Pyrrhic victories explained
OK, Labour and AD supporters – this is what a Pyrrhic victory really is, and it bears absolutely no resemblance to the Nationalist Party’s success in this election. The only political parties I can see that have been irremediably damaged (though without being victorious, hence no Pyrrhic victory there either) are the Labour Party and Alternattiva Demokratika. So please, for the sake of your own credibility, stop calling the PN victory a Pyrrhic victory, because it just isn’t one.
A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor. The phrase is an allusion to King Pyrrhus of Epirus (that’s in ancient Greece), whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280BC, and at Asculum in 279BC, in what is known as the Pyrrhic War. Plutarch described it:
The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.
22 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
So let me coin another phrase: How about a Pyrrhic defeat?
Fingers crossed for the following to happen to the Labour Party and, allowing me a little ad libbing, just focus on the definition:
“the Roman (replace with “MLP”) camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men (insert “and women”), not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war”.
A pyrrhic defeat!! But alas at the immediate moment its just wishful thinking, and I’ll have to wait a few more weeks to see if it’s at all possible.
Daph, ruhi, qalb ta’ qalbi, ghalfejn qed tinkwieta fuq definizzjoni? L-MLP ghandhom habta jhawdu fl-istorja RICENTI (jew jinsew, jew jaghzlu li ma jiftakrux l-avvenimenti ezatt jew revizjoni (revisionist) ta’ l-istorja…ahseb u ara fl-istorja tal-qedem kemm ghandhom iharbtu! Il-Poodle ma semmiex ukoll ir-Rubicon f’kuntest zbaljat ukoll? Illuminani ftit ghax insejt issa… :-)
Although you insist it was not a Pyrrhic victory, it was still won at considerable cost to the country’s coffers as can be demonstrated by the huge amounts spent in the first three months of the governemnt’s finances (Source: NSO)
[Moderator – Gerald, the government did not fund the PN campaign.]
The government did not fund it if you insist. And I’ll say they did. Smart Malta, Blue Skies etc were all part of the PN campaign. People with an average level of intelligence will obviously make the connotation.
[Moderator – Gerald, you follow the same twisted logic that your antecedent Victor Laiviera did: Labour might be rubbish, but at least we’re not corrupt because we never do anything that benefits the public. Spending money in a way that benefits the public is part and parcel of being in government. If the public likes the way that the government is budgeting, then they will re-elect it.]
If we have to talk in monetary terms Sant cost the Maltese exchequer LM2,000,000 (rule of thumb puts the cost of an election at LM1 million a go).
Let me explain:
1) He couldn’t controll his party, so we had to hold fresh elections
2) We had to hold general elections as he didn’t agree with the referendum results.
Is he going to refund the money, or should we send in the bailiffs?
How about we call it a “Victory Against All Odds”, turn off the t’internet and go outside and play? We’re arguing about stuff that anyone can look up in a dictionary, for goodness’ sake.
Mr Fenech ,I am sure you do have at least an average level of intelligence otherwise you would not be reading this blog …you claim the govt squandered funds in the 3 months leading up to the elections. It is quite normal that there is a rush to finish off some projects just before an election , and hence a spike in expenditure. But perhaps Mr Fenech has forgotten the KMB mega scandal of emplying 8000 people in the six months leading up to the 1987 elections. Do you know at what that cost ? Circa Lm32 million per annum x 20 years = Lm 640 million . converted to Euros a staggering 1.5 billion Euros . Half Malta’s National Debt ! … and that mad man sometimes still regales us about his neutrality nightmares. If I can borrow JM ‘s quote that you have to be a mad man or a thief to ” contest Malta’s parliamentary elections” please replace with the words ” to lead the Malta Labour Party “
David S, why didn’t the PN governemnt fire them if they are such a waste of expenditure? you have been using these people as pawns for over 20 years. I’d like to know the number of PN sympathisers who were employed with the government over the past two decades. You would probably end up with a few thousand also costing the Exchequer billions of liri. So why don’t you put a sock in it and go and do your homework first. What does S stand for btw?
Pyrrhic victory or not, the numbers remain. Before the elections, a PN TV slot had said that if an elector wanted to see Gonzi as PM s/he should have voted PN, but if s/he wanted to see Sant govern, s/he should vote MLP/AD/AN.
It was clear as crystal. The result? 48.8% said “I want Gonzi to govern”. So, according to the PN spot, one can say that the remaining 51.2% surely did NOT want Gonzi to govern, since they did NOT vote PN. Of course, the PN won because of a small amounts of votes in its favour, so its victory, pyrrhic, slight, bi zbrixx or not, is fully valid. No question about that. But we should keep on remembering what was said BEFORE the elections from PN quarters.
1,580 votes were enough to give the PN a blank cheque. So be it.
The thing is, we already have seen what “flimkien” means. What was the very first act of a Pn government? In a most disloyal way it put Malta back in PfP. All the self-praise regarding the 300+ promises in the electoral manifesto, yet this was not one of them. Or was it a mis-print? No, only the MLP publishes mis-prints, of course.
It could have been either lack of courage by the PN to present what it believes in to the electorate, or else, it wanted to fool the people.
And no, I am not against PfP. If I had my way I would have Malta even in NATO. But I expect my government to have the balls to TELL me its intentions, PRIOR to asking me for my vote.
The Trivial Pursuit moment: Phyrrus was the first to use elephants in a European war.
So…according to David S. the government – any government shouldn’t employ anybody from their own party just in case it would be misconstrued as ‘favouring’ (It harkens to their favourite dictum – Ghal-Laburisti biss)…and that all projects should be brought to a standstill a few months before election time so that it would not be seen as propaganda, right?
Heqq, remember… the power of imcumbency hux!
What else can they say; that’s the frustration and devastation of unexpected defeat.
This is gross. Phaedra Giuliani attacking David S who is also a PN supporter by the look of things!
@Gerald
In this blog, everyone has freedom of speech and the right of choice of words. But I think your use of the word ‘attacking’ is a bit too harsh. ‘Diverging views’ more than anything. And why should’nt two seemingly PN-leaning human beings have diverging opinions?
Mela hsibthom Joe Muscat fi zmien il-partnerxipp?
Mod – “If the public likes the way that the government is budgeting, then they will re-elect it.” …
… and they will donate / contribute as much as possible towards the electoral campaign to help ensure that it is re-elected
@ Gerald
‘Attacking’? ‘Gross’? My, my, Gerald!
David said his piece, I added my view. That is the usual way of thrashing an issue, here. There is no Bord tal-Vigilanza just a sorely tried Moderator who would have scrapped my post if it were untoward.
Phaedra,
Can’t you see that such stock as Gerald can only follow what the big brother says? Being able to discuss within their own party is a luxury for them, let alone criticizing the big bosses. I think people like Gerald find such a blog a big relief for expressing oneself, even if diverging opinions are by them considered ‘attacks’, rather than nurturing food for thought towards healthy arguments.
Gerald Fenech: You say government financed the PN campaign by starting up the Smart City project, the Blue Skies scheme, etc. What, precisely, would you have preferred government to do? Not start up those projects so that the opposition could not claim that government has an unfair advantage? Ajma jahasra.
@Gerald It really is quite pathetic to compare the KMB employment scandal of 8000 people, with the normal recruitment required of nurses, police etc etc. Everyone knows that the vast majority of the 8000 employed by KMB were unskilled messengers , and MLP sympathisers .One Labour Party Club had even organised a lottery with the first prize being a Govt job !!!
Oh yes and why not fire them , our socialist Gerald proclaims !! These are human beings with families, you dont just go about fire 8000 breadwinners, however wrongly employed by that maverick -shameless-bical-comptroller KMB. Surely its not their fault that they got a job with the Govt. These people were grateful they did get a job in that unemployment crisis , and voila socialist Gerald says why not fire them! The solution is to attract foreign investment for real productive work and NOT employment with Govt entities or Pijunieri or Dirghajn il Maltin or Izra u Rabbi or Bahhar u Sewwi. Perhaps Gerald is not old enough to remember these “emergency corps” to cushion the spiralling unemployment of the seventies and eighties.
The PN government will soon have 855 million euros to spend on improving the country, making things better for all of us, with hopes people will like their work enough to re-elect them. Had Labour been elected, that party would have had those 855 million to spend. What exactly is wrong with this?
There is quite a fundamental difference between political parties on how they approach elections when in government. Whilst obviously, every party does its best to win, MLP have always had the tendency to win at all costs (thus what someone mentioned above with KMB). PN try to maintain a ‘business-as-usual’ momentum, although this is unfortunately a lost battle with our polarisation.