Comments on: Ev gets tough

By: Lorna

Lorna — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:55:36 +0000

@ DCG: I wonder if you listened or watched Evarist Bartolo last Monday (12th May, 2008) on Smash (I think it was Smash) at about 8:45 p.m. I hope you had better things to do with your time but I have to tell you, the bitterness which Marija l-Maws showed in your regard is incredible, apart from the fact that he tagged you as somebody “li hlief tinsulenta u tghajjar ma tafx”.

Indeed, your writings (online and on paper) are hardly music for his ears but I really relished in the thought that he actually thinks you’re insulting because that goes on to prove how undemocratic and how incapable he is of stomaching valid criticism, any criticism really – only yours is very valid.

The only thing that is insulting is that he said that if anybody should offer an apology that’s the PN and then the MLP should follow suit for the mistakes committed by same MLP (referring to 80’s and 70’s) but PN should start apologising. The only thing that’s more insulting than his words is his gracing our TV screens. More than insulting, it’s revolting!

One thing is sure, in five years’ time, if GA is not elected on the 5th June, we’ll have another run for the medicine cabinet – Valium anyone??

By: freethinker

freethinker — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:14:47 +0000

I agree that the limitation on the period of time during which a Maltese national is required to spend in Malta to be eligible to vote should be removed in the case of those Maltese nationals who are still considered domiciled in Malta. This would exclude those who have Maltese nationality or dual-nationality but are domiciled elsewhere, such as migrants. In principle, I would agree that even the latter should vote but one can argue that they no longer have a “stake in the country”.

Furthermore, I also hold that arrangements should be made, through amendments in electoral laws, to enable Maltese who live abroad but are still domiciled in Malta (e.g. those working overseas) to vote in Maltese embassies or consulates where these exist. This system is used by many countries and the logistical challenges involved can be solved.

In a democracy, rights of suffrage should be widened as much as possible and not restricted. The following quotation from Tocqueville, illustrates the principle beautifully:

Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior. The further the limit of voting rights is extended, the stronger is the need felt to spread them still wider, for after each new concession the forces of democracy are strengthened, and its demands increase with the augmented power. The ambition of those left below the qualifying limit increases in proportion to the number of those above it. Finally the exception becomes the rule; concessions follow one another without interruption, and there is no halting place until universal suffrage has been attained.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859), Democracy in America (1835)

By: marika mifsud

marika mifsud — Sat, 10 May 2008 14:52:43 +0000

In 1981 MLP said there was no gerrymandering – just a `perverse` result which could occur in any election and just happened to have occured then.
They still didn`t share any power with the PN even though the result was perverse.

By: my name is Leonard but my son calls me Joey

my name is Leonard but my son calls me Joey — Sat, 10 May 2008 12:45:02 +0000

@amiro: Now that the proposal to have the Party members involved has been shot down, I suggest that the delegates lock themselves up in the glass palace. No TV cameras or microphones permitted. No speeches but plenty of praying and meditating. If the first round of voting is inconclusive, there will be a puff of black smoke. And so on until a puff of white smoke will signal to the outside world that a leader has been chosen. I know it doesn’t sound original but I’m morally convinced it will work.

By: Tony Pace

Tony Pace — Sat, 10 May 2008 00:08:37 +0000

Illegally voted ?
So why not go to court ?.
U halluna…..you are nothing but a pathetic politician

By: amrio

amrio — Fri, 09 May 2008 19:19:42 +0000

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080509/local/mlp-egm-most-speakers-against-amendment-motion

Seems that the motion will be defeated after all – fellow bloggers, what do you think?

By: Mario P

Mario P — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:01:06 +0000

Really DGG, you’re sounding like Lord Haw Haw with every passing day, reaping nothing but sarcasm and venom on your foes ( don’t like the word ‘foes’ but I suppose that is how you see these fellow Maltese). I suppose you have to do this to pander to the lowest common denominator among your ‘avid’ fans.

[Moderator – Mario, you have 30 minutes to live until you are fatally poisoned after ‘reaping sarcasm and venom’. DUM DUM DUM.]

By: john

john — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:52:16 +0000

VARIST: Daphne you really hit the nail straight on the head

By: david s

david s — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:32:15 +0000

Re Varists critical view of voters flying in… there may well have been a majority of labour supporters flying in to vote. I know of 2 flights where viva l lejber chants on the plane ( but then again empty vessels make most sound)
So we have Varist concluding that it was the plane loads of voters who gave PN the majority. Varist just shut up, you are in denial about MLP losing the election, just as much as you are in denial about losing the Deputy Leader election 5 years ago!
Lejber is indeed a party of misfits should they elect him Leader after dumping him as deputy leader.

By: david s

david s — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:11:48 +0000

Thanks Fausto for referring to Prodi’s win in the 2006 Italian elections. His coalition of parties obtained 24,755 votes more than Berlusconi’s Polo della Liberta, out of 38 MILLION votes cast . That would translate to a majority of 180 votes in Malta ( a majority of 0.05% not 0.5% !) Prodi did not share any power with Berlusconi.
aaah you might argue Prodi’s govt only lasted 20 months not 5 years. Yep thats true because his coalition fell apart.
So anything short of Pulicino Orlando crossing over to his ex wife’s party, the PN need not do any power sharing as JM expects. But then you never know MLP accepts all sorts of leftovers.
The PN governed for a full term in 1987 with no pairing agreement and a one seat majority. So Varist just keep hoping… well with him leader there could be some MLP parliamentarians voting with PN !