1971, 1996, and here we go again
This is a guest post, written at my request by somebody who is heavily involved with the Nationalist Party, and who wishes to go by the name of Liberal Nationalist:-
The results of the European Parliament election have been good for the Nationalist Party. Surprised you’re reading this? I don’t blame you, you haven’t read that anywhere else. No matter from which angle it is looked at, the party cannot see this result as respectable or even as adequate given the circumstances.
Imagine a different scenario: Labour 51%, PN 43%, others 7%. That would have given the Nationalist Party three seats out of six and enough premises for the argument that it improved on its 2004 result. The party and the government would have carried on as usual. And that would have been the wrong road to take.
The real 55-40% that happened last Sunday, and the resulting apportionment of seats, even though born of a quirk, is a good result for the Nationalist Party if it brings on the fruitful soul-searching that should have taken place back in 2004 after EU membership.
The Nationalists have been the only party with clear goals for more than half a century. They do well when they know where they’re going and when they can rally around them diverse sectors that have differing interests.
When the Nationalists campaigned for Independence from Britain, for the opening up Maltese economics and politics in the 1980s and early 1990s, and more latterly, membership of the European Union, they did well. People with a general conservative attitude, the party’s natural base, liberals, who make up a good 10% of the electorate, and some socialists could live happily within the Nationalist Party as long as it looked forward, not sideways.
When the Nationalist Party does not have a clear goal, as it didn’t in the late 1960s or the mid-1990s (with the prospect of fast EU membership receding), the party drowns in the quagmire which is the real political ideology of a large chunk of the Maltese electorate, and on which Labour has built its prime political method: clientelism. When the Nationalist Party tries to beat Labour at Labour’s game of political patronage and clientelism, it inevitably loses.
What has been happening these last five years is similar, but not exactly, to what happened after Independence from Britain. Having achieved its main goal, the Nationalist Party wins the next general election with a reduced majority and becomes just an administration.
Then Labour enters the field with its envy-mongering methods targeted at the middle classes. It collects diverse people with ‘special interests’ and these people take Labour seriously.
In two-weights-and-two-measures Malta, Labour is always expected to use government machinery for the politics of patronage and is absolved of doing so. All this while Labour strengthens its base, a large chunk of which works for the state itself, and so is even more keen on patronage and on having Labour run the machinery of state. People in this position yearn for their politician-patrons to wield power after long years in opposition.
Add to this a ‘new’ leader who mesmerises the very same ‘liberal’ journalists who thought Sant was different in a good way, even though he was and still is rabidly anti-EU. They’re now spellbound by Joseph Muscat, even though he shamelessly rides the racist bandwagon and now wants to get closer to ‘uniformed’ Lowell voters. And there you have 1971 and 1996 written on the political wall.
But this can be averted. If the Nationalists learn the lessons of the past, then they still have a fighting chance of winning the next general election and consigning the shallowest Labour leader in Maltese political history to where he belongs.
Now the Nationalist Party needs to have a summer of rational ‘extraspection’, and not introspection. The party must be rational and look at the numbers. It must consider the policies that affect thousands. Paranoid big egos and emotional dogma should have no part in this exercise. The party needs to look beyond itself, at how the long-term attitudes – and not just short-term opinions – of Maltese voters are changing. It is the Nationalist Party that has changed Malta, and it needs to understand what these changes are, so as to stay ahead of them.
I am one of those very many liberals who have long felt that the Nationalist Party is the party of freedom and of opportunity. I hate the very thought of being governed by authoritarian-clientelist Labour. I want the PN to renew its ideas and freshen up the zest that made it such a force for good.
I have many suggestions as to what should be done, and if you feel the way I do, then please put forward your own ideas by commenting here.
92 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
And so say many of us. I didn’t write the post but I agree with every word.
my ideas – divorce, environment, gay right, animal rights, serious administrations
This might sound callous but when the dust settled after last weekend’s mayhem I feel glad that this happened now for the PN needed this wake up call. We are still in time to use our top-class brains to rally our forces and come up with the goods.
I agree with the writer of this piece: when the PN uses Labour’s tactics it loses its appeal with its voter-base. There is no place for another Labour…I was totally put off with some of the PN billboards that seemed to emulate Labour (the worst were the Skont iz-zokk il-fergha and the ‘mathematical’ equations or whatnot).
We know we can do much better and we CAN do it…but only if we still believe that we are not like anybody else.
If this “somebody” is “heavily involved” in the PN, as claimed, his job is not just to write here. He should stand up at the PN Kunsill Generali session, of which we have more than enough each year and say with full force what his “many suggestions” are, including presumably turning the PN into a “liberal” party.
In fact, incidentally, I gave a suggestion here. He might contribute to turn the PN Kunsill General sessions from a Kim-il-Sung type of continuous eulogy for the Beloved Gonzi into a real place of discussion and soul-searching.
Until now, the only suggestions I have heard on Radio 101 daily after 5.30pm have been those from irate Nationalists who, while berating the party (interchangeably, the government) for not taking care of “our people”, are demanding a government as blue as possible.
What I find strange is that there is a very tangible sense of panic in the PN ranks, even though the general elections are still so many many years away. In fact, I find the PN’s sense of loss much greater than the LP’s sense of victory.
Of course, as usual, luck favours the PN here. This was no mid-term election. This legislature had barely begun. The international economic scenario will probably start looking up just a few months before the next election. So, really, the LP is far, far away from any realistic chances of victory.
Yet the PN is worried, very worried. Interesting.
The internal wrangling of parties is only as interesting as its final bearing on government policy. Your contribution to debate here would be useful if, for once, you explained exactly what it is that the Labour Party plans to do on all – or at least, one – of the matters it considers critical.
I’m not talking about the sort of rash promises that Jason Micallef is prone to make, nor about xx point plans scribbled on the backs of envelopes, as favoured by Joseph Muscat. There’s too much bravura and swagger. How about some real substance instead?
Yes, the PN is worried, as are its supporters, like myself.
And so should you be.
Because at the end of the day we all realise (intelligent Labour supporters included, though they will obviously not admit it publicly) that the Labour party leadership and administration is mostly a collection of clowns incapable of running a chip shop let alone a country.
After 1987 I told myself I would wait 20 years to see if Labour had changed enough for me to be relatively at ease with the idea of a Labour government, if not vote for it, but 20 years have come and gone and I find very little has happened to bring about that frame of mind.
The sad fact is that however “arrogant” or “incompetent” the PN may be, they are the only viable government party this country has at the moment and the medium term.
So to get back to the topic and supply suggestions; as I see it there are two options.
One option is to try and putter along in government, scraping past by the skin of its teeth, until such time as Labour comes up with its first viable leadership since 1950, but the indications are not positive for either outcome.
The other option is to fast track all the reforms this country needs, (and which a Labour government will be incapable of bringing about) or at least those that economic wisdom would support, in the hope that when Labour is eventually returned to government, the country will have changed enough to limit the damage that can be done. And who knows, it might actually win some votes…….
A provocative exposition and one that is hard to refute. The PN must generate enthusiasm and rally people in quest of the 2015 challenging objective (ideally establishing closer milestones), an objective that like other PN visions will take everyone a step or more forward.
Excellent article indeed. Very positive and thoughtful. That is what I call liberal. Nationalists have achieved their goals when they put their forward-looking ideas and policies into action. It is only their public relations which work against them.
Well, my only suggestion is: put the right policies in place, think with a European mind and move forward. Yes, we need a divorce law. We need to think in a liberal European way; citizens need aspirations from politicians.
Gonzi and his team can work out policies profoundly, only if they think liberal. We maybe an island but we have to reach the highest possible level as other European citizens.
I agree 100% with the views of your Liberal Nationalist. My suggestion? A complete overhaul of the civil service and MEPA, making sure that proper customer service is implemented and that customers of the civil service are given due respect. At the moment most government entities treat their clients with indifference at best.
Actually I don’t think that this Liberal Nationalist has MEPA or the civil service in mind. His liberalism means a Zapaterisation of the Nationalists’ mind and soul. This will supposedly give a new vision to the Nationalist Party equal in grandeur and dignity to all those past issues (Independence, EU membership ecc) that has made the PN the great party that built modern Malta. Meanwhile the Maltese Nationalist Zapaterists will be having tea-parties with the old diehard religio et patria supporters that will REMAIN the great majority of PN supporters (as the author admits).
I’m not saying which side I’m backing. But I seriously do doubt this tactic. The reason is simple. When you become indistinguishable from your political opponents in their ideals (not just clientelism) then what on earth is the point of staying within the PN fold? Imitating your opponents will only make them look right. An example from nearby Italy will help. Romano Prodi’s Centro-Sinistra got ruined when it tried to accommodate the Radicali and the Verdi in its grand-coalition. It has been mauled at the polls and the political liberal left (Radicali and Verdi) disappeared from parliament along with the extreme Communists. Meanwhile Berlusconi by playing the saint has attracted the voters of the centre to the right creating an unbeatable bloc.
Too much generalisations in this not-so-thought-provoking article. Why complicate matters exploring grand theories to explain everything when a simple explanation would suffice?
In a parliamentary democracy the transfer of power is almost always healthy. The examples of the US & the UK will suffice. In my opinion you omitted completely the two main factors explaining this relatively “abnormal” long spell of Nationalists’ tenure of power:
1. the Alfred Sant interregnum of 22 months which many consider now to be a blessing in disguise;
2. Labour’s “misfortune” of being led by hapless leaders; one term of office of Joseph Muscat would reveal how dumb he is just as those two years of Sant, though of course this is a very hefty price to pay.
The PM should surround himself with a panel of top-notch, down-to-earth advisors – people such as Georg Sapiano, Andrew Borg Cardona, Daphne Caruana Galizia, Michael Falzon.
Hear! Hear!
I don’t think you know Georg and ABC, that’s why you think they are down-to-earth.
“I hate the very thought of being governed by authoritarian-clientelist Labour”.
Very true. May I use as an example a comment on Xarabank’s vox-pop. I wish I was the journalist asking the questions as I would have liked to shove the microphone down the throat of one particular gentleman. Of course he voted Labour “u bil-qalb”. Maybe the Nationalists weren’t able to accommodate his latest wish.
I get really angry at those Nationalists who keep on harping about ‘listening to the people’. That phrase doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. For many, it only means one thing – holding the party hostage just because they vote for it. There are people who repeatedly ask favours of politicians and even if they get all they ask for except for some one impossible favour, they turn their back on you.
These are versions of Michael Grech – to each his own social status and different needs. But the underlying mentality is the same. And yes, Labour is playing hard to ride on their greed and everalating cries for favours. Progressive movement indeed.
I agree wholeheartedly with the above views. Government needs to be more forceful particularly on discipline everywhere It has to ensure that government employees are there to work and should no longer be allowed to call in at the office half an hour or more late on a daily basis.
If there are problems with government bodies due to over staffing these should be dealt with immediately. I am not saying that government should make redundant such workers but they should be deployed to say local councils, etc. If certain corporations are making losses, again due to over staffing, the staff themselves should be made aware that they are being kept on whatever the company situation, and they should be grateful that the some of the taxpayer’s money is being levelled at keeping them at their place of work.
This applies also to Air Malta, which, despite the heavy losses still hangs on to its current workforce – and are the employees grateful? No sir, they just keep on asking for more and more whilst fully aware of the financial situation of the company. Government on its part should also make the situation clear with regards to these corporations and their problems should be explained to the taxpayer who, after all, is forking out the extra cash.
My suggestion is that government should move ahead with its plans at a very fast-track before any more problems crop up. No doubt it will have to go it alone because it is useless hoping that the Opposition or the like will help in any way. Now is the time to act and act fast in revamping the public service, corporations, and yes, why not, the whole police force. We have to wake up to our responsibilities and work hard and if there is real goodwill for Malta to move ahead, we should all do our best even if it means making sacrifices to achieve this end.
Again, I say government has to show that it means business even if it has to change ministers, parliamentary secretaries who do not deliver, etc. Difficult, I know but with some courage it has to be done and I am sure that the public in general will ultimately appreciate its efforts.
Ethel, darling do not open your mouth unless you know what you are saying especially regarding Air Malta and its employees.. Grateful??? Air Malta and its many group heads should be grateful and not the employees at this stage in time. Shut your face you arrogant woman!!!!
Are you perhaps thinking of James Piscopo, the man who took leave of absence for the noble purpose of assisting a former political leader and who then failed to keep his end of the bargain when he morphed in the party’s CEO?
Malta has not changed as much as we’d like to think. I watched Xarabank on Friday and was dismayed by the responses of the public: “Ħeqq, il-kontijiet, hux?”, “Il-partit tiegħi il-but”, “Għax m’aħniex stmati”, “Mhux ix-xogħol, hux?”, “Eqq! Id-dawl u l-ilma”, “ Biex terġa l-kaċċa”, “Uuu, għax ma jinteressawnix” (Apologies to non-English speakers but these gems can best be expressed in the vernacular).
What struck me was not the prevalent Labour sentiment but the fact that almost none of those interviewed could string a few words together to make up a proper sentence. I realise that the responses had been edited tightly but, even so, it was evident that most had only mumbled a disjointed phrase or parroted a political buzzword.
I am mentioning this because it is probably the biggest challenge facing the PN today: creating the right social environment to allow these people to mature. I can find no way to express this without sounding patronising or worse but I do believe it is the real progress which our country needs.
People talk in the same way that they think and someone who is severely inarticulate has problems with coherent thought. This category is the feeding trough of the PL and the problem is compounded by the fact that such people have been misled into thinking that they are displaying great wisdom and intelligence. They would react vehemently to any hint that they actually have the thinking skills of a ten-year old.
Antoine: the 10-year-olds I know have better thinking skills and are more articulate. Come to think of it, I could say the same even of those under-10s I know.
The problem lies at the root of our entire educational system. We are not thought to think, but to memorize and regurgitate. People do not think for themselves, but watch their party’s TV station and don’t make an effort to think for themselves.
Personally, I loathe party TV stations, and party newspapers.
I do agree very much with the above. To it I would add the inclusion of the grass roots, the ones that do remember the MLP in power and its way of governing the country.
From now on, the party in government has to consider every action it takes in regards to whom it is going to hit. Another thing to take into consideration is whether the public sector is working in the interests of the government or the opposition. I think the opposition is well grounded within the public sector and has all the means of halting progress in small things which affect a large number of people.
Let’s think positively to secure a better future for our country.
Lil dan is-sinjur ‘Liberali’ misterjuz: mur fittex fid-dizzjunarju l-kelma liberali ghax lanqas ghandek idea xi tfisser. Kulma turi fl-artiklu hu li int mandarin Nazzjonalist akkanit u bhal xi Nazzjonalisti ohra li pappewha sew f’dawn is-snin (izda mhux bhal eluf ta’ hutna Nazzjonalisti li fis-6 ta’ Gunju ghazlu PL) tinkedd tara leader zaghzugh ta’ hila jiehu t-tmun tal-PL u jgib kunsens popolari ta’ 55%, u hsiebek biss biex jikteb kliem dispregjattiv u libelluz fuqu.
Kif qatt GonziPN jista’ johrog mill-gandott li dahal fih jekk xi hadd ‘Liberali’ bhalek tidher konvint li l-PN huwa xi ‘partit naturali’ tal-poter f’dal-pajjiz. F’liema pajjiz qed tghix meta titkellem dwar il-PL bhala ‘authoritarian-clientelist’. Spjegali sur Liberali kif partit li ilu mill-1998 fl-oppozizzjoni qatt tista’ ssejjahlu ‘authoritarian-clientelist’. Ghal li jista’ jkun ma haristux fil-mera hux?
Leader zaghzugh ta’ hila? Purcinell bhat-tlieta ta’ qablu!
Abel forsi tista tilluminana u tghidilna int xi tfisser liberali, u kif qieghed fiz-zifna tghidilna ukoll xi tfisser tkun progressiv….tinkwetax nihem illi ma tistax tasal ghar risposta jekk ma stajtx tifhem kif tista tkun “authoritarian-clientalist” mill oppozizjoni.
I cannot understand how one can call himself/herself liberal and be an heavily involved with a party which calls itself Christian Democrat.
To date the Nationalist party in government has refused to even discuss the issue of divorce or promote proper sex education in state schools for fear of irritating the church. This is the party who has the very liberal Tonio Borg as its deputy leader.
You might argue that the PL won’t be any better, which might be the case but to call oneself liberal and be ‘heavily involved’ with probably the most socially conservative political party in the western world simply does not make sense.
Wasn’t it Tonio Borg who very recently said that the PN is NOT a Liberal party? How about trying to convince him first?
In Malta one can find countless imbeciles and simpletons, eliminate these people and Malta will improve.
“I hate the very thought of being governed by authoritarian-clientelist Labour.”
What many want is an authoritarian-clientelist PN instead.
Isn’t that what ‘nazzjonalist mugugh’ really means? Isn’t it just a euphemism for someone being p*ssed off at not getting what s/he “deserves” not as citizens, employees, business people, etc. but as ‘nazzjonalisti’?
If these people speak with their vote, they think through their nether regions.
I don’t believe that any realistic Maltese liberal expects or hopes that the PN will ever become a fully-fledged liberal party both due to its conservative heirtage but also on electoral considerations. However stories like the following are a big turn-off to any Maltese liberal beacause they take it too far:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/07/09/t1.html
I find this article – and some of the comments – highly amusing. And also encouraging, because it shows that the PN has not even realised what its problems are, let alone how to put them right.
They still seem to be fixated that the PN are the “good guys” par excellence (as opposed to that bad, nasty LP), and all it needs to do is to explain itself a little better to that ignorant electorate out there.
Get wise, guys.
I especially liked the crack about “authoritarian-clientelist Labour.” It must be the mother of all ironies (to coin a phrase) for someone described as being “heavily involved with the Nationalist Party” which has Austin Gatt as one of its most prominent ministers to call another party “authoritarian”!
As for clientelism…. God almighty, don’t they know that the lifeblood of PN administrations is, and has always been, clienetlism? Have they ever taken a look at the people appointed to committees? Commissions? Chairmanships? Government contracts? They will find, I assure them, an unbroken expanse of blue – and never mind ability, qualification, experience or fitness for the posts. The same goes for the higher echelons of the civil service.
Please, please, keep thinking along those lines.
“The real 55-40% that happened last Sunday, and the resulting apportionment of seats, even though born of a quirk, is a good result for the Nationalist Party” …………………………. IF …………………………..” it brings on the fruitful soul-searching that should have taken place back in 2004 after EU membership.”
A very crucial IF. I might sound pessimistic, but that can only happen in opposition.
This reminds me of the blog of John McCain’s daughter Meghan who is campaigning for a more liberal Republican party. Over here she explains why being against gay marriage goes against Republican beliefs:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-13/a-gayer-gop/
What an excellent article to which you provided a link, Charlie. When I was reading the opinion piece above I remembered that the first law the Nationalist Party in government passed just after being elected in 1987 was precisely to make the European Convention on Human Rights part of the laws of Malta.
That was a deliberate move to start off that government on a liberal agenda. That Convention is very clear on rights, and judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights have been very much in favour of full rights for gay people.
“fruitful soul-searching” is something that’s said after every defeat and never really happens.
You cannot sell yourselves as wish-granting genies just before the election and then disappear from sight for five years. If you’re going to play the ‘favuri’ game you’re up against some pretty tough competition. When people feel that they can be heard more or can actually get more from an MP in opposition than from a minister (as is the case in my district) it means that something’s really wrong somewhere.
@ Antoine Vella “almost none of those interviewed could string a few words together” – if you believe that 55% of voters are illiterate yahoos then the message many people wanted to get across wasn’t loud enough and four years down the line there’ll be a bigger problem to deal with.
[Daphne – I agree with you here. The illiterate yahoos always vote Labour. For the purposes of campaigning, you just have to ring-fence them and count them out. That’s Labour’s core vote and nothing will persuade it otherwise.]
Good article. Here are some comments:
“The Nationalists have been the only party with clear goals for more than half a century.” To be fair to Dom Mintoff, he did have his goals of turning Malta into a republic and to close down the military base. With these objectives achieved he stepped down and whatever KMB and Sant came up with next was hazy at best.
“I am one of those very many liberals who have long felt that the Nationalist Party is the party of freedom and of opportunity. I hate the very thought of being governed by authoritarian-clientelist Labour.” Absolutely. Those of us who lived during the “dark times” appreciate this. However, it will be difficult for the PN to portray a future PL government led by Joseph Muscat as “authoritarian-clientelist” (unless the PL comes up with some weird policies in its electoral manifesto).
It’s like the MLP in government trying to gain/retain votes by reminding us of the PN in the 1930s or the “dnub il-mejjet” in the 60s, especially after Fenech Adami became leader. The PN may target people from the past who hold important posts in the current PL administration but I don’t think it will gain much voter sympathy doing so.
The situation today is different from the past when there was a clear-cut choice in terms of freedom and opportunity (and where personally I would have crawled on my hands and knees to get to the polling station and cast my vote). People then just lumped their grievances and voted PN because there was too much to lose. It does sound stupid hearing someone say that he or she will not vote PN because of a parking ticket (and there are many other similar scenarios) but they don’t see the PL as the “monster” of the past and crossing the line is less difficult.
The PN needs to take a look at things that affect people’s day-to-day lives; cost of living being an obvious example. Why the hard headiness regarding the divorce issue? When will the people at the top realize that it’s not a question of being pro- or anti- Catholic? The biggest threat to marriage in Malta is not the introduction of divorce but the likelihood that more and more people will just begin living together and starting a family without bothering to get married.
Another thing is Net TV. What is the role of Net TV? What is it achieving? Who watches Net TV anyway? The appointment of George Abela as president was a mature political move on the part of Gonzi but it was not properly “marketed”; if anything it was badly handled within the PN itself. What the PN needs is a top-notch PR person. They don’t come cheap. But they are people who can deliver a sharp message in 60 seconds, handle the media and, importantly, anticipate trouble instead of trying to react when the damage has been done. It’s like starting a chess game with the white pieces.
With no significant policy issues (other than possibly divorce), more voters – the ones likely to make the difference – will find it irrelevant whether the party is called Partit Laburista or Partit Nazzjonalista. What they want to see is an efficient administration led by an honest and capable leader; an administration that delivers its promises and ensures that taxes collected from people are properly spent.
“To be fair to Dom Mintoff, he did have his goals of turning Malta into a republic and to close down the military base.”
Yeah right. He just wanted more rent and asked for too much. Thats the reason we became a republic and the British LEFT. Don’t kid yourself. Quite the opposite of a clear goal, I would say.
Mintoff did have a clear goal. He wanted to dominate everything and everyone. That’s still his goal, only now it’s not working out quite the way he wants.
People keep mixing up these two separate issues. Malta becoming a republic has nothing to do with the closing down of the military base. In fact we said goodbye to the Queen (a constitutional issue) five years before her forces left. ” the reason we became a republic ” has nothing to do with rent money.
Self delusion, Mike C. The British (and NATO) left when we had extracted enough out of them to turn Malta’s economy from one based on defence spending to one based on industry and tourism. And they paid for it, thanks to Mintoff.
@john and John II
The self delusion/confusion is all yours. The dates of historic facts cannot be disputed – they can be glossed over or conveniently ignored, but to suggest I am deluded is a little ambitious in the light of the facts.
The negotiations for more money started practically as soon as Mintoff came to power in 1971 (he had no idea how to continue building the economy except by begging) and by June 1972 he had expelled the governor general as part of his “negotiating” tactics. The duration of the lease and closure of the base was ‘negotiated’ and concluded during that period, and Mintoff’s sudden, previously undeclared desire to make us a republic came as a face saving measure after this was concluded.
As to the conversion of Malta’s economy, you’re right there, he converted it from a growing post-independence economy planned to be based on 5 star tourism, services and future European Union membership into an economy based on cheap mass market tourism, cheap exploited labour (with a passive GWU) in an almost pariah state with no friends except other pariah states and Italy, whose only interest was to avoid a mess (or a Libyan base) on its doorstep.
If he had any sense he’d have pursued the goal of EU membership, possibly got in before the UK and THEN they’d have paid. Although in actual fact they still do. For as long as the UK remains a net contributor to the EU coffers and we remain net recipients, they’re paying.
Notwithstanding what the MLP’s 4th purcinell-in-a-row’s claims about our status are, of course.
We need alternative governments and the PL is badly needed. The economic situation looks bleak (I don’t blame the government for the international crises but I do think that the government could have done much more during these difficult times had the public purse been managed properly during the golden years). The PN can regroup if it spends some time in opposition under a new leader and if it brings forward some new faces. I would consider a PN government if somebody like Dr Simon Busuttil takes central stage.
Enlighten me! On what basis is the “PL badly needed”…maybe because it has better policies (in that case spell one out), maybe because it is still largely plagued with people from the 80’s administration, maybe because it is has a new leader whose political career eclipsed before it dawned. An alternative government is always needed – the problem is whether one exists and frankly I see nothing of the sort. Change for change’s sake is consonant with fashion not country governance.
Any country needs alternative governments even if it means choosing between the lesser of two evils. The PL under Joseph Muscat had proposed solutions to the energy crisis, immigration problem, tourism and social policy. He is carrying out reforms in his party, obviously not all reforms can be carried through in one year. Whatever the case the PN is loosing steam and its policies are not popular apart from the fact that the difficult decisions taken have not resulted in a better lifestyle. The economy shrunk, liquidation contracted and jobs were not created. Looking back to the 1980s does not aid the PN’s today. People have voted on that issue for too long.
Stefan
As for alternative governments I agree and that is exactly what is happening. A weak government is the reflection of a weak opposition.
What solutions are you talking about…seriously you seem smart enough to realise that what has been proposed by the PL is absolutely nonsensical, non-costed, politically dangerous and many times a regurgitation of policies already in place. Following Bondi plus of last Monday…can’t you see that the PL hasn’t an iota of a policy and more dangerously no common platform. Can’t you see for example the huge perils of veto use?
Policies are not meant to be popular and this is the danger presented by Joe Muscat who is riding the emotional curve in search of an informed following which he failed to achieve when he was unable to deliver the earthquake he promised. Can’t you understand that appointing a CEO because he could not (not because he tried) get rid of Jason Micallef and a large related element in the party, says books about his leadership abilities. He is all after votes…nothing else. With the resources PL has that is easy even for a two year old.
The last claim about a shrinking economy is, I am sorry to say, you most myopic claim. Do you know what is going on globally? Can’t you understand that our economy is totally dependent on the performance of the global economy. What can be done is mostly being done. My work allows me to follow what is happening elsewhere and believe me we are doing particularly well. Just a simple example – Car manufacturers all over the world are going bankrupt…Ford, Chrysler, Opel. Who do you think companies like Method or Trelleborg sell to? and if they cannot sell to these companies what do you expect them to do?
So whilst the need to have the possibility of an alternative government is always important, an alternative should mean a better alternative not one on par or worst…and the PL is wasting its time winning interim elections rather than becoming a real alternative….the bad news for PL is that it is already late in really embarking on the task and more seriously it is already planning its undoing. What is needed is not talk on a movement for change but a direction for that movement, which so far is non-existent.
I have opted to reply on two counts, namely: the economy and why participation in politics may be a negative experience if not translated into opportunities at large.
The economy
Malta, like any other country in the developed world is facing difficult times. For the first time, the NSO has published statistics that the economy contracted by a few percentage points. A recession is called if the economy prologs along this path for the next two quarters. The possibilities of repetitive negative GDP indicators are plausible because of the international economic crises but Malta could have done much more if in the past, government finances were used in a more efficient manner. For the past 20 years, even when the economy was booming by 5 to 7%, we as a society failed to generate a surplus. During economic slowdown the government uses fiscal policy to inject resources into the economy. Government spending at this time is essential but little can it do given that the deficit is not allowed to grow further nor do we have the flexibility to reduce taxes. As a result private business will take the largest hit and with it the real jobs in the economy.
Participation on its own will lead us nowhere!
The above letter to the editor is about an inclusive political party that can bring about the necessary change for the well being of all citizens. We do agree that traditional limited participation is any longer possible in today’s world. This is the age of advanced communication, of increased individual confidence, of dissent, alienation and confrontation. Institutions are under attack and the demand for change is irresistible. People want more say and they must be heard. When they are not heard, they circumvent the traditional vehicles or cause them to crumble. Simply encouraging participation is irresponsible and unwise. The party should imbue in all citizens the spirit of participation and most important of all, create the necessary tools so that participation will become real, relevant and the basis of social change.
In the last 20 or so years Malta had to create from scratch the infrastructure of a modern nation. Could it have been done better – certainly there is always room for improvement. If I had to identify one point the socialist government of the 70’s and 80’s can never be pardoned is there lack of foresight and resistance to technology (which was motivated by rotten idealism). I would love to see an economic model of what Malta’s economy would look like if we had captured the rising curve of technology at its onset. Unfortunately we had and are still catching up.
Change has always been in demand, and if there is one party in Malta that has grasped this necessity it is unmistakeably the PN. So far, and it is already late in the day, the PL has failed to convince about its credentials for change. Change isn’t about saying you are a progressive movement but about putting challenges forward to people and rallying the majority behind. The PL is all bent about saying what the people want to here. A telling quote reflecting this was yesterday let loose by James Piscopo. In one of the weakest analysis of the MEP elections results published yesterday on The Sunday Times, he stated that the PL fielded candidates that appealed to the large part of the population. That must have been the most politically dangerous claim I have heard for some time.
Daphne nixtieq iggib din il-“post” ghax sincerament ma niflahx naqra iktar tidwir tal-fatti u tghawwig tal-verita u partiggjanizmu sfrenat.
Ha naghmilha cara: jien Laburist moderat hafna tant li mhux l-ewwel darba li nargumenta ma Laburisti akkaniti meta nitkellem fuq il-politika. Fl-istess hin niddejjaq hafna wkoll meta Nazzjonalisti jkunu estremisti u jghidu illi jekk jitla il-“Labour” Malta tkun disastru. Li tghidu li tippreferu il-politika tal-PN ma jimpurtax imma li tibqghu tghidu illi il-“Labour” kollox hazin jaghmel u ghamel mhux ghax niehu ghalija, ghamlu li tridu jiena il-partit mhux hajti u ma niddependix minnu biex nghix.
Imma nahseb illi tkunu qeghdin taghmlu hazin lil pajjiz ghaliex ma tistax titlaq mill-punt illi l-avversarji tieghek jaghmlu kollox hazin u tippretendi li meta jkun hemm gvern tal-PN anki dawk li ma jivvutawlux jkunu lesti li jikkoperaw ghal-gid tal-pajjiz.
Irrid nghid xi haga ohra, meta kien hemm l-“issue” ta’ l-EU, li kieku ma kienux hafna Laburisti moderati u ohrajn (floaters) kieku il-passaport ta’ l-EU li tant huwa ghal qalb hafna li jemmnu fl-EU ma kienx jirnexxilkhom takkwistawh.
[Daphne – Naqbel hafna mieghek hawnhekk, u fil-fatt hekk hu il-kaz.]
Rigward il-“Labour” illum il-gurnata ghalkemm ghad baqa hafna x’jinbidel u nittama li fl-elezzjoni li gejja jressqu hafna proposti tajbin halli fl-ahhar jkollna ghazla tajba bejn il-PN u il-PL. Jekk tridu tkunu oggettivi, kien hemm bidla kemm fil-ligwagg, mentalita u attitudini tal-“Labour”.
Possibli inthom tridu li jibqa fil-gvern il-PN ghal dejjem? Jiena nixtieq hafna li jkun bidla fil-gvern biex jidhlu ideat godda, u jkun progress fuq affarijiet li waqghu lura taht dan il-gvern, imma qatt u qatt ma rrid illi il-“Labour” jibqa fil-gvern ghal dejjem jew ghal xi 50 sena shah.
Ma nafx jista jkun nitkellem hekk ghax jien nahdem mal-privat u dak li ghandu dejjem hadtu bis-sahha tieghi u ta’ l-ebda partit…..jew jista jkun jien wiehed mil-ftit moderati li hawn f’Malta….imma inkredibbli kemm ghad hawn kemm Laburisti u Nazzjonalisti partiggjani horox….li jaraw jew kollox tajjeb jew kollox hazin….sincerament veru tal-biki.
Nisperaw li tifhmu il-punt tieghi u bl-ebda mod ma rrid nghajjar u ninki lil xi hadd, kuntent li il-“Labour” rebhu dawn l-elezzjonijiet pero inkun hafna iktar kuntent meta nara lil PN u hafna min-nies tieghu jkunu iktar moderati u minflok jippruvaw jirbhu lil Labour billi jpenguh qisu dimonju u kollox hazin ….imma bl-ideat u proposti jew kontra proposti konkreti u possittivi ghaliex il-poplu kollu jmur il-quddiem.
Nifhem li partitarju jkun jixiteq jara il- partit tieghu fil-gvern, imma it-twetiq tax-xewqa ghanda tigi l-ewwel manifestata fil-partiti tal-individwu billi issir hidma biex dak il partit jitnadaf. Ghaddew il- fuq min ghoxrin sena u il-partit tieghek ghadu imnigges b’nies illi irrnexilhom jaghmlu dak li hadd fid-dinja ma kien kapaci jghamel – jqassam atomu. Kellkom okkazzjoni kbira sena ilu izda ghaziltu mod iehor.
Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea for the PN to remember the lyrics of the song with which they won the referendum
Maghqudin mhux ghall-partit
ilkoll id f’id
Sadly these last months PN does not seem to have been living up to its slogan of FLIMKIEN KOLLOX POSSIBBLI. The subject of this FLIMKIEN…
Illum xejn m’hu xejn. Jekk trid turi li int imxaqleb m’hemmx minn xiex tisthi saret kwazi moda. Jekk trid tpoggi, allura b’daqshekk? Jekk int ingarzat u abbandunajt ‘il-mara u t-tfal , b’daqshekk mhux xorta ghaddej?
Dawn l-affarijiet kienu tabu xi hmistax ‘il-sena ilu. Issa jmiss il-politici: dejjaqni wiccek avolja qdejtni allura nibdlek biex nipprova xi haga gdida. Din se tkun il-mentalita li l-partiti se jkollom jiggieldu mil-lum ‘il-quddiem. L-opinjoni publika se tkun iktar tbati bil-burdati li jinqalbu malajr.
La dak li jkun lest li jaqlibha ‘l-mara u jabbanduna t-tfal se jiddardar jibdel kandidat jew partit?
This is one of those pieces that mistakes means for ends. Consider policies? Paranoid egos? Emotional dogma? Well, which?
Se nirrispondi bil-Malti peress li s-Sur Jake kiteb bil-Malti. L-ewwel nett niehu gost li jkun hawn posts bhal tieghek ghax forsi wiehed ikun jista jiddiskuti bil-kalma u b’rispett reciproku. Jien ghandi xi hbieb laburisti u ma xi uhud tista tirraguna u ma ohrajn tinduna li ghalihom dak li sehh fi zmien mintoff sa l-1987 ma kien xejn hazin anzi “mintoff ghamel hafna gid ghal Malta” jghidulek. Issa jekk int moderat ma tistax ma tirrikonoxxix li sa l-1987 il-partit laburista fil-gvern kien gab lil dan il-pajjiz gharkubtejh u konna (ghalmenu ahna n-nazzjonalisti) imwerwrin il-hin kollu. Mela biex il-labour jibda jikseb xi kredibbilita irid l-ewwel nett jibda billi jirrikonoxxi l-izbalji gravi tal-passat u jghid car li dawk kienu affarijiet hziena li qatt mhuma se jergghu isiru taht gvern laburista. Issa tghidlix li jien qed nghix fil-passat… Wara li jsir dan l-ezercizzju hemm bzonn li l-elementi li huma marbuta ma dawk iz-zmienijiet jigu kompletament imwarrbin mill-partit almenu mit-tmexxija. Minn hemm nistghu nitkellmu…
Issa kulhadd jaqbel li mhux tajjeb li jkollok gvern ta’ l-istess partit ghal legislatura wara l-ohra imma importanti tara x’inhi l-alternattiva. Jekk biex inbiddel se ntella lil xi hadd li flok imexxina l’quddiem jiehodna lura mela grazzi hafna imma nippreferi ma nbiddilx.
Issa bir-rispett kollu l-partit laburista x’qed joffrilna bhala prim ministru alternattiv? Possibbli li int lest tafda pajjizna f’idejn persuna li m’ghandu l-ebda esperjenza fi tmexxija ta’ gvern? Jien hdimt ghal tmien snin f’ministeru u meta nhares lura ninduna kemm hu importanti li wiehed ikun jaf is-sistemi tal-gvern biex jahdem maghha u li jekk ma tafx kif jahdem il-gvern ma ssibx kaptu. Jekk tindunaw meta jibda xi ministru gdid jibda b’hafna energija u idejat u f’daqqa wahda jisparixxi. Dak ghax jigi mghelub mill-burokrazija u l-kumplikazzjonijiet tac-civil. Issa immaginaw prim ministru li qatt ma kellu esperjenza ta’ tmexxija ta’ kumpanija, jew almenu kunsill lokali, jew ministeru jew almenu xi haga! Jien jiddispjacini imma jien ma nafdax pajjizi f’persuna bla esperjenza.
Issa ta’ l-ahhar. Din li npingu lill-labour ta kollox hazin mhux tort taghna imma tort tal-labour ghax kull meta pajjizna kien f’salib it-toroq u kellu decizjoni quddiemu, l-partit laburista kien dejjem ghazel it-triq il-hazina. fl-ghazliet importanti dejjem oppona biex jopponi u qatt ma qal iva din tajba ghal malta mela jien naqbel. ez l-EWRO. Biex il-labour ikun jista jkun alternattiva serja, irid ikun aktar responsabbli u fejn hemm bzonn jappoggja lill-gvern u mhux jipprova jiskurja politikament ghax umbghad x’se jaghmel meta jkun fil-Gvern? Ikollu jaghmel bhal ma ghamel sant fuq il-VAT per ezempju.
Jekk int Laburist moderat zgur li tinduna d-differenza kbira li hemm bejn iz-zewg partiti u r-records taghhom fil-Gvern, zgur li tinduna d-differenza bejn l-progress li sar taht in-nazzjonalisti u dak li sehh taht il-laburisti, zgur li taf li filwat li taht in-nazzjonalisti tgerger taht il-laburisti tinfixel u tithawwad. Biex tkun laburist jew nazzjonalist li veru tissejjah moderat trid l-iswed tghidlu iswed u l-abjad tghidlu abjad.
Jalla tkompli tikkontribwixxi fuq dan is-sit ghax tajjeb ikun hawn diskussjoni miftuha.
Claude fost l-ikbar zbalji li qed twettqu il-PN hemm din tal-passat li onestament dejjqet lin-nies. Hafna nies iddejqu jisimaw x’gara fl-80s u taht Mintoff…wisq aktar meta nisimghu li il-pajjiz kien gharkubbtejh u donnu ma kontx tista timxi fit-triq.Fil-verita jintnesa x’gara f’dan il-perjodu ghax hemm min jaqbillu li nsemmaw biss il-hazin u l-ikrah.Jekk naqilaw il-passat kullhadd jaf x’gara fis 60s bhal ma qalet Maria Camilleri fuq Xarabank.
Bla ma nidhol hafna fuq zmien Mintoff….il-gid li holoq Mintoff jintnesa.Ksibna l-helsien avolja din illum saret donna xi haga awtomatika u mhux li hadem u stinka ghalija persuna li ried jara pajjizna hieles.Ta l-inqas il-kaxxa kienet mimlija mhux bhal llum imhassra bid-dejn…imma ma jimpurtax hux issa jhallsu uliedna.Biex inkunu moderati Claude bhal ma qal Jake l-ewwel irridu naccettaw li PL ghandu proposti u vizjoni ghal futur u ghal problemi li qed jaffaccja il-pajjiz ghax jekk ha nghajjru lil JM qabel dan jitlaq jimxi allura ha nibqaw lura.
Hawn Malta ghandna tendenza li jekk laburist estrem…allura PN qatt m’ghamel xejn sew li mhux il-kaz.Minn naha l-ohra Nazzjonalisti estremi ghalijom il-PL qatt ma nbidel,ghadu vjolenti u ma jitghallimx…u jaghmel il-hsara lil pajjiz.Li mhux il-kaz l-anqas.
Albert, jien wiehed min dawk li ma jafx x’gara fis-sittinijiet hlief li akkwistajna l-indipendenza u dan zgur mhux grazzi ghal mintoff. Dwar l-istinkar ta’ mintoff ghall-helsien nahseb li it-tluq ta’ l-inglizi kien process naturali li beda bl-indipendenza u mhux xi bravura ta’ mintoff. Dwar il-kaxxa ta’ Malta ghidli fliema Malta trid tghix jekk hux il-Malta taht mintoff u Karmenu bil-kaxxa mimlija u problemi kullumkien jew inkella f’Malta ta’ dawn l-ahhar 20 sena bil-progress f’kull qasam – id-deficit mhux problema sakemm ikun sostenibbli.
Issa biex inkunu posittivi ejja nghidu li Joseph Muscat se jibda pagna gdida. Issa ibda tini xi ftit minn dawn il “proposti u vizjoni” ghall-futur, halli nibdew niddiskutuhom. Ghidli x’inhuma per ezempju il-proposti tal-Labour dwar il-kontijiet tad-dawl u l-ilma li tant ikkritka dan l-ahhar u sahansitra tella l-billbords dwarhom. ghax facli tikkritika imma irid ikollok soluzzjoni, proposti u vizjoni kif ghedt tajjeb int. Illum fit-times il-mexxej tal-PL qal li ma jikkommettix ruhu qabel ma jkollu l-kwistjoni f’idejh – tajjeb mela l-ewwel irridu intellawh prim ministru biex jghidila kif se jaghmel – u jekk ma joghogobniex umbghad?
Correct me if I’m wrong but Liberal Nationalism is an ideology which:
>embraces a liberal, centre right approach to the economy,
>supports economic globalization,
>is cautious on the welfare system,
>is socially liberal on issues such as divorce, same-sex marriages, secularism etc.,
>is tough on illegal immigration but encourages immigration through a selective process,
>still to some extent commits itself to tradition and the established religion,
>and encourages multiculturalism.
Is it?
I have no problem with this. In fact most people my age think this way. It would be the next logical step for the Nationalist Party although it would be one of the last European right-wing parties to do so and if it doesn’t, I’m afraid it would suffer heavy losses in the future. To be fair the PN have already moved towards liberalism by, for example, supporting EU membership.
But, I may have a slight problem with encouraging multiculturalism. I mean, I have no problem with a multi-ethnic society but I have a slight problem with a multi-belief society which includes a large chunk of Muslim people. I’m sorry to say but these people seem to put religion as a first priority, I don’t! and I have a problem with this. If we encourage Muslim immigration we would end up facing the same problems that Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Britain are facing now.
Grazzi Jake tal-kummenti tieghek. Fl-ahhar xi hadd li jipprova jispjega li n-Nazzjonalisti m’ghandhomx dritt divin li jmexxu u l-Laburisti m’humiex il-babaw li jipprovaw ipingu. In-Nazzjonalisti fl-ahhar qed jindunaw li ma tistax tkun kollox ghal kulhadd. L-ewwel weghdu hafna affarijiet u issa ma jistghux jaqdu lil kulhadd u l-bicca l-kbira tal-poplu qed juri d-dizapprovazzjoni tieghu bil-vot ta’ l-ahhar elezzjoni. Hemm bzonn ta’ bidla iva, ghax hemm minn rabba gheruq fondi u jahseb li hadd ma jista’ ghalih. Il-pajjiz veru ghandu bzonn ideat differenti. Id-demokrazija hemm bzonn li kull tant zmien tiggedded. Min ma jiggeddietx jitqadded…hekk kienu jghidu x-xjuh taghna u nahseb kellhom ragun kbir. Jekk jitla l-PL fl-elezzjoni li jmiss ma jfissirx li ser ikun hawn dizastri, kif dejjem jipprova jbezza’ l-PN. U issa xbajna nisimghu li l-Laburisti huma kollha njoranti, illitterati, ma jahsbux ecc ecc. Din, iva,hi arroganza kbira ta’ nies li hasbu li hadd ma jista’ ghalihom ghax ilhom hafna fil-poter. Il-bidla fl-ahhar tasal!
“Hemm bzonn ta’ bidla iva” – true but I change into something cleaner or newer – basically better – what assurances do we have that the PL is better?
“Il-pajjiz veru ghandu bzonn ideat differenti”. True, but can you list these ideas? Today on the TOM Joseph Muscat has stated that he cannot promise to put the electricity bills down until he has full knowledge of the situation – so why did he give that impression? What are his ideas on industry, tourism, transport, immigration? I would like to know.
“Id-demokrazija hemm bzonn li kull tant zmien tiggedded. Min ma jiggeddietx jitqadded” – True but you have to have an viable alternative and not just “an alternative” – because in this case we might as well choose Norman Lowell.
” Jekk jitla l-PL fl-elezzjoni li jmiss ma jfissirx li ser ikun hawn dizastri” – Unfortunately history and even recent history has shown otherwise – and up to now, one year after being elected, I still have to seen viable, alternative ideas.
“U issa xbajna nisimghu li l-Laburisti huma kollha njoranti, illitterati, ma jahsbux ecc ecc” Xbajna? What are you proposing – a Gulag for those enlightened Nationalists? Unfortunately I believe that most of those that call themselves floaters or non-voters, are also amongst the ignorant just because they are so not on principles and the good of the country, but only the good of their pockets.
M’hemm l-ebda dritt divin li partit jiggverna.Il-poplu ghandu vot u bih dejjem tkellem.Jekk il-PL jahdem kif qed jaghmel bhalissa b’dedikazzjoni u mpenn allura ma narax ghalfejn m’ghandux jitla fil-gvern….meta jkun il-waqt.
“Min ma jbiddilx iqammel.” Kollu minnu. Minnu wkoll li il-Laburisti mhux kollha injoranti u n-Nazzjonalisti kollha ghorrief.
Tini erba Louis Grech, ghoxrin Lino Spiteri u ghoxrin ohra Gorg Abela, imma ttinix xi Maria Camilleri, xi Sharon u fuq kollox il-mexxejja li hemm bhalissa.
Ara fejn naslu b’Toni Abela imekkek l-argumenti daqqa naha u daqqa ohra, l-avukat tal-Mosta li kien spettur fi zmien Pullicino, Gorg taz-Zejtun li qisu waqa’ minn fuq iz-ziemel bhal San Pawl u gurnalist ginger li ghadu ma’ waqafx jostaqsi u jitfa d-dubji.
Issa naraw min se jinbidel ghall-ahjar, jekk itiru imqar Jason u tal-Mosta u jidhlu flokhom Michael Fazon forsi il-PL ma’ jqammilx. Il-PN iridu jnehhu il-hafna paraventi wara l-legalizmu zejjed. Jekk hemm ligi li taghti r-rih lil-min hu korrot inehhuha.
Inutli per ezempju li Musumeci joqghod jispjega: residenza f’nofs wied ODZ hi skandaluza. Flats fil-village core ta’ Hal-Lija huma daghwa b’Alla fi knisja. Pulizija jew ufficjali li ma’ jghamlux dmirhom jew jissabotaggjaw lic-cittadin hu inaccettabli.
Skandaluz ukoll li deputy leader jiehu xi tletin elf lira ta’ kuntratt ta’ post li l-MLP oppona, jew ta’ deputati laburisti li jiksru l-ligi ta’ l-ippjanar flok ma’ jghatu ezempju.
“The buck stops here” kellu miktub president Amerikan fuq l-iskrivanija tieghu. Minn Gonzi dak li qed tistenna n-nies. Inkella nitqannew b’Joseph “who will learn on the job because he has no proven record”.
O kemm jizolqu d-dmugh tal-kukkudrilli! Jaqaw il-villa ta Duminku Mintoff ezatt fl-istess Wied ir-Rini (limiti tal-Bahrija) tmiss ma zona Natura2000 saret sabiha f’daqqa wahda? Nixtieq naf x’jahseb Lino Bugeja tar-Ramblers w is-sahhara Astrid Vella dwar din!
It-tlett kmamar (u mhux “sprawling villa”) ta Victor Scerri se jinbnew EZATT minflok razzett ezistenti. Scerri mhu se jzid XEJN bini hlief giebja taht l-art …. Sa fejn naf jien il-gwiebi taht l-art tibnihom. U jekk tidhol fil-website tal-MEPA issib li fl-istess wied il-MEPA diga approvat numru kbir ta gwiebi. Ghaliex il-protesti issa? Fejnu Astrid u r-Ramblers?
Mary I am not your darling so do not address me as such. Are not the heads at Air Malta employees too? I was referring to ALL employees. Please do make an effort to be polite when you reply to people – I know it is difficult for you apparently but do try and accept other people’s opinions. You also seem to be quite an expert on ‘arrogance’.
That’s the difference of opinion then Ethel. You cannot refer to all employees about lack of gratefulness. I am sorry but most of them have been trying to do their best for the company. Il-huta minn rasha tintenn. I do accept other people’s opinion but I also am entitled to critize especially when some people put down their opinions carelessly.
And what do you mean by all this?
If there are problems with government bodies due to over staffing these should be dealt with immediately. I am not saying that government should make redundant such workers but they should be deployed to say local councils, etc. If certain corporations are making losses, again due to over staffing, the staff themselves should be made aware that they are being kept on whatever the company situation, and they should be grateful that the some of the taxpayer’s money is being levelled at keeping them at their place of work.
Of course you are as arrogant as one can gets and insensitive too! I wonder what your job is for that matter.
See the quote from Maltastar below – Now if they can’t get a simple news report straight (five candidates, or six?), then imagine these people running the country:
“Labour Leader Dr Joseph Muscat appealed to the SIX elected European Parliamentary representatives to work in line with Malta’s national interests within their respective political blocs and work towards securing the sixth parliamentary seat for Malta as soon as possible.
During a meeting with all FIVE elected European Parliamentary representatives on Saturday morning, Dr Muscat appealed to them to work together in the national interest.” ( http://www.maltastar.com/pages/ms09dart.asp?a=2525 )
Confirmation of MaltaStar closely following your blog, Daph, would be them amending the article in question. They’re probably currently deliberating whether it’s legally five or six seats.
Time for a truly liberal party in Malta. Liberals have supported PN in the pre-EU accession phase. But PN today is anything but a liberal party. Some Christian Democrat parties in Europe have embraced liberalism but not PN with Gonzi and the ever so conservative Tonio Borg at the helm.
PL is not liberal either, but Muscat keeps trying to rope in everyone who is not a staunch Nationalist. This is the ‘grand coalition’ he keeps blabbering about. Of course, the point he misses is that ‘coalition’ is about governments not parties. Parties are based on principles and therefore can never be a ‘coalition’.
If all the liberal minds of this country had to put their heads together and form a truly liberal party, liberal voters will cease to be the political ball they are often reduced to being and we will get a ‘coalition’ yes, but in government not within a party.
Funnily enough, the few liberals who have contested elections in this country are the likes of Emmy Bezzina – no credible alternative.
Liberals should not make the same mistake as the greens with AD. What the Maltese electorate has clearly shown since 1966, particularly since 1989, and even in ‘less important’ elections such as this last one, is that if the electorate wants the government out, it just votes for the opposition party. Liberals, and greens for that matter, should influence the big parties, not become an irrelevance as AD did.
1 word for this liberal nationalist
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090126/local/pn-is-not-liberal-tonio-borg
The context here was that of rent reform. You might disagree strongly with Tonio Borg, but he’s right in saying that the rent reform is not the proper law to address cohabitation rights. This was also stated by Minister John Dalli.
[Daphne – Definitely, he was right. Cohabitation rights to the detriment of private landlords – whatever next?]
To all those who argue in their comments as if there is some law of nature that dictates a change of government every x years, this idea goes against the very essence of democracy.
It’s only the electorate that chooses its government. Each election has its own story and its own dynamics. The story of the next general has not even started being written. The pressure is on Labour now to come out with its programme of government. The MEP campaign has shown Joseph Muscat as very double-faced: the Alex Perici Calascione clip, his volte-face about the deficit (telling Commissioner Spidla the opposite of what he told his supporters days before) and his other volte-face now about the utility bills (he has to check the price of oil).
Joseph Muscat’s shallowness is coming through and in four years’ time the electorate might have its doubts about his competence and methods.
The following quotes are just the tip of the ice-berg.
John Schembri on this blog: “Inutli per ezempju li Musumeci joqghod jispjega: residenza f’nofs wied ODZ hi skandaluza. Flats fil-village core ta’ Hal-Lija huma daghwa b’Alla fi knisja. Pulizija jew ufficjali li ma’ jghamlux dmirhom jew jissabotaggjaw lic-cittadin hu inaccettabli.”
Astrid Vella on timesofmalta.com: “The NGOs are not saying that this is necessarily a case for the police. By making a show of inviting the police Mr. Scerri is not impressing anyone. The MEPA system is set up with systematic loopholes to allow certain permits through with an appearance of legality. This does not mean that they are above board, simply that the abuse is institutionalised.”
ODZ means “Outside Development Zone” so why are applications for development not refused when they are first presented – end of story.
Why is it that when an application is refused for two, four, six times the developer and his architect dot an i or cross a t and represent again and again until a permit is issued? These are the “systematic loopholes” mentioned by Astrid Vella pounced upon by wise-guy architects and developers.
People like Victor Scerri, as PN President, still cannot understand that he is one of those many apparatchiks, ministers et al who must bear the responsibility of the 6th June debacle.
Excellent piece. The PN must never ever forget that all the significant achievements for Malta have been the result of the PN’s vision – independence, market economy, EU membership. PL have always managed to miss the boat and now there are no more boats to catch. PN should continue to build on it’s successes and now seriously tackle environmental issues and social issues (especially divorce) with an open mind and steer away from patronising attitudes. Let the people decide as against the ministers deciding for the people. PL will never convince me that they are suddenly pro-EU when they did their utmost to keep us out. Never mind the height of hypocrisy now shown by some of them as they fight tooth and nail to get to Brussels.
Nixtieq nirrispondi lil dawk li ikkumentaw fuq dak li ktibt jiena, gheziez hbieb jiena kif ghidtilkhom laburist moderat u jekk mhux konvinti halli naghmilha cara.
Il-Partit Nazzjonalista meta tela fl-1987 ghamel bidliet kbar fil-pajjiz specjalment fejn ghandu x’jaqsam iktar ftuh fl-ekonomija wara li il-Labour kien riesaq vicin il-kommunismu.
Il-Gvern Laburista wara li kellu l-ewwel 5 snin tajbin hafna qabad nizel nizla ta’ medjokrita, korruzzjoni, vjolenza, protezzjonismu ekonomiku etc……….
Imma umbaghad ma nistghux nghidu illi qatt ma sar xejn minn Gvern Laburista, ghax tkunu qed turu daqsxejn estremismu, nifhem li hafna minnkhom forsi tiftakru dawk iz-zminijiet li ma kienux sbieh, pero jkun hafna iktar ta’ gid kieku tkunu daqsxejn iktar oggettivi u tammettu illi il-Labour bil-hazin kollu tieghu ghamel il-parti tieghu wkoll fl-istorja ta’ Malta.
Per ezempju, drittijiet lil haddiema kien hemm zmien fejn ma kienx hemm 40 hour weeks hbieb,
Edukazzjoni b’xejn (ma kienetx perfetta),
Sahha b’xejn,
Appartamenti b’xejn jew ftit hafna,
Artijiet b’xejn,
Il-Banek li twaqqfu,
L-ewwel ajruport, Sea Malta, Fabbriki bhal ST, Baxter u hafna ohrajn…
Biex nerga ndur fuq l-argument taghkom, jiena nikkundanna u ghalkemm qatt ma ghamilt vjolenza jiddispjacini bil-kbir gheziez Nazzjonalisti.
Imma tahsbux li il-PN kienu vergni, kienu jaghmlu hafna provokazzjoni u tixwix u il-Laburisti kellhom klikek vjolenti hafna u gara dak li gara.
Jekk Daphne titfa dan il-“post” nixtieq nghidilkhom xi haga li grat lili fl-1987. Wara ir-rebha tal-PN (misthoqqa), fl-appartement fejn kont noqghod mal-familja ta’ fuqna wahhlet ritratt kbir mal-faccata ta kandidata Laburista, kien hemm trakk mimli Nazzjonalisti bil-hadid f’idejhom u peress illi il-gallarija taghna kienet l-ewwel sular ahna wehilna ma’ rashom.
Jien kelli biss 9 snin u kont ma’ missieri fil-kwiet u f’daqqa wahda bdew jhabbtu mal-gallarija u jghajjruna kliem mill-iktar oxxen, jisfidawna ghal-glied, u jhabbtu mal-gallarija. Hin minnhom jaqbdu gebla kbira u jwaddbuwha u jkissru il-hgieg kollu u jien flmkien ma’ missieri imwerwer qatt ma niftakar li bzajt dashekk f’hajti kieku tafu kemm hi esperjenza kerha.
Imma minkejja kollox illum nghid illi dak kien zmien iebes hafna ghal-pajjizna u bhal ma jghaddi kulll pajjiz fid-dinja ghaddejna ahna wkoll sfortunatament.
Nahseb inthom bhali taqraw xi daqsxejn u tafu illi kwazi il-pajjizi kollha ghaddew min zmien iebes u hemm pajjizi illi ghadhom ghaddejin u forsi qatt ma jistghu jghixu fil-paci, jekk jitla il-Labour 4 snin ohra, nispera hafna li jkun ghal-ahjar taghna u nkun jiena l-ewwel wiehed li nipprotesta jekk jsiru xi hnizrijiet anki fuq Nazzjonalisti !!!!!!!!
Jekk tridu wkoll nghid grazzi lil Gvernijiet tal-PN tal-gid li ghamlu imma ippermetuli naghmel il-kritika gusta lil-PN ghal-diversi zbalji li ghamel….fi tmexxija tal-pajjiz.
@ Jake
Irnexxielek tghid dak kollu li ili hafna nipprova nghid jien. Grazzi.
Naqbel mieghek perfettament. Ma niflahx naqra u nisma aktar priedki tat-tfal isostnu li bejn 1971 u 1987 ma sar xejn tajjeb u bejn 1987 s’issa (apparti dawk is-sentejn nieqsin) ma sar xejn hazin.
Storja zghira ohra: meta ohti kelli xi hmistax-il sena kienet ma’ shaba hdejn it-Tigullio (ghal min jiftakru) San Giljan. Mela dak in-nhar kien hemm meeting tal-PN il-fosos. F’salt wiehed daru maghha grupp kbir u saqsewha jekk hux sejra il-meeting. Hi u zewg tfajlliet ohra rrispondew (diga tikka mwerwrin ghax min saqsa ma saqsix bil-helu) “le ahna sejrin id-dar”. Kif irrispondew hekk daru maghhom jghajjruhom u jtuhom bis-sieq. Tlett tfajliet ta’ hmistax -il sena. Qatt ma ninsa kif giet ohti id-dar: tibki, kollha trab, xaghra mharbat.
Ohti kienet tmur skola tal-knisja u hafna minn dawk li daru maghha kienu minn skejjel tal-knisja u minn familji middle class. Kienu zmienijiet tense … kif kienu zmienijiet koroh is-sittinijiet fejn kien hemm hafna ezempji ta’ police brutality. Freedom of speech? Democracy? Insejna ghax hekk jaqbel. U finanzjarjament il-fatti juru li fis-71 kien hemm krizi serja u serja hafna. U anke fl-1996 il-PN ma kienx halla sitwazzjoni sabiha. L-anqas xejn: dawn huma fatti.
Missieri gej minn familja tradizzjonalment Laburista. Id-dar dejjem kellna u qrajna It-Times, In-Nazzjon u L-Orizzont, meetings qatt ma morna, bandiera ta’ partit dahlet id-dar darba u ommi li dejjem kienet tobghod il-hdura tal-politika ramietha dritt fiz-zibel. Missieri dejjem kritika bl-ahrax l-izbalji tal-MLP minghajr skuzi jew rationalisations. Meta gejna biex nivvutaw ivvutajna b’rasna and hence like you say the EU passports. Kull ma ghandna ghandna ghax hdimna ghalih.
Jake,
sewwa ddeskrivejtu lil-Labour tal-80s: “medjokrita’, korruzzjoni, vjolenza, protezzjonismu ekonomiku” – very well said.
Trid inzidlek xi haga? Qghad, klijentelizmu, kultura tad-dipendenza.
Il-qghad taht il-Labour tela’ ghal 10%. Jekk tahdimha fuq il-workforce tal-lum, dak il-percentage ifisser 15,000 jirregistraw. 15,000.
Il-klijentelizmu kien u ghadu l-arma tal-Labour. Hafna nies jivvutaw Labour ghax iridu Ministru ‘jaqdihom’ – wisq drabi f’affarijiet li jafu li m’ghandhomx dritt ghalihom. Ghalhekk il-Labour zied il-voti fl-elezzjoni tal-87 – ghax il-Gvern kien dahhal 8,000 ruh jahdmu fis-settur pubbliku. U vvutaw xorta Labour wara hames snin ta’ vjolenza, korruzzjoni u kontrolli f’kollox – dak li inti ddeskrivejt tajjeb bhala “riesaq lejn il-komunizmu”.
Xi darba ipprova ahdem paga minima ghal 8,000 darba ghal 22 sena u tinduna x’hofra haffer il-Labour f’dawk il-gimghat qabel l-elezzjoni tal-1987.
Il-kultura tad-dipendenza hi ohra mill-armi tal-Labour. Il-Labour jghidlek li inti avanzajt bis-sahha tieghu mhux bis-sahha tieghek. U lil hafna Laburisti, il-Labour (ghalkemm mhux apposta) izommhom dipendenti fuq is-social services meta kapaci jahdmu, jitharrgu u javanzaw.
Jien xorta naccetta li l-Labour ghamel hafna tajjeb fis-70s. Imma mostly fl-ewwel legizlatura biss. Mal-elezzjoni tas-76 telaghlu ghal rasu. U cappas lilu nnifsu b’tebgha li s’issa ghadu ma rnexxilux inehhiha. Fil-fatt, nahseb li Joseph Muscat rega’ qieghed inissel il-kburija Laburista tal-late 70s u l-80s li Alfred Sant (minkejja li kien zbaljatissimu fuq l-Ewropa) kien irnexxielu jnehhi.
Jake and Mark
All you say would be undeniable only if it wasn’t motivated by an ideological infested mind which clouded all the positive those initiatives would otherwise hold. Just going through them….
Edukazzjoni b’xejn (ma kienetx perfetta), – The word b’xejn is the epitome of the rotten ideology. It was sold as free but never as quality education. It was geared towards indoctrination and selective access skewed against the low wage workers themselves.
Sahha b’xejn, – Same applies
Appartamenti b’xejn jew ftit hafna, – Appartamenti – you surely do not know what you are talking about. This was the first undoing of MLP with the way they allocated the PN built Ta Paris social housing…. The nature of Mintoff’s governments and the institutionalised corruption where spelt out at that moment.
Artijiet b’xejn, – This b’xejn mentality is perpetually invasive. When are you going to understand that nothing…..nothing is free
Il-Banek li twaqqfu, – Let us not go there….in respect of all those who lost their money in the process.
L-ewwel ajruport, Sea Malta, – Airport, Sea Malta……are you serious? These were projects looking backward rather than forward. The mentality of “biex niddobaw” underlined all initiatives.
But the overwhelming fault of that administration, for which we are still paying a price (vide pre EU membership moment) was that it eternally divided a minute population at a telling time when union of intent and effort was needed by a new born nation.
That’s more like the story I know.
Joseph and Libertas.
Admittedly many mistakes were made at that time. However, in the process many families benefited from that era and Nationalists too (I have relatives who hate Labour but they also benefitted).
Eventually, the people had to challenge that political force (Labour) and as we all know, Labour has paid a huge price for its mistakes.
I am not saying that Labour is perfect now, but there has been a change in their attitude, mentality and approach. However, with the involvement of many young people, and some very intelligent people, Labour will improve.
Next election, I will be looking forward to a very good electoral programme by Labour, and a realistic one, not the usual gimmicks that both parties have the habit of offering us. If Labour does not live up to my expectations after many years in opposition, I will not vote again in any election because I am fed up of both Labour and PN, especially when dealing with the main challenges of our country and other important issues (environment, taxation, roads, noise pollution, pollution and mediocrity).
@Jake “I am not saying that Labour is perfect now, but there has been a change in their attitude, mentality and approach.”
Beats me how anyone can ever trust the same people who have crusaded against so many important milestones in our country’s development, with VAT, EU entry and the EURO being the most important ones.
Do we just hope that when elected, they might just get it right? This is not a change of mentality or attitude or even politics we are talking about. The issue is their ability to take the right decisions.
Jake, Joseph Muscat has already made numerous mistakes. He declared himself against the EU when he should have known better, basing his arguments on serious lies. He ran for leader and manipulated the party system to his favour. His greed is his doom – he would have done his career a great favour had he ran for deputy leader. He miserably failed to reform the MLP. When he brought in a CEO rather than change the statute to fire Jason Micallef (which he could not do because the latter helped him get the leadership chair) he showed his lack of leadership. He has disrespected institutions on several occasions. He has made abusive declarations for his own benefit. He has made promises he can never keep. He is harping on being progressive but he has failed to explain to his followers what he means when he says so.
He may win the next general election, but at this rate he is bound to have a tough time governing.
Jake, Mark,
First of all I deplore any acts of violence that come from any side. It is still fresh in my mind that after the 1987 election my mum took us to Castille to await the newly elected Eddie Fenech Adami as he entered. The windows (then painted red – do you remember?) were slightly open and some idiot started hitting the glass with his flagpole breaking the glass. My mother immediately gave him a reprimanding and the idiot said “mhux il-gvern taghna” so yes we both have such fools.
What is different is that the violence before 1987 was not just a bunch of troublemakers causing trouble but it was institutionalised and had the blessing of the MLP heads. I have many examples but one can read a book about these. Let’s take one example: the tal-Barrani incident (where my parents ended up fighting for breath and had their car burnt). The PN had a right to have a meeting in Zejtun and the government decided that instead of upholding the law and doing what was right, it would back the law-breakers.
Now you can see that this is fundamentally and completely different to the burning of billboards etc. This is what Labour needs to apologise for and I insist on this apology because if you are too proud to apologise it means you think you were right. And by an apology I don’t just mean “we deplore the acts of the past bla bla bla” but a proper ‘we’re sorry we did that and no we will never do it again and to prove it we are going to ask all those who were in some way or other involved in those incidents to leave the party’ – then we can put it behind us.
Joseph Muscat did apologise. You must have blinked and missed it. It wasn’t a carefully considered and finely worded apology – just a brush off, like flicking gel flakes off your shoulders.
At the time I got the impression that he had some sort of ‘to do’ list where that apology was squeezed in somewhere between buying a loaf of bread and taking out the garbage.
@ Joseph Micallef
I fail to get your conclusion: ‘li bejn 1971 u 1987 ma sar xejn tajjeb?’ I find that conclusion rather simplistic and somewhat superficial.
And I am not going to get into that kind of conversation. God knows how hard I try to avoid that type of conversation in real life.
That is why I found Jake’s entry refreshing. U tinsix kemm jien u kemm Jake ghelibna kull brain-washing li seta kellna u meta gejna nivvutaw ivvutajna b’ rasna u grazzi ta’ hekk (mhux biss naf, ara ma tahsbux li rrid niehu l-kredtu kollu, f gieh kemm hemm). Illum jien u int ghandna passport Ewropew u l-euro fil-but.
@ Claude,
I agree with most of what you said. Incidentally has the PN ever apoloigised for: police brutality against Labour Party supporters pre-1971? For aiding and abetting (or failing to protect Labour Party supporters from) vicious thugs u shabhom tal-knisja meta dawn tal-ahhar kien jsawwtuhom u jharbtu il-meetings?
Talli kienu jistahbu wara l-knisja u l-famuz interdett li bis-sahha tieghu rebhu hafna voti u hence elezzjoni? (U ma rridx nisma li dak tort tal-knisja u allura l-PN ma kellux x’jahti. Ma nkunux boloh).
Tridu tieqfu ghal sekonda wahda jew tnejn u tahsbu ftit x kien ifisser f’Malta tas-sittinijiet li tiskomunikak il-knisja. X’ tortura u terrur kienet ghall-ommijiet ta’ dawk li kien gew skomunikati. Dan kien zmien li allahares ma jilhaqx jatik il-grizma patri qabel tmut ghax ommi ma kemm inkwiet. Kemm mardu jew mietu nies bl-inkwiet, kemm thassru relazzjonijiet f’familji.
U t-tbatija ma kenitx biss ghal min spicca jizzewweg fis-sakristija jew lil min ra lill-qraba jindifnu f’art mhux ikkonsaktrata. Dawn l-atti kien parti minn “terror campaign” sfrenata intiza biex twerwer lill-ohrajn u tati “ezempju”.
F’gieh kemm hemm qaddisin mhux qed nghid li dan b’xi mod jiggustifika dak li sar bejn 1971-1987. Qed nghid ejjew nghidu kollox minghajr ma nidhlu x’speci ta’ competition u ejjew nirrikonoxxu li l-vjolenza fil-politika ma dahlittx fl-1971 imma l-gheruq taghha alla jaf fejn hu. Ejjew nharsu lejn l-istorja taghna flimkien mhux minn wara l-bnadar tal-partiti. L-istorja taghna hi taghna thallu lil hadd johodilkom jghawwiga u jpengiha kif irid danollu biex jiehu l-vot tieghi u tieghek darba kull hames snin.
[Daphne – I’m going to make a request here. The occasional comment in Maltese is fine; sometimes you just have to express yourself in Maltese. But if you are capable of writing English, please do so, because lots of people on this blog don’t know Maltese but on the other hand, all know English. So let’s be civilised and use the one language we have in common. Thank you.]
As they say the road to heaven is paved with good intentions.
What I’m saying is that the intentions were in themselves good but their implementation was irreversibly littered with perverse ideology apart from the underlying notion that basic excellence was considered a luxury. Vision was completely missing apart from that of instituting a socialist society with a number of “first amongst equals”. For example, free quality education is the maximum one can hope. If you drop the “quality” the resulting system is catastrophic, and we still have not come out of the repercussions.
Sorry to barge in so late in the day but I couldn’t help it. Labour may have been guilty of authoritarianism especially in the 1970s and 1980s but those who do not see how authoritarian and clientelist the Nationalists are now must be living in another planet. Look at government departments and you find scores of “advisers” employed without sitting for exams but hired under ‘definite’ contracts.
It seems some have now been employed on an indefinite basis and some of these seem not even to possess enough qualifications Others are retained in employment even after pensionable age (receiving their pension as well as their salary) while those without patronage must retire even if they still wish to continue working: two weights and two measures.
The treatment is not the same for all. If the writer of the article is close to the PN, he must know these people and yet s/he has the gall to accuse the PL of clientelism. Indeed, in this matter, the two parties have little cause to criticise each other and I’d go as far as to say that the PN have refined clientelism into an art. Perhaps Labour were a little crude about it (after all they are a workers’ party) but the PN have devised nicely legal ways to do exactly the same thing with more finesse (after all, they are a party of the professionals).
Open your eyes and look at reality for none are as blind as those who will not see. It is those who are affiliated with neither of the parties who fare worst for their turn to taste the cake will never come. This is the kind of “democracy” one lives in. Doesn’t the PN consider that this may have had something to do with the result of the recent MEP election? Some of these unaffiliated wanderers may have voted PN in past elections but are now more hopeful of finding some justice in the PL. After all, if the PN will only look after their own, where’s the harm in trying a party which despite its past may not be so bad after all?
“… in this matter (clientelism), the two parties have little cause to criticise each other”.
Really, E=mc2?
8,000 people employed in the few weeks before the general election of 1987 had its equivalent under a PN government when exactly?
Trade licences awarded to people on the basis of their political colour had its equivalent when under a PN government?
Winding main roads built in a way that shows who were the Nationalist famers and who were the Labour ones had its equivalent when under a PN government?
Thousands of transfers and promotions given solely on the basis of support for the Labour Party had its equivalent when under a PN government?
Thousands of houses requisitioned by Labour governments to be given to Labour supporters (and Labour clubs) had its equivalent when under a PN government?
Patronage was elevated by Labour to a system whereby you could only enter university if you what they called a ‘sponsor’. You even needed a sponsor to get a colour television (paying something in the process of course).
Clientelism, patronage and nepotism are the bedrock of Labour politics. Go to any Labour club weekday mornings and talk to the people there and see how unchanging Labour is in its strong belief of clientelism.
Mark, the Catholic Church’s intervention (interdett) was perhaps wrong and the same church apologized in no uncertain terms after so many years. Those of younger age do not understand why the Catholic Church acted that way. It was partly because of Mintoff’s stubbornness and anti-church trait which had started a long time before the Integration saga. (The singing of The Red hymn – a Communist hymn, at St. Paul’s Bay – 1947.) Mintoff also had a personal grudge against Archbishop Gonzi when the former was attending the Seminary in his younger days.
The Catholic Church had the right to express concern about certain consequences of being integrated with Britain with only three representatives in the House of Commons among some 350. One of the sticking points was the question of divorce. But remember we are talking about some 50 years ago and the attitude then was quite different and divorce in Malta was hardly ever mentioned or felt necessary.
Mintoff’s problem was always ‘my way or no way’ because if he thought about it, he would at least appear to try to get some guarantees that divorce and some other five church objections would not be implemented in Malta. Britain could not do that anyway, since then, Malta would not fall under all British laws. Mintoff could have tested the people’s attitude, held a referendum and complied with the result. But again, Mintoff did not want to risk it because he knew that the chances of winning the referendum was next to nil.
That’s all water under the bridge, but if one looks back, one cannot be other than thankful that events unfolded as they did. Imagine if we had been integrated fifty years ago. We would be flying the Union Jack, we would have no government of our own, no control on our destiny, still a British naval base, Gordon Brown would be our Prime Minister and we would have very little influence in the House of Commons.
Now, what scenario do you prefer?
Remember, the MLP portrays itself as the party which made Malta a republic, Malta neutral, Malta with veto powers etc. Is this the same Mintoff’s Labour Party which wanted our flag to disappear, be subject to a foreign country’s policies with nary a flea’s power to change things in our favour?
The Labour Party was and is the party of political opportunism, without a vision and without measuring consequences of shortsighted policies it presents from time to time. It is a party which is unable to build on what is already there but when it governs it invariably tries to reinvent the wheel.
For 22 years its wheels have been consistently square.
Dear Einstein (E=mc2)
“Some of these unaffiliated wanderers may have voted PN in past elections but are now more hopeful of finding some justice in the PL”. I take it that by ‘unaffiliated wanderers’ you mean floaters .In order to put a good argument forward, one has to analyze who the floaters are.
In my opinion, floaters are ‘non fanatic, generally unbiased, not egotistic and above all, respect democracy and the good of the nation’. This is not to say that affiliated voters are not as patriotic, but generally speaking, they are biased. Anyone trying to find justice would be unwise to try to find it within a political organization of any kind, unless ‘justice’ means something different to you.
Going to your favourite political party for ‘favours’ is not the same as seeking justice – as a matter of fact it is the exact opposite because seeking a favour invariably means getting something you do not deserve or if deserved, you want to get it ahead of everybody else.
The NP never boasts that ‘it will be a government by the Nationalists for the Nationalists’ as opposed to the LP who on more than one occasion and by prominent officials declared, at the conclusion of the last election campaign that, ‘we will be a government of the Laburisti – and we know who will do what and where – we have a list ready to appoint those we trust in sensitive positions, etc.” You call that justice? Please don’t tell me that it was election rhetoric. We know better because we have experienced labour methods of the past like hiring 8000 on the eve of an election and crippling Malta’s finances for two or more decades. Some justice!
The floaters you talk about can stand back, observe, listen, analyze and finally at the ballot box make a decision not based on any party influence but on experience, observation and fairness.
It is for that reason that the majority of ‘floaters’ will again vote NP because thus far there is not a slightest hint that the LP today is any different than that of decades ago which produced leaders without a vision, without trusting the ability of Malta’s workers, more interested in indoctrinating its uninformed blindfolded followers for the sake of gaining power.
The LP remains the ‘No’ party whose leader, while boasting of ‘new beginnings’ and ‘new way of doing politics’ found it necessary to dig deep into the past and rehabilitate individuals from the dark days and welcoming back anti-EU campaigners.
You cannot declare yourself progressive when surrounding yourself by regressive people. Floaters will see through the smoke and mirrors and invariably make the right decision. Besides, many of them have been once (or twice) bitten and will definitely be twice shy voting for Labour in a general election.
Most of the floating voters in Malta are actually selfish grasping mercenaries who will give their vote to the highest bidder.
Libertas: clientelism has nothing to do with justice – it seems too obvious to comment on this point. Regarding your definition of “floaters” – though I dislike the term, I think I fit in your description. I think the PN should take seriously the possibility of a determining number of non-aligned voters switching to Labour if clientelism remains rampant, among other reasons. I think the kind of rhetoric you use might have a counterproductive effect some day – we are not in the 80’s now. I trust you do not mistake me for a Labour fanatic – I vote according to what I discern to be the best course of action and even switch from one party to the other on my ballot. By the way, I have no claim to be Einstein (as you seem to suggest) but I put my faith in the scientific method and reason, the only two objective premises that remain immutable. The celebrated formula is just a manifestation of this and nothing else.
Antoine Vella has slipped badly – his definition of “floaters” smacks of true fanaticism. Floaters are those who are slave to no party and no ideology. The highest bidder is the one who offers what the voter perceives to be in his interest and that of the country – this does not make the floater a mercenary. Mercenaries are those who obtain the undeserved through clientelism. A floater’s sympathies may change during the course of a government’s five year term.
Jomar: I would be the last to have favoured integration with Britain but Mintoff’s purpose seems to have been that of accelerating progress in Malta (through integration) by bringing up the standard of living of the Maltese to the same level as that enjoyed by Brits at the time within a span of several years (I believe he was thinking of 5-10 years). At the time, many were skeptical that Malta could survive without Britain. Mintoff’s efforts were undermined, among others, by the Catholic Church – it seems some prelates even feared Catholic colleagues from Britain taking their places in Malta!. Of course, Archbishop Gonzi who dictated what length of sleeves women should wear at the time, regarded integration with horror – divorce, civil marriage, protestantism… in a few words, Sodom and Gomorrah…It is to Borg Olivier’s credit that he believed in independence and obtained it in a peaceful way and set Malta on the painful road to development.
Enough said: I have nothing to add to my first comments which provoked these reactions.
E=mc2, you must be either sincere and really have no idea what you’re talking about or you are being falsely naive.