The best that Labour can do
The best that Labour can do is never good enough, but now the party and its ‘leadership’ have sunk from the intolerable to the ridiculous. I have just watched Labour’s great white hope on Super One, stripped naked by the full focus of the television camera, his faults and flaws laid bare to an embarrassing degree. And he wasn’t facing the scrutiny of a Jeremy Paxman, but the timid questions of three tame reporters and a few party die-hards. Still he lost track of his own answers, failed to follow his own train of thought, was lost for words, visibly paused in a blank panic mid-sentence to wonder how he could finish it, laughed at his own weak jokes, smiled at his own cleverness, and smirked at the most inappropriate moments.
When speaking about Karl Chircop, he used the past tense (“kien bniedem…”) and laughed and smiled while discussing the tragedy that has befallen him and his family. He called the boat-people problem a ‘national crisis’, prompting me to wonder out loud how he’d describe having half the island wiped out by an earthquake or a tidal wave. A national catastrophe, perhaps? He described Anglu Farrugia as a pleasure to work with and Toni Abela as ‘flamboyante’, which could be the French feminine for flamboyant, for all I know. He said it’s not fair that he can divorce his wife just because he has lived in Brussels for four years “u ghandi certu lajfstajl” (jaqq! unbelievable) – not that he would want to, of course, because she loves us all – but others can’t do the same. He used expressions like “nisstikkjaw mal-fatti” (we’ll stick to the facts), and pronounced ‘free vote’ with that set-my-teeth-on-edge emphasis on the adjective rather than the noun, turning the two words into one: freevote, like blekbull pub and reyulstones (real stones). Say what you like, if a party leader can’t speak properly, he loses his authority among those who speak better than he does. If you’re going to call for a free vote, for God’s sake pronounce it properly.
But that’s a minor detail compared to the rest: the constant smirking, the self-satisfaction, the very obvious fact that there was little or nothing going on up there, the lack of engagement with his immediate audience in the studio and his wider audience out there in their living-rooms, the eerie sense that he was a schoolboy playing somebody else’s part in a school production, despite the encroaching heaviness of middle age, the goatee and the all-but-bald pate. Why is the Labour Party pathologically attracted to jerks and irremediably unable to see them for what they are?
The television special, produced to mark his first 100 days in power – but power in what role, for Christ’s sake, given that he isn’t even Leader of the Opposition or an MP? – was an absolute flop. And I say that as a professional observer, and not as somebody who doesn’t like him or the Labour Party. Joseph Muscat was, as the current expression has it, pants. He even insisted on telling us, not once but twice, that he changes ‘neppis’ and gives ‘botils’. For crying out loud: my mother-in-law, who is 45 years older than he is, used to think that a man giving a baby its feed or changing its nappy was a marvellous thing deserving of a round of applause. By the time I came along in the 1960s, men who changed nappies and stuck bottles into babies’ mouths were par for the course, and in the 21st century, it’s something you don’t even talk about. You just do it. It’s normal. You don’t get women boasting that they change nappies and give bottles (and if they did, you’d know that there was something very wrong), and in 2008 you don’t get men who do that, either – unless they’re called Joseph Muscat.
But what really, really got me was the management of the show: hopeless. Totally hopeless. The producers might have been operating on the mistaken principle that by surrounding Muscat with ugly people in ugly clothes, he would look like a star by comparison. A squat balding star with five-inch legs, but a star all the same. But that’s not how it works, unless the focus of attention is somebody who is incredibly beautiful – Daniel Craig or George Clooney, for example – which Muscat definitely is not. Surrounding him with unattractive people only served to emphasise his own plain appearance and to make the whole shebang look drab. Nobody likes looking at a bunch of ugly and poorly dressed people in synthetic clothes for 100 minutes, which is how long the show took (to match the 100 days, natch). I had to struggle to cope, my duty to my public foremost in my mind, while my husband turned to the far more entertaining pages of The Economist with a dismissive “How on earth can you watch this rubbish? He’s got such a stupid personality.”
A couple of the young ones were fairly attractive, but who did they place at Muscat’s right hand? An aged harridan with bleached hair and a grim expression just perfect for the role of Madame De Farge. And at his feet? A thuggish type with a button-busting black shirt. The overall effect was not of reflected glory but of reflected drabness, with Muscat performing in the centre like the court jester in his ‘syoot’. He actually made a sarcastic remark about the beautiful young people who ‘decorated’ Lawrence Gonzi at public meetings. Well, he should take a tip out of that particular book. When you’re plain and surround yourself with other plain people, the overall look is….terrible.
And perhaps somebody will explain to me the rationale behind the decision to dress up Muscat in a suit and surround him with people wearing ‘kexwil’ clothes that looked like they were bought in the sale at L-Amerikan. Was it done to set him apart from the rest? In that case, I don’t know why one of the selected people with the planned questions began his spiel with “Joseph, inti persuna bhalna…”. Oh yes. Damn right. You’re forgetting the ‘Brussels lajfstajl’ he told you about, honey – the one that allows him to divorce Lil Din should she make him change another nappy at midnight.
As for that twerpish Robert Francalanza, who hosted the show, somebody should take him aside and let him know that hair gel is out. That it has been out for, oh, at least four years now. He insists on wearing his rapidly-thinning thatch in that cartoon Tintin fashion loaded with at least a tub of gel and he looks horrendous. He would look pretty bad even without the gel, but I can’t understand people who go to such great lengths to make themselves look worse than nature intended. And maybe he could try smiling occasionally. It doesn’t kill, unless it’s done all the time, relentlessly, by somebody with more than a passing resemblance to Toad of Toad Hall who hasn’t been out in the sun for a while. Somebody please put Francalanza out of his fashion misery. And Joseph Muscat, too: his head now looks like Silvio Berlusconi’s tufted pate post-hair transplant. It’s screaming out for a good going-over with an electric razor, and while he’s at it, he should keep that razor going right round his chin and lips, too.
The latterday Labour Party and its leaders, my God – first a perambulating belt-buckle, then an upturned bristle-brush, then a ventriloquist’s dummy in an ill-fitting black wig and make-up, and now a used-car salesman. Unbelievable. Really, truly unbelievable.
36 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I have never laughed so much in my life. your description of this fracas makes me want to watch it. How on earth do you do it? Minn fejn issibhom il-kliem? Imma af li ghandek ragun. Upturned bristle brush, used car salesman ! Milli jidher Jowey kien Kampjun imdawwar minn hafna kampjuni ohra, bi hwejjeg tant kaxwal li jghammxu l-ghajnejn. Hawwadni ha nifhem iktar Jowey !
Daphne, A masterpiece, Of-course, you realise that if Joey had an iota of common sense he would be reading and re-reading your excellent report on his pathetic performance, in order to maybe, just maybe, learn something.
”Deff”, ”that woomann”, today you have excelled yourself. Apart from everything else, your humour is beyond compare.
Ajma, ha narmihom dawk il Prozac !! X’nokawt dik !!!!
I must admit that I only watched excerpts of the show and didn’t like it too much, the black background and the rather idiotic looking people surrounding Joseph were negative points. Didn’t agree much with the reporters/journalists chosen to ask questions either except perhaps for Kurt Sansone who is a true inquisitive journalist. Still the amount of effort you make to crucify joseph with personal insults, below the belt (not Duminku’s) comments and sheer downright mockery is truly unbelievable……
Is he really worth all that firepower? If we was so hopeless methinks not. But anyway.
(Daphne – Gerald, can you honestly imagine a total inept prat like that as prime minister?)
Youtube link, or it didn’t happen.
(Daphne – Not yet available. Does anyone have a bootleg recording?)
Daphne,
I agree with your husband, how on earth did you manage to stick that rubbish for 100 minutes! I would even prefer Becky!
Oh Yuck
I just saw the picture of the interview – and how they try to make him look taller!
Irrangajtu l joseph u l lajfstajl sexy tieghu dal ghodu, probabbli ha tkun in no 1 ghadu tieghu u nahseb li dik id dahka sarkastika jew it tbissima ta sodisfazzjon bih innifsu bdieltomlu f bikja tragika bi dmugh ta veru ghalkemm dejjem jista juza l falz li jkollu lest ghal dak li jista jinqala………
X'”lajfstajl” kien qed jirreferi ghalih? Cioè issa sar liberali? Jew forsi sar libertin? Nezigi spjegazzjoni. U ejja nistikkjaw mal-fatti, ghax the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
My suggestion would be to take a few deep breaths after watching the show and wait before jumping onto your blog until the morrow. If anything just to sound a little more rational.
Unlike what goes on here quite frequently, JM was NOT bragging about his lifestyle – just pointing out a fact that there is a loophole in the case of divorce being possible for some Maltese citizens….and yet not for everyone…actually it was refreshing to watch him – he coomes across as practical, determined, charming, laid-back and sincere. The panel had at least 3 attractive women and a number of men of all ages and backgrounds…so?
(Daphne – 50 per cent of the population votes Labour and I do NOT expect everyone to agree with me. Joseph Muscat WAS boasting about his lifestyle. Otherwise, why refer to your lifestyle rather than to your life, or the place where you currently live? I am by nature an extremely rational person, and do not require a night’s sleep to distill my views. My immediate reaction to a politician and his performance is the ‘true one’, and so it is with everyone else: you don’t need a psychologist to explain why that’s the case. We react to people with more than our conscious mind. The only reason I trust my political instincts is because they have been proved almost consistently correct – and at times, even ahead of the game, as with Alfred Sant. Indeed, I have the most peculiar sense of deja-vu. Now I’ll just explain something at the human, rather than political, level: as a 44-year-old woman who has worked since the age of 17, mainly with men, I can recognise the performance of a self-satisfied braggart who can’t believe his luck, who fears he will be ‘found out’, and who is trying hard to impress while feeling uncomfortable in his own skin. Muscat feels he is acting a part, and it shows. I would have made exactly the same assessment of him had he been a work contact sitting across the table from me at lunch, or some bore trying to bolster his ego by using me as a captive audience at dinner. Please ask yourself why Joseph Muscat appeals far less to women than he does to men, and I don’t mean gay men, either. There was something else that struck me about his performance last night, but I can’t put my finger on it exactly, so I have avoided discussing it so far: he doesn’t come across as a man. By this I mean that he doesn’t come across as manly because he lacks the overt and covert signifiers of masculinity. Some men – usually the older ones – can pick this up, but many more women can do so. Muscat is in his mid-30s, but the signals I’m picking up from him are no different to those of very young men the age of my sons, who are around 15 years younger than he is and just starting out. As I said, I can’t quite put my finger on what it is that’s missing, or why he’s transmitting these non-masculine signals. But he is, and women are picking it up.)
Who was the great white hope who wanted a more progressive, liberal Malta, and wanted to introduce divorce?
Nope not Joseph Muscat, but Duminku Mintoff back in the 50’s. Hope we don’t go back to bulk buying :)
Now seriously, Minister Dalli had said that there would be a national discussion re. divorce. It must be a really quiet one cos all I can here is the Bishop (obviously)throwing fire and brimstone last week.
What about action from the govt’s side? Cos all I read was a simple press interview given by Minister Dalli, and nothing else. Or is the Govt. and PN so beholden to the Church that with one word all action is stopped.
After all, Divorce is a Civil Issue with religious implications, not a Religious Issue with civil implications. At the very least, Joe Muscat is talking about Divorce, the Nats aren’t, well not anymore, anyway.
At least Joseph Muscat and Daphne agree on one thing:)
(Daphne – The thing is that divorce is all discussed out. There is nothing left to say. Calling for a debate about the introduction of divorce in 2008 is beyond farcical. I wish that neither Dalli nor Gonzi had been so silly, and instead just got on with it. Incidentally, while I might agree with Muscat – strictly speaking, it’s the other way round, given that my views were in the public domain long before his – I think his determination to call for a free vote is typical fence-sitting. He should have the courage of his convictions and use the party whip on this one, and the Nationalist Party likewise. We’re not talking about abortion here, which is a real moral conundrum.)
I don’t really see his call for a free vote as fence-sitting. He can’t (and shouldn’t) impose his pro-divorce views on the people who are anti-divorce.
Our whole argument (people who are pro-divorce, I mean) would then collapse. If we don’t want people to impose their views on us, we can’t impose our views on them.
(Daphne – A free vote is the exception, not the rule. This means that the rest of the time, the party whip comes into play. The party whip tells MPs what vote is expected of them, and makes sure they turn up to vote Yes when told to vote Yes and No when told to vote No. That’s how it works. Otherwise, we might as well not have a party system at all – which is, incidentally, what our Constitution envisages. I don’t see any difference between telling MPs how to vote on divorce and telling them how to vote on the budget. Nor is it an imposition of views. An imposition of views is what we have at present, when no one can divorce because the anti-divorce brigade says so. On the other hand, nobody is going to be forced to divorce just because we have divorce legislation, though I’ll admit that some spouses may find themselves divorced against their will, which really is no different to being dumped anyway, and no amount of legislation that is consonant with human rights can stop that, as we have seen. I see it as fence-sitting because we know that with a free vote on both sides of the House, there is a very real risk that the vote won’t go through at all. Also, the vote itself will be turned into a show of moral heroics a la Marlene Pullicino. Wait and see how many others will jump onto that particular “I’m with the bishops because I’m a Catholic” bandwagon.)
Well considering the mess our good old PM has got us into in the dockyard farce, i wouldn’t mind Joseph becoming PM.
Daphne…that something missing you refer to is his childish immaturity. I recall JM saying he enjoys driving around his Alfa, just like an 18 year old still exhilirated with his new mode of transport to impress his new date (quite different to being a car enthusiast) . So he really comes across as some teenager really proud of his “achievements” of getting his O Levels, not realising how ordinary they are ! – as you very well coined in previous articles “veru tad daqqiet ta harta”
You can be young and project leadership, certainly, like David Milliband but Muscat-Ma-Ara-Kemm-Jien-Bravu ?!?
And by contrast, Gonzi, who, in the past 100 days has moved on with the shipyards privatisation, rent reform, Mepa reform, while JM smirks proudly about his CEO, taxation report, and nappy changing.
(Daphne – Yes, I agree, but there’s still something else I can’t put my finger on and it’s really annoying me now. He’s definitely emotionally arrested or, as you put it, immature: but I wouldn’t compare him to an 18-year-old because there’s been a constant stream of young men of that age and slightly older through our house over the last couple of years and several of them are much more grown-up in outlook and demeanour than Muscat. Part of it, I’m beginning to suspect, is the non-sexual signals he gives off, a sort of bland absence of sexuality like those boy-band members who appeal only to pre-pubescent girls because they come across as harmlessly asexual and non-threatening. Even when he’s shown with his wife, I get odd vibes from the dynamic between them, like she’s his mother or something, rather than his sexual partner. He’s in his mid-30s, but I try to picture him in the company of grown men his age and other men in their 40s, having a chat, and the picture just doesn’t fit. I keep getting a picture of him as the odd one out in a conversational group of 20-year-olds, speaking their language while they’re privately wondering what this balding weirdo is doing hanging around with them. He’s trying very hard to mimic the Lawrence-Kate dynamic but it’s not the kind of thing you can fake. His wife comes across as a woman, but he doesn’t come across as a man. I wish I could work it out. I need to think about it some more. It would explain the reason why he attracts other immature men, though.)
I’m most amazed at Joseph Muscat because he does not seem to have the most basic grasp of some basic laws. I keep repeating the word “basic” because the Leader of Opposition (or, anyway, the LOP-to-be) should have a basic understanding of the Law and what it says before shooting his mouth off in public and making an ass of himself and, more seriously, skewing the decision-making process on the basis of wrong information. Joseph Muscat’s lifestyle does not make him a candidate for the attainment of divorce. And, anyway, what on earth does he mean? The Law does not speak of lifestyle or of money or of anything of the sort. It’s Article 33 of Chapter 255 which regulates this matter and the Law states the following:
A decision of a foreign court on the status of a married
person or affecting such status shall be recognised for all purposes of law in Malta if the decision is given by a competent court of the country in which either of the parties to the proceedings is domiciled or of which either of such parties is a citizen.
This is what the Law states. We all know what citizenship amounts to but, as any third-year law student will tell you, domicile is a concept which is not as hard-and-fast as citizenship. Indeed, without entering into the merits of whether divorce should be made legal in Malta or otherwise, it would be much more useful for the LoP-to-be to criticise the Law for what it says rather than somehow corrupting what it says (if indeed he has an idea of what the Law says) to brag about his lifestyle.
Truth be told, the Law is far from perfect but I would expect somebody of his position to base his arguments on what the real situation is rather than what somebody of his lifestyle could get.
Perhaps somebody should explain to him that a three-year shot at being an MEP (with all the travelling to Malta at the weekends that it entails) and spending all one’s free time with one’s family in Malta is not tantamount of being domiciled in another country.
This is the latest in a whole spate of statements which show how poor Dr. Muscat’s knowledge of basic tenets of law is.
Finally, Daphne, this post is absolutely wonderful :) I have to say I have not watched this televisual feast but I have to admit that I have “no regrets” :)
(Daphne – Lorna, he claimed while speaking about his lajfstajl (this spelling suits the particular usage better) that he has ‘residency’ in ‘Brussels’. Unfortunately, my husband the lawyer was buried at the time behind his magazine, with an annoyed expression, making disapproving remarks about blathering non-men with stupid personalities who were being imposed on his evening by his wife, thereby ruining it (“I come home from work and have to spend two hours looking at that idiot….if you don’t switch him off I’m leaving the room”) so I didn’t dare ask him to elaborate on the legal position. I don’t know what Muscat meant by ‘residency’ but I do know that if anything, this is in respect of the country, Belgium, and not of the city, Brussels. I don’t imagine he can be resident of two countries concurrently, so does this mean that the Labour Party has a leader who is officially resident in Belgium?)
If they really wanted an ‘American style’ interview, they should have invited Americn style journalists, who as the Americans say, would clean the bones.
Muscat is only comfortable with journalists who would throw soft balls at him. After all Kurt Sansone went out for lunch with Alfred Sant,Joseph and Jason on 7th March together with Charlot Zahra. Maybe Raphael was there as well, but I did not see him in the picture.
(Daphne – Raphael was definitely not there. The only journalists present were Kurt Sansone – very much in the league of those who are attracted to Muscat because he reflects some of their own characteristics, Cynthia Busuttil – a very nice person and a smart one, but Allied Newspapers should have sent the more senior Herman Grech or Steve Mallia, and Josanne Cassar – about whom, the least I say, the better, given that she works for the same newspaper as I do. You will notice that it was only the three English-language newspaper houses that were represented: Allied Newspapers, Standard Publications and Newsworks. I imagine he considered this to be the right way to approach a public relations exercise, no doubt getting advice on the subject from his wife Michelle, who used to work in the same field as I do. I am really tired of giving the Labour Party advice for free, and for which they fail to be grateful, but once again, here goes. This is my professional assessment: by choosing to be questioned by junior or low-level journalists at what was, effectively, his first major televised press conference to mark his 100 days as party leader, he downgraded the event and downgraded his own status. He should have demanded, and got, the editors of the leading newspapers. Editors would have asked more challenging questions, and this would have vested the show with more credibility, though of course, he would have had even more trouble answering them. I think Muscat hasn’t yet realised that now he’s in the Big Boys League he has to play with the Big Boys. This means newspaper editors, captains of industry, business leaders, social leaders, the works. And he was right to wear a suit for the occasion. What was wrong was that he wasn’t sharing the televisual stage with newspaper editors who were also in suits. There is a time and place for ‘casual’, and it isn’t the Labour Party leader’s first major televised broadcast.)
I think Joseph skipped or missed some phase in his life . ” Tela’ jew qabez xi zewg targiet f’daqqa”.
(Daphne – Skip? He certainly didn’t skip any phase. He’s still stuck in his late teens.)
Apart from the Divorce issue being much less important than a country’s Budget, one would have to accept the view of those mp’s who don’t want to introduce divorce, whatever their reasons, and their personal hypocrisy.
Now I totally agree with you that if a free vote is taken, I doubt if divorce would ever pass. The only way that I see divorce legislation being passed is either through a referendum (very unlikely) or if the church’s power were to diminish to such an extant that it can’t put up decent opposition to it ( still in the future). I don’t really see divorce being introduced soon sadly.
(Daphne – Divorce should never be put to a referendum vote because it involves the rights of a minority. The minority should never be subjected to the will of the majority, where such fundamental rights are concerned. This is one of the few areas where the democratic principles applies in the reverse. If there is a risk that divorce legislation will not pass through a free vote, then the person who is suggesting a free vote is wholly irresponsible. Once divorce legislation comes before parliament and is rejected, it will be years before it is put to the vote again. So a free vote is no more than a delaying tactic that makes the politicians look as though they’re taking action. I don’t agree with you that divorce legislation is much less important than the annual budget. The annual budget is there for the year. Divorce legislation is permanent.)
“Certu lifestyle” = “jiena inteligenti u nithallat mal-jet set u intom qabda hamalli bla kultura”? That’s straight out of Alfred Sant’s book. How is he a “persuna bhalna” if he’s got “certu lifestyle”?. I think we should be told. It’s driving me mad.
(Daphne – That’s exactly how I read him, Baxxter. When I was 18 and hung around Saddles most of the time, we used to call men like that pricks, as in ‘my-god-how-can-you-go-out-with-that-prick’ and ‘can-you-believe-that-prick-actually-asked-me-out’, or ‘I’m-getting-a-ride-up-to-Gianpula-with-that-prick-might-as-well-he’s-gagging-to-impress-and-I-can’t-get-there-otherwise’.)
Yesterday I was too busy downing a drink (or two or three) in the cool breeze (at last!) to bother staying home to watch this ‘event’.
Can someone do us a favour,put this on YouTube and give us the link please?
I could do with a good laugh after a horrible day at work…
Daphne, just a few small corrections; Kurt Sansone is editor of ‘Illum’. And if The Times chose to send Cynthia then its their choice – you can’t belittle us journalists by calling us ‘junior’.
Maybe I’m just a journalist but I do have some experience, maybe not as much as you but a few years at that. And Cynthia has that too – apart from the fact that she tackles family and health issues and since the so called ‘divorce debate’ is now on the agenda, she’s very well versed to ask those questions to the new Labour leader.
And P. Shaw – there were Media.link journalists at that lunch too (I was present too if you want to have a go at me) and it was not on the 7th of March. Before you make blatant accusations, check your facts first.
(Daphne – Oh god, do I really need this? Nobody’s belittling you, Gerald. It might have escaped your notice, but I too am included in the list of journalists who are not newspaper editors. It’s not necessarily ability we are talking about here, but appropriate status. When a new party leader gives his first televised major broadcast, and only three journalists are handpicked for the occasion, those journalists should be the most senior possible, and the most senior are editors, in this case, given that we have no political editors because of budget constraints and other factors.)
well as i wrote, Kurt Sansone is an editor at least and I believe Josanne is Features Editor so that makes 2 out of 3.
(Daphne – Kurt Sansone is hardly in the same league as the editors of the older Sunday newspapers. As for the very idea of dispatching a features editor whose usual field of competence is make-up and holiday homes to the party leader’s first televised interview…..please, be serious.)
…whose usual field of competence is make-up and holiday homes…
Yikes! Trouble ahead. Start booking your seats for Armaggedon now.
Meanwhile, as I seem to have somehow been dragged into this, I am now curious.
I take it the interview was on Original TV, but what was the programme? And anyone got that Youtube link?
(Daphne – There is no YouTube link yet as far as I can make out, though no doubt some smart alec friend of Muscat’s will soon put edited highlights on line, thinking that his performance was superb. I have done a bit of asking around to see if anybody recorded the show, but so far, to no avail. This was a ‘television special’ (that’s what they called it) shown on Super One yesterday at 8.30pm – 100 minutes long to mark Joseph Muscat’s first 100 days as party leader. It was promoted in one of the Sunday newspapers, which is how I knew about it. The journalists he chose for this significant first interview were: the features editor of The Malta Independent on Sunday, the editor of Illum and a reporter from The Times, who doesn’t usually cover political stories. Oh, and there were also a couple of questions from Madame De Farge, Toni ta’ Nuna and was that Nikita Alamango, elf-in-chief? As for trouble ahead, you know as well as I do that there’s always trouble where the Association of Small Round Women With Chips is concerned. It’s not as though they weren’t your colleagues once upon a time.)
OK thanks for the info. For a second there I thought the “.)” at the end was a one-eyed smiley… startled me for a second…
@Gerald. I thought that you were no longer in the journalistic field. Did you flip again?
If you have time on your hands, or when you’re stuck in traffic, I suggest to read the articles Josanne Cassar wrote during the two / three months preceding the general election. With hindsight they aare quite amusing and amateursih.
Which leads me to my next comment. without offending the serious journalists in Malta (a fast disappearing species), who on earth i steaching journalsim at the University nowadays? The level is too low, most of them jot down notes without asking any daring questions, no preparation. Journalists are there to ask daring questions, and to challenge whoever they are reporting or interviewing. If they want to jot down notes, they might as well stay in their cubicle and read the press release they receive.
I don’t know who to blame for this, the profession or the arrogance of politicians.
I believe you are making one cardinal mistake, Daphne, i.e. you are measuring JM with your yardstick. Naturally you will find him wanting. However you are not the person he is out to impress, unless you secretly are a peroxide blonde, with a penchant of bawling out “irrriduh, irriduh, u lil-Jowsef irriduh.”
In other words, Joseph may as well be an alien entity as far as you are concerned. He is not targeting you (or similarly minded), as he reckons he hasn’t a chance there, so he is not wasting time and effort. However he has to take care of his power base, and they are impressed with him. Take a look at our Gerry.
I personally consider Joe an actor, no more and no less. He is being coached to try to be all things to all men (those he can convince), similarly as Noble did with Blair and with Sant. The dead give away as far as I am concerned was the hand on heart when singing out the National anthem. Very American, very patriotic, and soooo very fake. His mannerisms and body language come over as an earnest school boy, trying hard to be somebody we can “ningustaw”.
In a way he is being presented as being the complete antithesis of Sant. So we have a smiler, a joker, one of the boys, a Joseph, the son in law most mums would love to have. At the same time, he is trying to be cool, collected and debonair (remember the wristwatch, the gel etc?), you know the suave man at home in Brussels (which reminds me – I guess he took his sweet time to come home and lead the MLP because if he had returned immediately people would have rightly wondered if he was doing anything significant there if he could so easily up sticks from that august body).
@Daphne: (not to lecture you!) Residence does not necessarily amount to domicile and this is the point which our erudite professor of law has missed. Domicile is a different concept and if JM was flying home (Malta) at every available opportunity, then his claim to residence in “Brussels” (no less) would not constitute enough evidence that he’s domiciled in Belgium. One basic question for the determination of domicile is: where would you go at the end of the day? Meaning that if you’re working Mon to Fri in Brussels but come back to your family on Friday night or Sat morning then you’re certainly not domiciled in Brussels (sic). And, frankly, I don’t think JM was examining his position from this point of view. Somebody must have told him that whoever resides abroad can get divorced abroad and have their divorce registered and recognised here and he (as he has shown himself wont to do in the past 103 days) shot his mouth off about residency and his lajfstajl. Of course, if one resides abroad 12 months a year save for some holidays, then yes, one can claim domicile but, if JM’s life is what he described it in some magazine or other, then he is certainly still domiciled in this island which does not seem to merit him as an LOP until he finishes his precious report.
At any rate, he did his best to prove that we who are based on this tiny island, are but mere plebs who do not have his lajfstajl. If it were for him and his fellow cronies, we would not even have the freedom to enjoy a lajfstajl similar to his. When I see his smirking face, serene in the idea that his “residency” is in “Brussels” I feel livid: I can never forgive him and his unrepentent colleagues for wanting to keep us out of the EU and then he has the audacity and cheek to brag his head off on his “brussels residency” and four-years-plus lifestyle.
I really don’t blame your husband even though I really empathise with you on this man-factor (you either change the channel or I leave the room). I wouldn’t have managed to sit through the whole broadcast. What you columnists have to suffer – well at least we’re reaping the rewards :)
(Daphne – I asked for the information, so thanks for taking the trouble to put all this down. His family is in Malta, anyway. I always wondered how he managed to change all those nappies and give all those feeds all the way from Brussels. He must have hidden powers. And that’s quite apart from the fact that it was in the most appalling taste to use his own marriage as an example of a possible divorce – note that he said he can divorce Michelle, and not that Michelle can divorce him. Somebody here suggested that he is every woman’s ideal son-in-law. Well, hardly. If I had a daughter stupid enough to date somebody like that, I would be up all night, every night, swallowing Syndol.)
Daphne – “Divorce should never be put to a referendum vote because it involves the rights of a minority. The minority should never be subjected to the will of the majority, where such fundamental rights are concerned. This is one of the few areas where the democratic principle applies in the reverse. If there is a risk that divorce legislation will not pass through a free vote, then the person who is suggesting a free vote is wholly irresponsible. Once divorce legislation comes before parliament and is rejected, it will be years before it is put to the vote again. So a free vote is no more than a delaying tactic that makes the politicians look as though they’re taking action. I don’t agree with you that divorce legislation is much less important than the annual budget. The annual budget is there for the year. Divorce legislation is permanent.”
Daphne, what do you think Gonzi/PN are going to come up with, with regard to divorce? John Dalli’s rather inane comment that it’s time to start a debate hardly inspires confidence that the PN are capable of safeguarding the rights of the minority on this. My guess is a wishy-washy white paper and long consultation process (before and after the white paper, in all probability) which will get us nowhere – at least certainly not before the next election. I am handicapped by isolation from gossip and the rumour-mills, as well as from those friends and acquaintances with connections to PN policy makers but you’re in the thick of things. What’s your guess?
(Daphne – I’m not in the thick of things at all, but my considered assessment is that the government fears yanking the bishops’ chains, not because of worries about their disapproval per se, but because the bishops are likely to push the government into a war it doesn’t want, thereby creating a major public affairs problem for the government, deliberately. They’ve already taken to their pulpits. If the bishops are out there polarising people and working them up into a frenzy against divorce, instilling doubt about the morality of MPs who vote in favour, it obviously becomes that much harder to shove the legislation through smoothly. The government is going to have to negotiate with the Curia to get it to leave Caesar alone on this one, but I really don’t know what the government can use as leverage at this stage. When it negotiated for the church’s lands and other property, it conceded to the church the absolute and uncontestable right to decide the fate of marriages celebrated in church, in cases where both spouses do not agree on taking the matter to the civil courts for a civil annulment. It also dissolved, at the church’s request, the 1975 requirement for all marriages to take place civilly without exception, even when there is a church rite. The minister who handled this was Guido de Marco, about which I shall no more. Since 1993, those who marry in a Catholic Church (but not in a Protestant church) needn’t go through the civil rite. Those of us who married between 1975 and 1993 went through two marriage rites – the religious one at the altar and the civil one performed by an official of the public registry, in the sacristry. What this means, of course, is that the state ceded a significant part of its authority over the formation and dissolution of marriages to the Curia, in exchange for church lands and the setting up of the Joint Office.)
hi daphne, preparing for the independence that never was ‘bigilla’ feast ?
(Daphne – Sorry to disappoint you, my little Labour friend, but I’m not an employee. This means that national holidays, Sundays and the rest are all the same to me. And I don’t eat bigilla. It was devised as food for the starving and desperate, and all you have to do is taste it to see why.)
Great merciful heavens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6OxXb6YrFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7-xOsWuRys
maybe you’re not welcome
(Daphne – Oh dear, I think I have another whacko on my hands.)
during those days a lot of maltese were starving and desperate maybe it serves as a reminder
(Daphne – Make yourself clear, please, Adrian. Which days?)
independence borg olivier’s time
(Daphne – Were we discussing Malta’s independence? Learn some history: the vast majority of people were living on the edge of poverty throughout Europe, not just in Malta, in 1964. Many homes in Britain didn’t even have bathrooms or indoor lavatories.)
Just to make one thing clear: Josanne Cassar was not sent to the press conference by me to represent The Malta Independent on Sunday. I assume she was invited by MLP, but it’s just an assumption.
(Daphne – Thanks for clearing that up, though I had no doubt at all that the three journalists on that show were identified by the Labour Party as those least likely to ask awkward questions, while still being able to bill them as representing the ‘English-language press’ . Perhaps I should explain that you are the editor of The Malta Independent on Sunday, and that the usual process is for the political parties to contact the editor directly, or his newsroom, leaving the choice of journalist up to him/them. Josanne Cassar shouldn’t have been claiming to represent The Malta Independent on Sunday on a televised Labour Party show without the authorisation of the newspaper she works for. She lives with someone who works, or used to work for many years, with Super One. She is hardly the best person to ask difficult questions of Joseph Muscat.)
They’ve ruined Bitter Sweet Harmony for me, I used to love it – it’s not fair. They should have played My Boy Lollipop in the background instead, or some Teletubbies song.
(Daphne – You know, I would have expected them to use the theme song from Chariots of Fire. I imagine they would have, if they’d known about it. The corniness would have gone right over their heads.)
@ HP Baxxter I’m curious…what were those Youtube clips? – They have been mysteriously withdrawn !!
(Daphne – The clips are still there. Try again. To make things easier, the main one has been linked in my latest-but-one post, under the heading Oh. My Lord.)
@ Adrian
My guess is that you are another ‘young’ brainwashed Labour supporter who probably never experienced how terrible life was under the Labour police dictatorship in the 70’s & 80’s.
I still meet so many people like you who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Dom Mintoff INVENTED social services like children’s allowance etc., when in actual fact these things were being introduced in many other European countries at the SAME time.
Mintoff’s propaganda machine was just very good at making his supporters think he was a generous benefactor when in actual fact he and the people around him were nothing but brutal, money grabbing thugs who all became millionaires off the people’s backs whilst the country was reduced to an impoverished, third world police state.
The education system was practically destroyed,(getting into university was practically impossible in those days!) and intellectual people were despised and persecuted just because they could THINK and question the almighty Dom’s policies.
Every now and then they would throw some crumbs (like children’s allowance) to the people and we were all supposed to be grateful whilst living in a decaying country without an infrastructure or a future.
Thanks to the PN (with their many, many, many faults) you now live in a free democratic European country and are using the most sophisticated technology to communicate with us and the world.
If that idiot Mintoff had his way you wouldn’t even have electricity or a telephone system today let alone a computer!
And if you did… there would probably be a police department monitoring sites like this (are there any!) and Daphne would probably be in and out of jail and her family persecuted until she SHUT UP!…THOUGH I BET SHE WOULDN’T !!
Adrian chill out – that is why Mintoff was in power in a different era not today’s – everything happens for a reason at its right time and moment.
Sounds like you have a chip or two on your shoulder, must be a bummer carrying these burdens from the pretty remote 70s/80’s all the way into the 21st Century.
Personally I think that people who like to dwell on their old wounds, many self-aggrandised just to play ‘victim’ and nourish their inner hatred for others, must be miserable even today. The anger with which you write is a telling sign. Sad.
(Daphne – Hang on, this Adrian doesn’t sound old enough to have been around in 1964. It’s probably stuff his parents told him, who learned it in turn from their parents – you know, how they slept on bales of hay, were covered in fleas, etc etc, without pointing out that they would have lived in precisely the same conditions no matter where they were in Europe at the time.)