Prosy points (1)

Alfred Sant said in parliament that an influential network of people who control the Nationalist Party is now trying to hijack the Labour Party. Somebody posted a comment beneath an on-line report of his speech: “The Labour Party has been hijacked for a long time, Mr Sant.”

Frans Sammut, the author and former adviser to Prime Minister Sant at Castille, posted this comment beneath an on-line story about MisterMartinSchulz’s endorsement of DoctorJosephMuscat: “I was and still am in favour of partnership with the EU rather than full membership. I stated this in public, wrote a book about it and am still very much of the same opinion. Fat lot of good has EU membership done us! But now that we are irrevocably in, I would rather have a party leader who knows how the EU works than somebody who has no inkling, except for the usual presumption some people parade around, assuming nobody can see through their façade. Besides, I would prefer having a leader heading for elections at 39 than somebody over 65. Naturally, the people on the other side of the fence would prefer a 65-year-old opponent whom they can patronisingly pat on the back as ‘good ol’ nannu’ than a fresh young Turk raring to go. Like Mr Schulz I wish Dr Muscat well. There are other contestants whom I consider highly qualified for leadership, and expect them to graciously fall behind Dr Muscat’s leadership after June 5. They are all sorely needed to save this corruption-ridden place we call the Republic of Malta.”

Another comment posted beneath the same story: “Dear Dr Muscat, please do not, for the sake of the MLP, keep ending your interviews with ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating.’ If there is one phrase that will link you indelibly with Dr Sant it is that. Tell your campaign manager to come up with an original if you want true credibility as your own man.”

Beneath the same story, there were these fawning comments: “Dr Muscat’s record in the EU parliament confirms that he is the New Star of Maltese Politics.” And: “The most important thing about Joe is that he knows how to smile. He must be really worrying most of all the PN strategists. They are the ones who are doing their best to push other candidates in this race with the hope that later they will have enough fire power to shoot at.” Well, actually the PN strategists are already at work, researching all those nice articles that the New Star of Maltese Politics wrote about how terrible EU membership will be for Malta. They’re really hoping that Joseph Muscat will be elected, because George Abela will mean a straight contest.

Labour MP Anthony Agius Decelis paid tribute to Sant in parliament, saying that he deserves credit for ridding Maltese politics – Maltese politics, note, not the Labour Party – of violence and bullying. Well, if that’s the only thing they can praise him for in 16 long, grinding years…

“Whenever I asked to discuss the surveys, and I did this many times, the leader would say ‘We don’t need to discuss the surveys unless we’re doing badly.’ The implication was that we were doing well, wasn’t it? And so I never got to see the surveys” – Labour’s deputy leader, Michael Falzon. Somebody should tell Sant that surveys are always discussed, whether the party is faring well or badly.

The original Labour Party electoral campaign plan included a proposal for Alfred Sant to hold on-line chat sessions with young people. Oh God, my sides! This is the man who doesn’t own a mobile phone because he doesn’t like the idea of people being able to reach you whenever they want to. This is the man who doesn’t like or understand young people. On-line chat sessions!

“The rigidity and lack of clear and coordinated purpose brought about the sort of mixed messages the party’s leaders were sending, with a brand that portrayed a modern and dynamic party while speeches included gaffes such as Dr Sant’s ‘Gooonzi’ speech, Charles Mangion’s mention of different DNA and Michael Falzon’s chants of ‘lions of change’…..In fact, the weeks before the March 8 election reinforced the perception that if the party could not run a campaign it could hardly be fit to run the country, the report notes.” – The Times, 24 May – Revealed: report on Labour defeat

The ‘why we lost’ report points out that the Labour Party’s election campaign strategy group was made up of the actual people on the campaign trail – oh God, my sides again! – and included the deputy leaders, who were also fighting their own personal election campaigns as MPs. This meant that Labour’s strategy group, the report remarks po-facedly, found it difficult to evaluate what the Nationalist Party was doing and react in time.

The report also says that there seems to have been no attempt to analyse the electorate, not even the 32,000 or so new voters, and that “prominent members of the party who form part of the leadership” were not even familiar with the figures. Yes, we saw that Jason make a hash of it on Xarabank.