Right, which one of us is nuts?
Listening to Marie Louise Coleiro Preca on Dissett last Tuesday, I had one of those ‘Alice Through the Looking-Glass’ moments where I begin to wonder whether the weirdness is really normality and I’m either nuts or have passed through the looking-glass into a parallel world.
There she was, right on message, banging on about the way the Labour Party decided it would respect the verdict of the people in the 2003 general election. And I suddenly realised how, because the Labour Party has repeated this same mantra ad nauseam over the last five years as though it is somehow a legitimate statement, nobody has come forward to state the obvious.
The Opposition party – or anybody else, for that matter – should not have to take a conscious decision to respect the will of the people in a general election. It should be a given.
Ah, but Marie Louise went one step beyond that. With a serious expression and firm conviction, she said on television: “The Labour Party took a decision at its general conference (after the referendum in 2003) that it would respect the will of the people in the general election.”
What? Let me say that a little louder. WHAT? WHAT? How on earth do we sit there and listen while these appalling things are said so matter-of-factly? Marie Louise Coleiro Preca boasted – yes, she actually boasted – that the Labour Party’s general conference decided to respect the will of the people in a general election – but not, it was left unsaid but inferred, in a referendum. I honestly can’t understand how these people get away with saying this kind of thing, and more to the point, how they don’t realise what it is they are implying.
16 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
MLCP only claim for leadership is her skill to obtain 5500 odd votes from her Qormi district. By that measure Silvio Parnis should be in the running too.
Doesn’t she realise that the skills for getting partisan votes from a village who judge politicians by the number of times they kiss their babies are very different from the skills needed to be an effective party leader and prime minister. In her TV performance she did not even give the slightest indication that she has anything that even gets near to being considered as a vision for Labour.
Some people just dont have it!
And what choice did they have if not to respect the will of the people in the elections?
What else could they have done? A coup d’etat perhaps?
@ P Portelli
re MLCP
I have said this once before, and others have echoed it: I will not trust anyone who has been active in the MLP hierarchy in those dark years and have no regrets.
I am sick to my eye-teeth of her posturing as a latter-day Mother Teresa. Having a social conscience implies that one advocates for the voiceless even in the face of personal hardship. She was in a position to do so back then, she chose not to. MLCP has no regrets about it so I regret to inform her that whatever she accomplishes now, does not amount to a bag of beans…except for her, of course = Votes.
I had a niggling bit of respect her. Then i realised that this was the Secretary General when all that rubbish was happening in the 80’s…..Im nott surprised at wha she said. The MLP feels it should gvern by some divine Dritt, either because its its turn, or some other reason, but never because the electorate wants it. Thats why it HAS TO DECIDE to accept the verdict of the people. God, who will rid us of this troublesome party????????
All along, that is from 2003, the claim from Alfred Sant was that, according to his interpretation of the Constitution regarding Referenda, was that a Referendum was only consultative, but not binding; therefore, according to Sant, only the results of a General Election would be “binding.” We have not had to test this theory of Sant’s in the courts. But his logic is to deny the democratic force of a Referendum that passes [and Sant would also have imposed the peculiar majority quota based upon the number of eligibel voters, not the actual number of votes cast]. It seems that this peculiar thinking, bowing or kotowing to the tune of the resigned Opposition Leader, is still playing in the fictionalized idealized world of the MLP. As far as I know, in all world democracies where there are referenda, a specific issue [such as EU membership, divorce, capital punishment, etc.] is voted up or down by the electorate. And the same issue can be voted upon several times until it passes, or several times until it never passes, until one tries again. The logic of a general election is such that they are decided upon a plurality of issues, as a package, even if one may disagree with part of the package of the political party one is voting for, unless individual candidates are more specifically representative of the voter’s choice. The logic that seems to be espoused by Sant, especially in a campaign that aims not be be run on issues or a clear platform [as occured in March 2008, seems to be “elect me first, so that I make all of the decisions for you.” So, the issue regarding MLCP seems to be, how does she regard the democratic status of Referenda, or anyone else in MLP-land? Is the Malta Constitution really unclear or ambiguous on this regard, or are the MLP at odds with the democratic assumptions of Maltese society?
A blast from the past! Here is MLCP in all her 80s glory.
http://photos1.hi5.com/0027/541/744/ZNomQv541744-02.jpg
@ Francis V
I must admit I prefer the wholesome look she dons nowadays.
@ combinaguai ):-)
re MLCP
I am sure you meant ‘wholesale’ – cos she sells the MLP very cheaply…
Btw, your taste in women leaves much to be desired
(Ha npattihielek talli qbadt mieghi. Hekk.)
Notice the “Gensna perm”. Now that’s a true Laburista.
Of course they said that and it had to be decided at the MLP conference. It’s a novel thought to them. That’s why they’re impressed.
Dear Mr “philosopher” Clemmer
You said this:
“The logic that seems to be espoused by Sant, especially in a campaign that aims not be be run on issues or a clear platform [as occured in March 2008, seems to be “elect me first, so that I make all of the decisions for you.”
How can you twist the truth to this extent? A few days after being elected by 1,580 votes (0.5%), the PN government put Malta in Partnership for Peace. This was NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the electoral programme!!! NOT EVEN DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT. How can you possibly accuse Dr Sant without point a finger at the PN??? What subject you said you teach? Spinning and weaving?
Do the elections in Zimbabwe remind anyone of our General elections in the 1980`s?
@Albert Farrugia
PfP is a non-issue; that is, it is a pseudo-issue for those who are trying to make it one. Dr. Sant is the one who unilaterally pulled Malta out with his faulty logic [the matter does not violate “neutrality” and it expressly is for those who do not join NATO].
It seems that restoration of Malta’s status in PfP is well-founded upon the original discussions when such membership was achieved years ago. The move by the PN seems to be to remove the anomaly that co-existed when Sant unilaterally also “froze” our EU application for membership. Now, with PfP restroed, Malta’s full EU participation, especially in matters of national security, have been reinstated. The PfP chink was a remaining obsticle from Sant’s anti-Malta-in-the-EU legacy. It also seems to be unfortunate that the expediency of its recent timing [European NATO meetings wait for no one except those who wish to be left out in the cold]provides the appearance of a unilateral action. People forget, the matter had been already extensively discussed, and rational consensus had already been achieved in the original rational discussions[the emotional and political arguments are another matter; there will always be disagreements, even if there is consensus].
As for Sant, it seems that he never was an individual to be trusted with the helm of government, and his many unilateral and inflexible actions were part of his problem. It seems that this is no personal opinion or philosophy of mine–but rather, it is a firm poltical consensus endorsed by the voting public.
I don’t teach “spinning and weaving.” However, as a public observer, I do offer an analytical opinion. As a social psychlogist I am very much aware of actual “spinning and weaving.” It is true, among other things, that I have taught Political Psychology, and my specialization is in the areas of Language Use and Performance and Mass Communications. However, as an empiricist, I always hold to the reference of opinions by the facts; and well-formed opinions are justified by their facts. I am always open to alternative and objective views, provided that they are justified with facts, if anyone holds a different perspective from mine.
While I maintain a personal opinion [as does everyone], my standard is “objective” truth, and it always has been. [I do not maintain that truth is arbitrarily a “social construction,” but our social reality and conceptions of “truth” are culturally biased and multi-faceted.] On the other hand, if we may clash on personal values and beliefs, as a social psychologist, I also understand how impervious some political beliefs may be to rational analysis. At heart, I am an empiricist: I’ll show you my truth, and I let you show me your’s, provided it also is well-founded. I am always subject to a change of view based upon the facts. Are you?
Ah the 70’s….and 80’s. Those were the days my friend, i though they’ll never end. When MLCP was secgen, she had to deal with the skandlu tal-Macina, remember? Apparently MLP officials used to take photos of young Brigata girls in various stages of undress. I believe MLCP was somehow involved at that time in the MLP.
@ Albert Farrugia
It is amazing how easily people forget nagging details. I remember following quite avidly the electoral campaign of both parties in 1996 (I never considered AD as a party. The closest definition I can give it is ‘sect’, but that is beside my point here).
Anyway, after some intelligent (but, alas, VERY rash) newspaper designer at Stamperija Indipendenza decided to print a countdown (“x jum ghar-rebha”) from day 1 of the campaign, it kind of made me take a further interest in elections, you know….
After the shock of the results (we were all prepared to go carcading, blue face-paint, flags and all) I kind of HAD to keep an eye on the newspapers to see what this new unexpected government would be up to. And I remember as well that Dr Sant dragged Malta out of PfP within days of becoming the PM (not to mention the number of para-statal organisations which he decided to grab under his claws, but anyway).
Now I am no BRAIN, but I have no recollection Dr Sant ever said anything about leaving PfP. Since the Maltese never clearly expressed they wanted to quit PfP, then Dr Gonzi simply put things back to normal – a step he should have taken in 2003! How do you answer that Mr Farrugia?
Has anybody listened to Marie Louise Coleiro Preca yesterday on Bondi Plus? It was, to say the least, shameful! Apart from the fact, that she’s incapable of expressing a thought from beginning to end, she has tried to play down the horrible 80’s and 70’s and she repeated what she said on Dissett that the violent aspects of those years were “mere factions” (my words but her words had the same gist) which the MLP was disassociated from. She even said that disciplinary action was taken against some violent elements. Now that’s a laugh! She did not even try to apologise for the hurt, pain, anguish and tragedy (in some cases) inflicted to so many Maltese families.
Ms. Coleiro Preca was preceded by Mr. (or Dr.?) Evarist Bartolo. I couldn’t believe how irresponsibly he acted in the EU issue when he blatantly admitted that he felt that the EU could be “good thing” (sic) for Malta and yet, to toe the party line, he had to join in the “no” campaign.
If that’s not irresponsibility, I don’t know what is. He risked our country’s future just for the sake of the Party line.
Give me Dr. George Abela any day! He’s definitely worthy of ruling the opposition and we all know that in five years time, we won’t be worried sick if there’s a risk, even the slightest, of MLP being elected.At least, we know we’d have a level-headed PM who put his money where his mouth is and resigned when he saw that his party’s ideals and his own no longer tallied.