Mintoffiani: now that I have your attention
Paul Boffa: Mintoff shafted him and then stole his achievements for himself
Mintoff did not give Maltese women the vote. When Maltese women got the vote, in 1947, Mintoff was just another member of parliament, working as an architect for the War Damage Commission, making truckloads of cash for rebuilding bombed-out Malta.
That’s how he made his first lot of money.
Paul Boffa, and not Dom Mintoff, was prime minister in 1947. You should have been able to work out for yourselves that Mintoff was not prime minister in 1947, even if your knowledge of history is so poor, because you also keep telling us that he was PM for the first time at 38 years old.
With the aid of your trusty mobile phone calculator, you can work out that anyone who was 38 in 1947 is going to be dead now, or receiving the best wishes of the president and his wife every year as a remarkable centenarian.
Mintoff made himself leader of the Labour Party in 1949, two years after women got the vote, and he did so BY SHAFTING THE MAN WHO GAVE MALTESE WOMEN THE VOTE.
As for this business of giving women the vote – it’s all bollocks in the first place. Do any of you actually think that it was possible to deny women the vote beyond 1947, in a British colony?
The way you talk about it is that if it were not for this piece of legislative action in 1947, I, my mother, my sisters and friends would be sitting home on polling-day in 2012 while the Men of the House put on their Important Hat and go out and vote.
‘It’s thanks to Mintoff that you have the vote’. No, wrong on two counts: Paul Boffa was prime minister in 1947, and there is no way on earth that any woman on this planet would be denied the vote in 2012, regardless of who was prime minister in 1947.
It had little to do with concern and respect for women, anyway. By that time, most politicians had worked out that it made more sense to give women the vote and persude them to vote for them in particular (great, a new market) than to prevent them voting at all.
14 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“it was not advisable to impose upon the female masses the responsibility which the majority would not, perhaps, be prepared to assume.” – Nerik Mizzi, 1947
[Daphne – Yes, and? As I have had occasion to explain several times, both my maternal and paternal extended families were Stricklandjani (passionately anti-Nationalist) at the time. So what the Nationalist Party did, said or thought in 1947 is irrelevant to our choices now. But it does make them far more significant. ]
True. But as deputy leader of the party and deputy PM, he would have had more influence on party and government policy and direction. I am not saying that the merit should go to him rather than Boffa; just that he would have probably been part of that decision more than other MPs or other party officials.
[Daphne – Who was it who took us into the European Union – Eddie Fenech Adami, or….? I’ll bet you can’t even remember for certain who was deputy PM then. Don’t be silly. If ever there was a man who despised and disrespected women it was Dom Mintoff. He treated all the women in his life like dirt, and that’s a good indicator on the subject of where a man stands.]
Lord Strickland vison was more progressive but lets face it in terms of those who wanted a self governing and Independant Malta , unrealistic .
Here we are a Tip to Trumpton :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQWVY0nqceA
I also came from a family of Stricklandjani.
In fact my grandfather was a candidate for Mabel’s party.
Thanks for the link as this is the only time I have seen any footage or heard lord Strickland speaking.
Hey ta’ sapienza ,
A gift from Tas- Soho – The golden years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6PVPHxB8oA&feature=related
Enjoy
Small correction: at the time Mintoff was deputy PM and minister for reconstruction, not ‘just another member of parliament’.
[Daphne – In parliamentary terms (voting rights), the deputy PM and even the front bench are just another MP. Bills are brought, if they are not a private member’s motion, by the prime minister’s order. I am glad you pointed out that he was minister for reconstruction. That shows how very important it is that today we have a ban on ministers continuing in their day job, particularly when there is such a glaring conflict (and media will to point out the conflict). ]
So what the Nationalist Party did, said or thought in 1947 is irrelevant to our choices now.
But what the Labour Party, did, said or thought is relevant?
Seriously?
[Daphne – Not in 1947, no. All that is completely irrelevant. It is only the recent history of both parties that is relevant, in as much as it has direct and immediate meaning for the present.]
Also because, ironically, the PL are dragging in their programme those golden years between 1971 and 1987… now how’s that for a gargle and a spit?
But why do people like you keep harping about Mintoff did this and Mintoff did that and sometimes it turns out that Mintoff did not?
Mintoff/Gaddafi introduced social services and without Gaddafi Mintoff would have been screwed. No one would lend any money to Mintoff and the Maltese were not so well off that they could buy government bond issues. The majority did not know what bonds were anyway.
What is astonishing is that people over 50 must be suffering from an onset of early amnesia otherwise they would be able to remember what life was like in Mintoff’s time as compared to today. How many of them could afford to buy a new car? How many took an annual vacation abroad? How many went to restaurants more frequently other than, perhaps, on very special occasions? Hobz biz-zejt f’xatt il-bahar, forsi? How many owned their homes then? How many children wore hand-me-downs? Mur ghidilhom illum jilbsu ilbies mhux tad-ditta!
Joseph a self proclaimed Mintoffjan is ready to screw the country by creating an imaginary ‘instability’ crisis. The twerp has no idea what life was like under the two bit despot and yet he wants to be like him. Maybe he too was an infant member of the ‘Brigata’?
Mintoff ruined the Labour Party and it hasn’t recovered since.
What the Labour Party did, said or thought is indeed very relevant. This is because the wonderful new cabinet that Joseph Muscat intends to impose on us in a few months is made up largely of people who were politically active at that time (dinosaurs).
Therefore there’s a very high chance that what they did, said or thought is still what they’ll do, say and think.
Are you serious Daphne. Partisan much? Fejn jaqbillek irrelevanti. Tiftahhru tant b Nerik Mizzi, irrelevant x qal u x ghamel issa.
[Daphne – ‘Partisan much?’ Spoken like a true chav. That’s not English, BC. Not even in England.]
Hi Daphne,
You are right in claiming Mintoff did not extend the vote to women, but you re also wrong in saying that it was Boffa. Universal suffrage to anyone over 21 bar prisoners and the mentally unsound was part of the conditions of the 1947 constitution.
Strictly speaking therefore, it was Westminster (which would have had to approve the constitution after it had been drafted by the colonial office) which gave Maltese women the vote. That said the National Assembly of 1945-47 (which was composed wholly of Maltese members) had recommended granting the vote to women in their draft constitution which was eventually presented to the British government.
Either way I agree with you that Westminster (then under Attlee’s Labour government) would not have approved a constitution which limited voting to males, whatever the Maltese draft said.
Mintoff stole the vote of 51% of the electorate – men and women – in 1981. He will forever be remembered for that. Even Joseph Muscat remembered that on Xarabank.
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2012/01/the-underdog-party-governed-for-five-and-a-half-years-despite-losing-the-general-election/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf8IceERmNw