Funnily if not tragically, this newspaper faces a civil suit for libel by one of Malta’s leading entrepreneurs, for having been described as a Mintoffian collaborator. It is an interesting case, for it raises the question of why someone should feel ashamed or offended at being a Mintoffian.
Mintoffianism is not something one can easily define, but there are peculiarities which remain undeniably Mintoffian. That these traits have been retained by this administration is the tragedy of our political system. But in simple terms, we might as well start off with the premise that Mintoffianism lends itself to an ingrained belief that government owes everyone a living, and that anything else which is not dished out by government will always be speculated upon as having been obtained by subterfuge, fraud or gross evasion or any other un-socialist ruse you might possibly wish to conjure up.

When I was a young boy in the evening I would sheepishly visit the garages and workshops in the vicinity of my locality. I remember being always impressed by the array of tools. Somehow, I never realised that most of these garage owners were all workers from the dockyard.
Unbeknownst to me at the time (but common knowledge to all) many dockyard workers would pilfer tools and other materials at will. And it appears this was an endemic problem to our industrial landscape not solely limited to the dockyards. Air Malta, Maltacom, Enemalta, the hospital and so many other government departments were all targets for the plunder of implements, tools, utensils and other such appendages provided by the State.
Till today, the idea that if something belongs to the State then it can be apportioned without a cost back to the people is deeply embedded in the Maltese psyche. One cannot blame the people, not after having seen the way politicians have squandered our money.
One of the most shocking events that has never been put right, for example, is squatting on public land, in historic buildings, around bastions, in pillboxes, on gardens and in homes by hordes of Maltese and Gozitans. As soon as the British forces departed in 1979 and before that, they moved in, very much like Zimbabweans taking over the farms of white farmers.
Today, this public land is no man’s land with signs erected by their ‘owners’, and the squatting is so widespread that the administration has shown itself impotent to take action.
Bingemma Fort, Dwejra lines, shoreline, parts of St Elmo fort, a section of the Cottonera lines, houses in Pembroke and Mtarfa, countless Nissan huts and hectares of agricultural land taken up for farming or bird trapping, not to mention the olive groves of Mgarr, Zabbar and the Aleppo forest of Mizieb – in all these years, this administration which spent years hitting out at the Mintoffian disdain for private and public property, chose to do nothing.
It is of course an indictment on Tonio Borg, the Home Affairs minister, who will be remembered for his near to torpid style of politics.
And it does not stop here. The myth that the government cannot provide for everything has been slowly demolished. But this budget has returned to zero on so many fronts.
Listening to the two political leaders last week, one could not help wondering which one was the better Father Christmas of the two. Needless to say, Sant’s speech on PBS was supported by some good camerawork, as if the director knew exactly who to zoom on when Sant unleashed his bazookas on Gonzi’s Cabinet colleagues. No such advantage was given to Lawrence Gonzi.
Lawrence Gonzi returned to the Mintoffian way of doing things by dishing out children’s allowances and extending the stipends system to all. On the other front, to counter the bountifulness of the Gonzi budget, Sant emulated French conservative and new economy crusader Sarkozy, the hate figure of the French Socialists, by promising no taxation on overtime. One need only read what Lino Spiteri and Karm Farrugia have to say in today’s newspaper about this proposal.
In a nutshell, in a bid to net voters, both leaders are trying their very best to be the political opportunists we prayed they would never be.
And then, the greatest somersault of all, has been the intervention by both Gonzi and Sant to commit themselves to subsidise loan repayment for first-time buyers. Free market my foot. Next time round we should expect politicians to subsidise some Texans to purchase luxury apartments over Marsamxett.
X’jonqos? When everyone was talking of a pension bomb, enter Gonzi with a new scheme to keep on giving the state pension to those who actually continue working after retirement. And then the jackpot Mintoffian trick of all, an agreement with importers to keep prices unchanged. The golden age had returned.

And then in a disgusting bid to show how considerate both political parties are to the sick and ill, they come out with nationwide programmes for cancer screening without any in-depth planning and consultation.
Their insensitivity to the sick and those close to them makes me wonder whether they have any sense at all. If anyone wants to initiate a breast-screening programme then get on with it, but do not mention it just a few weeks or months before a national election.
I am disgusted to say the least. Is there any sense? Is there no respect? Do they really believe that anyone gives a hoot about whoever starts a cancer screening programme?

Lawrence Gonzi, as the story on the front page goes, has not decided whether to contest a second district. Yes, you have heard right. Not that he has not decided which district to contest apart from the 2nd district, but that he has not decided to contest another district.
It is of course a joke, a farce, and proof of the lack of seriousness or rather the incapability to decide. Gonzi no doubt will stand in another district, and his failure or rather his choice not to announce which district is creating more of a problem to the PN candidates than to the Labour candidates.
Will it be the 1st district, which will overshadow Austin Gatt? Will it be the 8th district? Whatever the district, many anxious PN candidates are simply asking why can’t the man decide? Beats me.

How Mintoffian are you?

Answer the following questions:

1. Do you favour having home loans for first time buyers subsidised? Y ❏ N ❏
2. Do you think that free health and education should not be means tested? Y ❏ N ❏
3. Do you think that children’s allowance should be available for all, independent of the families earnings? Y ❏ N ❏
4. Do you think that the hours of work should be regulated? Y ❏ N ❏
5. Do you think that public holidays should be increased? Y ❏ N ❏
6. Do you think that electricity and water should be subsidised? Y ❏ N ❏
7. Do you agree with price orders? Y ❏ N ❏
8. Do you think that Church schooling should be free? Y ❏ N ❏
9. Do you think that all university students irrespective of their families earnings should receive a stipend? Y ❏ N ❏
10. Do you think that appointments to boards should be based on political allegiance? Y ❏ N ❏

Results:
Yes 10 Extreme Mintoffian
Yes 9 Deeply Mintoffian
Yes 8 Seriously Mintoffian
Yes 7 Undoubtedly Mintoffian
Yes 6 Mintoffian

Yes 5 Regrettably Mintoffian
Yes 4 Still a Mintoffian
Yes 3 Traces of Mintoffianism
Yes 2 Mintoffian suffering from cold turkey
Yes 1 Once a Mintoffian