By the way can someone please explain why the new district boundaries were accepted by the PN or were they imposed by the Electoral Commission?

I really wish the threat to democracy were only in my head. However, Dr. Sant has already shown that he is not democratic. Had he been democratic:

1. He would face Dr. Pullicino Orlando and not exert pressure on the BA to ask him to leave on false pretences;

2. He would answer journalists’ questions even the uncomfortable ones;

3. He would not have said that the partnership won. That was highly undemocratic (if not downright irresponsible).

4. The MLP is not even democratic in itself. Any dissidents are ostracised and ousted from the Party without much ado.

These are facts.

Usually, history repeats itself. Let’s just hope that this time it doesn’t.

I wish I’m wrong. I really do. I remember the days when we could not say anything because of the MLP in government and the days when not even the Constitutional Court was constituted and when no private citizen/organisation could have a broadcasting station.

When a Prime Minister objects to the presence of a person during a press conference, for me that means that the person does not have the democratic credentials to govern a democratic society. After all this is the same man who said that the partnership has won the referendum.

If that’s democratic, I’m Jackie Onassis.

However, Mr. Laiviera, I hope I’ll be proved wrong.

_________________________________
(comment by) Charles J Buttigieg
DNA is not about racial distinctions.DNA contains the generic information that allows all modern living things to function,grow and reproduce.
DNA profiling is therefore an extremely reliable technique for identifying a person’s inclinations which does not exclude religious, political leanings and other tendencies.

All DNAs are different from one another and therefore the matter of us, them and the others does not enter into play.

Why a vote for AD is a vote for Alfred Sant

1. If there are 3 parties in Parliament and no one has 50%+ of the No 1 votes, there is no corrective mechanism and the seat result counts.

BUT following changes in the district boundaries, this time round Labour has the districts in its favour. As a result it will certainly elect additional seats (to the 30 it elected last time) in the:

· 1st district which now has Marsa and a Labourite part of St Venera,

· 2nd district which now has Zabbar rather than Fgura (Zabbar is more Labour than Fgura which means 4 seats again for Labour in the 2nd division),

· 7th district which now has Rabat instead of Attard (Rabat has a small Labour majority to Attard’s overwhelming PN majority now resulting in this district electing 3 Labour MPs), and

· 10th district which now has Gzira (half half) instead of Swieqi (overwhelmingly PN) thus resulting in a 3-2 rather than 2003’s 4-1.

2. So, come what may, Labour will get the outright majority of seats, ie. 34 out of 65.

3. Here’s the quirk in the system. If PN gets more votes than the MLP, and there’s no one else in Parliament, the corrective mechanism works and the PN’s seats will be increased so that it has more than Labour BUT if there is another party in Parliament (e.g. AD), the corrective mechanism DOES NOT COME INTO EFFECT and Labour, having an absolute majority of seats, will govern alone, even if the PN has more votes!

4. Typical scenario: PN 48% with 30 seats; MLP 47% with 34 seats; AD with 4% with 1 seat, AN 1% with no seat. The result? Alfred Sant safe in Castile and the PN and AD together in coalition IN OPPOSITION.

A person writing as a non-de-plum in the maltatoday blog is implying that the Freeport scandal a Minister is involved.

I hope that the claim is sent by the moderator of such blog to investigate, since this implies that the police are accusing an innocent person.