I feel that the PN have managed to choose the three MLP leaders they wanted. Imagine a combination of GA, CC and GG at the helm of the MLP. That would be tough for the PN. The PN`s tactics are very easy, they slate the people they want at the MLP helm and praise those they are afraid of. The delegates always fall in such a trap, it seems. It has been going on for some time now, and the MLP has not realized this, it seems.

Perhaps it is only my opinion.

A very accurate assessment. I particularly agree with your last sentence – ‘So far we still have the PN as the only fallback position.’

Without a serious opposition we’ll just have to put up with – for example – a government that allows a mega-development right next to Malta’s most congested road.

Lord help us!

I don’t know how many party members and followers will abandon Joseph and Company’s uphill climb with their rock for general election victory. But, the two deputies, in my view, have always been on the “fringe,” beyond my basic rational litmus test for tolerance or credibility. In contrast to his deputies, Joseph seems more intellectually astute, although his credibility is blunted if one focuses on his previous crusades in favour of Alfred Sant’s imaginative political policies.

Like Alfred Sant, at the moment Joseph is ready to sieze upon individual issues that score “plus” points among specialized interest groups. Sant in his issues may have advocated “animal rights” or “VAT removal” or “NO to EU.” Joseph speaks to “free parliamentary vote” on the introduction of divorce, greater protections of individual rights (for example, for freedom to marry a person so indicated as “gender compatible” on his/her birth certificate–irrespective of genetic determination; civil partnerships for couples, gay or otherwise; etc.)

We can always find agreement on some issues; but finding agreement on a general programme may prove more difficult for many of us, especially if the party is lead by a trio of preening ideologues. But, if Joseph et al. are seriously listening to people, and if his leadership can lead convincingly to SELL and ACCOMPLISH an agenda tied to real hopes and aspirations, he may attract a large collective on the basis of many single issues.

Promising that those issue may be considered is one thing; but it is an entirely different matter to achieve the necessary legislation by actively supporting it with convincing arguments and political manoveuring. He might even push a sitting government to take up the issues, just as he is trying to take on for himself the central issues now promoted by the Nationalists: Environment, Education, and the Economy.

Two of the clearest thinkers in the PN camp, Simon Busuttil and Georg Sapiano, have clearly pointed to Joseph Muscat’s capabilities as well as the necessary way forward for PN success. Likewise, Peter Serracino Inglott, although with his leftist inclinations he has been a PN supporter, has clearly pointed the territory to be seized by either of the political parties to achieve success.

So far, only the PN have provided the right vision; so far, only they have been capable of taking us to where we needed to go. In theory, either political party could take us there. But in practice, the MLP have so much to achieve before we can rationally yield them our (my) vote.
For me, the trio does not instill much confidence for future success. By not selecting persons to their core who can inspire confidence about their leadership and good judgment, the MLP have now lost a large audience–many of us–who were willing-and-interested to consider the possibility that the MLP could reform itself.

My two questions are: Will the sizeable minority in the MLP, who supported people who have exercised good judgment and courage in leadership, persons like GA, be able to steer the leadership towards a constructive politic, a social construction that a rational majority of Maltese across parties can support? Or, will we be exposed simply to imaginative MLP glitz and PR stunts, with an effort to ram a narrow view down the majority throats?

The possibility of an initial indication for a positive answer to the first question depends upon what Joseph does about Jason Micallef. I think that Alfred Mifsud has also suggested we have to see Joseph’s actions (not words) in the next days and few weeks. The rest will become clearer over time. And five years is quite a lengthy political sample to make refined judgments; but a few months will provide enough of a sample for sufficient judgments. So far, we still have the PN as the only fallback position.