Hawn ahna: il-prim ministru ta’ Malta
Published:
May 7, 2008 at 7:08pm
Now why does he put me in mind of the junior account executive at an advertising agency, pitching an idea at a board meeting while everyone else humours him? Or one of those insufferable altar-boys delivering a well-rehearsed priedka tat-tifel?
38 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
i think this one is not ‘qed jara kbir’ but he is totally not seeing anything….same old story …same old song…he is saying that he’s sure the PN government will not do the whole 5 yrs……do you remember in 1998 when the PN won the government (THANK GOD)? they were saying that the government would not lead the country for five years….again in 2003…again now…it seems everytime their supporters are down (very down) they try to boost them by saying these stupidities…what is sure and what is written in history is that the only government that did not complete its five year term was the MLP (MOP) government that lasted only from 1996 to 1998 (THANK GOD)….this shows this Joseph Muscat is offering nothing new…but just the same old stuff… but wearing a new mask…even after loosing another consecutive election..THERE IS NOTHING NEW FROM LABOUR…
M.Azzopardi, you should go and check the history books. There were three governemnts between 1951 and 1955, the first two led by the PN. Admittedly they were coalition governments, and one of them was actually a minority government.
U ejja Daph, ma ndunajtx illi din l-audition for the Maltese version of The Apprentice?
U ha nghidlek Meerkat, mhux billi toqghod tmaqdru, li kieku kellu japplika ghall-Apprentice, kieku sweet Sir Alan lilu jaghzel. Anki Brain Henceforth jafha din; ghallhekk beda jkellmu dwar il-holm u r-realta.
U kif qalilna Doktor Gowves, “wasal iz-zmien li noholmu mill-gdid ghal din il-vizjoni.”
mcomb in fact i was referring to governments who were led by a single party not by coalitions..
Maaah! Looking straight at the camera with that smarmy look, totally ignoring Reno Bugeja who was sitting to his left … Well, that seems to be one lesson he’s learnt from Sant!
@ europarl
The Brain doesn’t distinguish one from the other
Right about turn! Now he wants us to be the best country in the EU?? after trying his hardest to keep us out of it?? The nerve of this guy….And the “I have a Dream” spiel is so hackneyed…. The French had Charles De Gaulle and we have Joseph “The Gall”.
@Amanda … you can’t blame him for sticking to his media training, after all. He’s a good pupil. His role model, Sant, was exactly the same – slavish adherence to what he imagines is the professional, technocratic, Havahrd Business School way of doing things. If the media guru tells you to look at the camera “sincerely”, that is what you must do.
@Becky d’Ugo – “after trying his hardest to keep us out of it??” ?!
@ Europarl – Is there something about that statement you did not understand? He did try to sway the public to abstain from voting pro-EU or to nullify their ballot sheet in the referendum didn’t he? He even wrote in L-Orizzont to that very effect… Ah but now no doubt you’re going to tell me that he wasn’t anti-EU but pro-partnership… yeah like that was ever going to happen… but he told us himself he’s a bit of a dreamer. It all smacks a little too much of opportunism I dare say. And if the cap fits…
Well I am sure that the die hards think exactly the opposite of you guys and gals. I’m actually quite positive that after seeing that masterpiece of a performance on smash (with the great and futuristic studio background playing its part) many were impressed with his hypnotizing kind of look, actually in some parts I think I can hear something like – look into my eyes, nothing but my eyes… -can anyone hear that or is it just my imagination?
The saddest thing is that he is in his thirties and yet speaks about the last 40 years of Malta’s development as being the result of Labour’s policies.
I do not see any breath of fresh air in Joseph Muscat’s candidacy… in fact it is a complete throw-back to Alfred Sant in 1992…
Dear god, here we go again…. Haven’t we been through all this, Europarl? Must I explain it again, for your benefit? Joseph Muscat was against EU membership in May 2004, therefore he campaigned for a No victory in the 2003 referendum, and he campaigned for an MLP victory in the 2003 elections. An MLP victory would have kept us out of the EU. QEbloodyD.
Noholmu Noholmu u Noholmu. Il-Mulei taghna Martin Luther King iehor tarax. Noholmu ukoll li l-MLP kien il-glorja ta’ Malta bejn l-1971 u 1987. Noholmu li il-poplu Malti ghandu amnesija totali ta’ dan il-perijodu fl-istorja tieghu. Jien nipprova nikkonvinci ruhi li dawn is-sittax il-sena kienu holma izda minhabba li ghexthom qajla jirnexxili. Ta’ spiss nohlom li qed nerghu nghaddu minnhom u nqum imwerwer. Dik Holma !
With Joseph at the helm after the 5th June, the PN can rest easy. They won’t need to work hard to win another election, Joseph will do most of the convincing for them!
Jien ta’ spiss nohlom li jien Joseph Muscat, b’paga u perks ta’ MEP, ufficju stupend, all-expenses-paid, fi Brussels “genna ta’ l-art”, u bil-camera tiffoka fuqi. Iva nohlom. Kull m’ghandi bzonn hija l-fiducja taghkom. ‘Tuni l-fiducja, u ivvutaw H.P. Baxxter – Il-Malta Party Party. Sabiex lil Malta indawruha f’Gianpula tal-Art.
@ H.P. the Baxxter
The words I quoted are very specific. Don’t whine at me if such nuances fly past you.
Is it me, but why is it that Joseph Muscat together with Jason Micallef exactly mimic Alfred Sant in their body language…note for example the sudden jerk of hands which is the most obvious in the clip shown above…it is impressive; and no, I am not suffering from paranoia!
Xi nuances, europarl, ibni? Ir-referendum huwa dak li jissejjah Two-State Logic: Iva jew Le. M’hemmx “Le izda”, jew “Iva with strings attached”, jew “ghalissa le, but I’ll have one later”. Inkella forsi lilek tawk karta tal-vot, b’xi, er, “misprints”. Nudge nudge wink wink.
Min jaqta jiehu rigal…. minghand Joseph Muscat, ermmm sorry Dr J. Muscat
Il-gvern rebah l-elezzjoni fl-2008!
Irid isir prim ta’ 39!
Ghad ghandu 34
L-elezzjoni se ssir qabel 5 snin. Jista jkun?
Hawn xi hadd kapaci jifhem din ir-riddle? Min jaqta jibghat ir-risposta lil Dr/Profs Joseph Muscat Dar tal-Hgieg, hamrun. Rigal sabih min ghandu twegiba.
He’s watching (and taking tips from) a lot of Gonzi, if you ask me.
ehh, Baxxter, Baxxter, kemm iddum biex tifhem… let’s just say it was a half-hearted attempt, just to play along with Labour’s policy. He definitely did not “try his hardest to keep us out” (which is the nuance you’re missing).
Did he therefore mean Yes when he was saying No?
No, he meant nothing but what was expected of him at the time. He’s of the expedient type. Excellent politician.
[Moderator – Excellent sycophant, rather.]
Many here are saying Joseph Muscat is a good pupil of Alfred Sant. The problem is he’s worse than Sant. Warts and all, Sant had the intellectual gravitas Muscat so obviously lacks. And he has conveniently forgotten his ‘Made in Brussels’ insidious campaign against EU membership. Of course, when a super-cushy job in the most expensive talking-shop of the world comes up, Muscat is no idiot and has no qualms about a Sant-like U-turn!
@europarl
So what you are saying is that he didn’t have the backbone or strong enough principles to just tell the labour almighty that they were wrong……..nice chap to have for a leader.
Meaning of politician: A seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.
Modern Language Association (MLA):
“politician.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 08 May. 2008. .
@ Moderator
Just for fun. Definition of ‘sycophantic’
Sycophantic’ is a great word. The meaning of ‘sycophant’ is given as ‘servile flatterer’ (a toady), and another word for ‘sycophantic’ is ‘obsequious’. In Greek ‘sukophantes’ is an informer, but ‘sukon’ is a fig, and ‘phaino’ means to show. So what have figs got to do with it? Well, Plutarch tells the story about informing against the illegal exportation of figs from ancient Athens to curry favour with the authorities. But the reason for the name is uncertain and association with the illegal exportation of figs cannot be substantiated.
Allura se naraw lil Poodle liebes a fig leaf in a strategic place hahahahahahahaha
H P Baxxter – Joseph Muscat wasn’t the only one who was so openly against EU membership only to jump on the gravy train as soon as the opportunity arose.
It ends with “il-going away”
@europarl yow!
Expedient, opportunistic type , surely is.
Joseph Muscat is using the same techniques as his mentor Alfred Sant.
Saying too many words but their meaning is zilch, being intentionally vague. Announcing his organisational goals by using words with unclear meanings but positive connotations such as his 15 years plan. Yes right!!! Such an ambiguous statement will automatically prevents anybody from questioning it.
No bonehead will question a 15 years plan, when asked by ta’lis-Smash TV, the answer was bollocks “it’s a dream, one need to dream”. Joseph, when a 15 years plan dream is a daydream and you are a candidate for a political party leader with a possibility of being elected as my Prime Minister, it’s not a dream but a delusional nightmare.
An excellent politician my foot!!!
Alfred Mifsud s theory is that JM will be elected as leader through reverse psychology, his reasoning is that because PN supporters favour George Abela id-delegati will not elect GA. This line of reasoning make sense but I don’t give it much weight.
However JM will eventually be elected as the leader because he is proclaimed on the media as the Potential Party Leader while GA is the adversary that is not favoured by the “magna tal-partit”. The more JM is made known he will be more likely to succeed . I don’t believe in JM s capabilities of becoming the leader, but the unfortunate thing is that people tend to follow the crowd without examining the merit of that particular candidate. People in this case tal-lejber are likely to vote to such candidate hoping that they (the voters) will be on the “winner side” in the end. The bandwagon effect is a psychological behaviour that tends to favour candidates such as JM. The bandwagon effect can also shift voters due to polls results. People tend to follow the crowd without examining the qualities of the candidates, they just want to be part of the “majority opinion”.
@ Reason – It is not a matter of principles, and “backbone” is not involved here. That’s a complicated way of analysing his actions. He is an expedient politician who believes principles are worth less than personal success. I think that describes his aims well enough.
@ Leonard – I understand that when the party media portray him as the frontrunner, the flock follows (that’s how it works in the US, where the mainstream media identify at an early stage those “contenders with a chance”, as opposed to those “on the fringes” – it’s a self-fulfilling prophesy).
In this case, had the leadership contest been held, say, one or two weeks after the election, JM would have won. But he has lost much of the initial momentum. Several groups have been working against him and many delegates are re-evaluating the options. Meanwhile, support for GA and MLCP has increased substantially.
(Oddly enough, there are elements within the PN who are also backing JM – for various reasons, one of which is that ‘with JM we can always strike a deal’. I say “also”, because most are backing GA in the DCG vein. And let’s face it, GA is part of the establishment and that is why they feel comfortable with him around. MLCP, on the other hand, still retains the anti-establishment mark of old Labour).
Let’s not forget that the “electorate” here comprises of the 924 delegates. So the usual in-house games are at play, including attempts to weed out the “wrong” delegates. Yet the battles are split 5-way, so you get many stalemates.
Today the delegates will vote on GA’s motion for a wider party electorate (that is, which body should elect the leadership? The tesserati or the delegati?). Although it’s not expected to pass, since delegates would generally prefer to retain the power of electing the leader, if 200+ vote for the motion it would be seen as a strong show of support for GA as leader.
If GA is elected leader in June, we would have seen the last of the conniving in-house games. In GA’s party, factions would be seen and heard, and criticism would be seen as a healthy way to move forward, not as a sign of disloyalty to the party. Diversity is healthy in party politics.
@europarl
well said, that wasn’t my impression, hope you are right.
Any person with a gram of grey matter will notice that GA is the best choice.
I also like Evarist, think he s good for the post.
I m eating humble pies!!
One pie would be enough, Len :)
Varist is neither here, nor there.
@ europarl & len
Try this!
In far far away land the king could bring no fortune to his people and decided to abdicate. Having no children to succeed him the king, disregarding all pleas of his subjects to stay on, indicated a well liked doctor to be his successor.
The subjects instantly accepted the king’s suggestion and praised his wisdom in pointing a successor to avoid an acrimonious contest among the subjects to choose a new king. The doctor was instantly hailed as the new king. But much to their surprise the doctor did not accept the throne and forced the subjects to a very bellicose contest which produced a new king chosen among claims of unfair and dirty contest where even vile anonymous letters were used to disadvantage the losing contestant.
Much to the further surprise of the subjects the doctor who refused the throne offered himself to become the Prince to whom the new King will always be morally grateful for letting him accede to the throne which was all the Prince’s for the taking.
After a brief false dawn the reign of the new King soon feel into the same misfortune as that of his predecessor. Indeed it was even worse as not only the new King with the Prince by his side could not bring good fortune to his subjects but the lack of inspirational kind of leadership brought confusion to the kingdom, factions opposing each other openly, some departing to nearby lands and genuine critics urging the need for reform being considered as traitors and banished from the kingdom.
The King realising that he was not achieving the success expected of him decided to consult his subjects. They told him clearly where they thought he was erring and what changes were necessary to try to revive the fortunes of the kingdom. But when the King presented to the Prince his project of reform to adhere to the wishes of his subjects the Prince objected and told the King that subjects were meant to follow and to not give advice to their leaders. With the moral authority he held over the King who owed him the throne, the Prince aborted the project and forced the King to ignore the wishes of his subjects and persist with the same policies which had brought so much confusion.
The King and the Prince however both agreed that if these policies do not deliver the good fortune within a short time they would both abdicate and allow the subjects to elect a new king. Things did in fact move from bad to worse and the King and the Prince announced their abdication.
It was not long however before the King reconsidered his decision to abdicate as he assumed that without the Prince by his side he would be free to lead his own way and to bring good fortune to the kingdom. The King also gave the subjects the opportunity to nominate two new princes to ensure that the old Prince would not come back to claim his place in the royal palace.
But the Prince would not accept that he would be sacrificed and considered the chief culprit for the misfortunes. Though he could no longer be prince he was still the kingmaker and reminded the King about it in no uncertain way. The new policies introduced by the King with the help of the two new princes depended on their execution on the kingmaker who could not succeed to execute policies which were diametrically opposed to what he professed when he was the Prince. So confusion continued, with the King ignoring the new princes and continuing to be influenced by the Prince kingmaker until the misfortunes grew and grew to a stage where the King decided to abdicate in an irrevocable manner.
The subjects were hopeful that finally they could elect a king who would be loyal to their wishes and who would lead them to good fortune. They wrongly assumed that now that the King was gone the Prince would also follow to allow ample space for the selection of the new king without pressures from those who had led the kingdom into so much misfortune.
It was not to be. Many of the subjects that had been alienated returned to the kingdom and one of them also expressed his wish to be considered for being chosen as the new king. The King and the Prince were taken by fear that if someone they had alienated were to become the new king and would achieve the success they could not bring to the kingdom, than their legacy would be further devalued. Their hurt pride could not let that happen even if by negating their subjects a free choice to choose their new king they risked bringing more misery to the kingdom.
The Prince, who forgetting how scandalised he formerly was that the King did not keep his pledge to leave when he did, started actively promoting the anointment of a new king in the form of a lad who was too young and inexperienced to be king . And he forced the King who had promised not to interfere in the selection of his successor, to forget his promise and start bad mouthing the returned alien who wanted to be the new king,
The young lad they chose was a sure winner for the reputations of the King and the Prince. So much so that the Prince officially became the godfather of the young aspirant for the crown of the kingdom. If he were to bring good fortune to the kingdom they would share in the glory for having chosen him. If he fails to bring good fortune to the kingdom their failure would be matched by that of their successor and people would be more forgiving towards their place in the history of the kingdom.
So the Prince turned into godfather was loudly proclaiming the merits of the young lad to become the new king while the King was saying that the Prince was right. They also started publishing old documents trying to discredit the contestant they had alienated in his bid to become the new king. They were scheming for the new king to remain grateful to them for his throne. The Prince who refused to be king could not let go being kingmaker. The King who brought so much misfortune continued to be under the influence of the Prince turned godfather to impose a new king on the subjects who could be trusted not to expose the wrongdoing of the King and the Prince who had brought such misfortune.
@ Mcomb, 2nd post above.
The 1996-1998 government is the only post independence one not to complete its term of office.
Re the 50`s, your history book probably speaks of another government, not led by PN, not a coalition (just two parties in a parliament of 40, 23 against 17 members)which however did not complete its term of office.
Mcomb, you should quickly go and check your history book.
The 1951 and 1953 governments were coalitions led by the PN in coalition with the Malta Workers Party led by Paul Boffa.
l ewwel darba li qed nikteb xi haga Dan joseph diga qed johloq il biza gon nazzjonalisti bl istil arroganti tieghu
U issa mhux politika din imma Gorg Vella ghandu l-birthday.
New bottle same old vinegar.
@ Rene
Jien ukoll l-ewwel darba li qed nikteb xi haga, li ghandu stil arroganti kwazi naqbel, imma li johloq il-biza?!!
I’m quite amused.