In praise of limited government

In its editorial of January 28, analysing the political situation in nearby Italy, The Times warned that the latest political "crisis" there should serve us as an example of the "dire consequences due to the inherent instability of coalitions". Besides the ill-disguised attempt to scare voters into not voting for AD or AN, what consequences does the editor refer to exactly? Is it perhaps the consequence of having one of the highest Gross National Incomes per capita in the world? Or is it of having one of the world's best life expectancies and standards of living?

It can be convincingly argued that our Italian neighbours have it so good precisely because of the fact that they get less government and not more of it.

In a very well-argued letter to the editor, Oisin Jones-Dillon explains the case of Ireland. In it he attributes the role of coalitions to this country's radical transformation from a backwater economy to an international powerhouse. Perhaps, but the main reasons for this economic miracle were the deep economic reforms undertaken, not least the slashing of taxes and the curtailment of the role of the state.

Evidence from all over the world demonstrates that countries that enjoy limited government and low taxation are much better off than those which don't.

This is why, despite the worst efforts of a biased media, I shall be voting for Azzjoni Nazzjonali, which seems to be the only local political party to have grasped this simple state of fact.