the budget is to encourage people to work and earn more. The more one earns, and the less tax one pays, the more one spends, which keeps the economy ticking over.
However, we still have the lowest female participation in the workforce. Despite the rhetoric that women with families prefer to work part-time, the truth is that most educated women work full-time and it is the poorly educated women who end up earning less through part time employment.
More could be done for women currently working in part-time and lower income jobs, by encouraging them with some kind of incentive to attend training courses and improve their chances to getting better jobs with more pay. Obviously this would be aimed less at women with small children, and more at women whose children have grown up, since childcare remains a problem for those who cannot afford it.
If those discrepancies could be addressed, this budget would please still more people, even if it is an election budget. But then, that is probably why these discrepancies have arisen, because the votes of the ones adversely affected are not considered crucial.

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com