Franco Debono has made many a statement during the past 12 months. He abstained when a vote of no confidence was submitted against Minister Austin Gatt. He explained that he did so as he wanted to give the man and his party another chance!
He has been stating for days now, that he will not vote in favour of the budget because he considers that Austin Gatt should have resigned months ago due to his political failures. Whether Franco Debono will keep his word is anybody’s guess. But if he does the budget will not be approved. We will have to keep guessing what comes next for some more days.
With this in mind the budget’s relevance is limited.
But we need not panic as Labour will come to the rescue. Labour, we are told, will deliver.
Progressive Labour will deliver income tax revised rates which will ignore low wage earners and reduce tax payable to those who are already reasonably well off. No tax deductions can be guaranteed for low wage earners by Labour.
Progressive Labour, like conservative PN, does not agree with the need to revise the minimum wage. It is not in the interest of employers to do so. And it is their vote which progressive Labour is after. The employers’ vote, that is!
Why should progressive Labour accept the GWU’s proposal to have the cost of living adjustment paid in two installments? There is consensus between the PN and Labour that the GWU’s proposals should be ignored. It is only Alternattiva Demokratika which has offered support for a progressive incomes policy as proposed by the GWU.
Labour, the progressive party, has opted for a conservative approach: the PN’s approach. It is the only way forward as in this way it ensures a smooth transition, continuity and stability!
…………… and they looked from pig to man and from man to pig again and could not tell which was which. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
published at di-ve.com on Friday 30 November 2012
Blog ta' Carmel Cacopardo 
I wsh to comment on the E.U. Commission Video entitled: ‘Jiddahhlu aktar nisa fil-Bords”.
It is OK if more women participate in Boards even at the highest level but only provided that the selection process is a fair one: ie women being appointed there ON THEIR OWN MERITS and not JUST BECAUSE THE E.U. COMMISSION INSISTS ON THAT HAPPENING! That would be a highly dubious and irresponsible thing to do.
I do not think it is right to ”reserve a set % of managerial posts to be filled exclusively by ladies”! Far from it.
The playing field has to be a fair and level one with no woman and no man receiving preferential treatment either way.
I do not think it is fair for women to receive preferential pushes – or to be refused managerial postings on sex grounds.
The E.U. Commission administrators apparently want to look ”modern” and ”women champions”! But they should not force enterprises to give either sex a hefty ‘push’ to achieve managerial and high level posts.
Joe,
What selection process are you speaking about?
What the Commission is speaking about is the Board of Directors not about managerial posts.
These Directors are appointed.
On this criterion alone there should be no difficulty in appointing both men and women. There are competent men and women suitable for practically all the posts. Both in the private sector as well as in the public sector.
It is necessary to reserve a % of posts for women as otherwise we will remain with 0%, the percentage currently reserved.
Perit, I tried to access the E.U.Commission video again but I don’t think it’s still there! By whom are Directors of enterprises appointed?
I find no difficulty if a company appoints both Males and Females but I still maintain that nobody should be appointed on Sex Merit. It is wrong if companies appoint Lady (or Male) Directors not on personal merit but simply on sexual grounds.
I do NOT believe it is right to reserve a % of Director posts exclusively for women – or for men.
The shareholders appoint the Board of Directors. As a result of prejudice the current practice is to exclude females. To rectify this it is necessary to reserve a % of seats in the Board of Directors in order to ensure that there is a position close to parity (gender balance).
Otherwise, unfortunately nothing will change.
Sorry, but I disagree with you on this one! Shareholders should be left free to decide matters for themselves! This is my last contribution on this issue….
That is the argument used by those who are in favour of discrimination.