Gosh, look – it’s Dr Muscat and Lawrence
Xarabank was no place for the first televised debate between the prime minister and the new leader of the opposition. But there’s no accounting for the choices of politicians and so I made myself a sustaining mug of Bovril and settled down for the rout. It was like pitting a smart-Alec fifth-former against – well, a seasoned prime minister who’s rather more intelligent than most.
There was no way it was ever going to work for the leader of the opposition, but he’s so lacking in self-awareness that he wasn’t going to figure that one out for himself, and his aides – oh dear, his aides – don’t really have that much going on upstairs. To compound the fiasco, he appears to have thought that preparation isn’t necessary when facing down the prime minister in front of a sizeable television audience. Having faced no audience more demanding or critical than one composed of Labour delegates, he thought it sufficient to stride onto the set armed with nothing but his wit and eloquence and a couple of photocopies proving that Tony Blair, too, was against the then European Community in 1974. Or was it 1983?
It was an unequal match to start with and it became more and more unequal as it went along. The gulf between them is not just one of age, experience and general comportment. Last Friday’s performance revealed something that many of us had suspected already: the gulf is also intellectual. When Muscat spoke, there was simply nothing there, and what’s worse, he showed himself unable to think on his feet, which is a crippling disadvantage when your opposite number is remarkable for his ability to do just that.
The prime minister has shown time and time again, and in the most challenging of situations, that he can stand there wearing an inscrutable expression while listening to a stream of critical remarks and difficult questions, and behind that solemn expression his mind is already 20 paces ahead collating the answer, which he delivers without a pause. While we on our sofas are thinking, ‘oh dear God, how is he going to reply to that, there is no way he has the details’, or ‘that’s nailed you; now let’s see you get out of that one’ – depending on whether we like him or not – he opens his mouth and all the details come forth, on everything from photovoltaic cells to the precise number of jobs created last month to exactly how many people are being made redundant by any one company you care to mention. And he reasons with his audience and is logical and rational and his opponent is left without a leg to stand on.
It used to infuriate Alfred Sant, and now it’s going to infuriate Joseph Muscat, who at one point exploded, his face contorted with anger: “You told me that politics is not a toy for me to play with. But then you’re not my teacher and I’m not a schoolboy.” Oh really? Prove it, then. So far, the general report is: ‘Joseph thinks too highly of himself without justification. He can do better in class but must work harder’.
What’s even more interesting is that the prime minister has got the psychology of the situation down to a tee. A lesser man might be blatantly patronising to the leader of the opposition, might be tempted to make withering remarks, might stand there wearing a sardonic and contemptuous smile – the very sort of smile which Muscat tends to wear himself in that situation (he was wearing one on Friday). But no – the way the prime minister handles the Labour leader is just perfect: treating him as his equal, acknowledging his status as the leader of the opposition, referring to him respectfully, but then exposing his shortcomings with such consummate expertise that you just end up hoping one of Muscat’s aides is waiting in the wings with a box of bandages and some antiseptic cream. I call this strategy ‘devastating a person while being nice to them’. Some women are especially good at it: ‘That’s a lovely dress – so flattering for the fuller figure.’
It didn’t help Muscat’s chances that he had the rug pulled from beneath him right at the start. The golden rule in debates is to wrong-foot your opponent at the outset so that, unless he is of particularly fine mettle, he fails to recover. So the prime minister opened with a profuse apology for not being in the house when the leader of the opposition gave his maiden speech – he was away from the island representing Malta at a high-level meeting, doing important things with important leaders. He didn’t say that. He intimated it.
Then he said that he was meant to be at the Nationalist Party’s General Council that evening, but because he felt he should go on Xarabank to debate with Dr Muscat instead – it being such an important occasion – he asked the party administration to have a big screen put up in the assembly hall at the party headquarters, so that all the party councillors could watch this historic first debate, instead of being forced to miss out by attending to their party council duties instead. Not missing a beat, he turned to Muscat and said, do please address the councillors of the Nationalist Party now. They’re all gathered together there at the headquarters and are waiting for you to speak to them.
There was a frozen moment while Muscat recovered his balance, then another moment when the perplexity passed visibly across his face as it does with all people who find it hard to react instantaneously in unforeseen situations. And then he opened his mouth to speak and nothing came out. There were words, yes, but they had no coherent shape or form and they meant nothing. He didn’t address the PN councillors directly. He didn’t even look at the camera directly. He just blathered until Joe Azzopardi flew in to the rescue. It was his opportunity to shine, and he failed. What did the prime minister achieve by setting his opposite number that test of mettle live on television? He proved, in front of a large television audience, that the leader of the opposition can’t think on his feet. He didn’t tell us that the leader of the opposition can’t think on his feet. That would have been yet another worthless opinion. Instead, he gave us a little demonstration, and nailed him.
The leader of the opposition’s lack of prescience in debate allowed the prime minister to serve up as a double-whammy what was clearly a blow planned for a later stage in the proceedings, and which he would have been unable to deliver at all had the Labour leader not given him the perfect opening to do so in the first few minutes – and had he been put through his paces by aides rehearsing every envisaged situation, which he clearly was not. ‘You say one thing before the election and now you’re saying another,’ the Labour leader told the prime minister. Even I, wrapped in my crochet hippie blanket with my Bovril and my mind dulled by too much work and too little sleep, could see what was coming next. The prime minister, instead of being scathing, burst into laughter: this from the man who campaigned ferociously against EU membership, and who now talks like a born-again Europhile?
That set the tone. From then on, each time the Labour leader quoted the European Union as the ultimate authority, the prime minister smiled as though genuinely charmed by developments and told us how pleased he is when he hears his opposite number talk so highly about the EU. He’s so pleased that Dr Muscat now sees the wisdom of EU membership.
From that point on, the Labour leader was on a losing tack and there was no way he could recover. Dr Gonzi used to score points off Alfred Sant by pushing the buttons that made him bristle with anger so that he came across as a bad-tempered Luddite with a fixation on corruption and no plans for the country. If last Friday’s performance is anything to go by, he is going to be scoring points off Dr Muscat by pushing the buttons that make him come across as a foolish and empty vessel who just hasn’t got a clue – not because he’s young, miskin, but because he’s not particularly bright.
I’ve left the most important detail for last. If you ask people what struck them most about the entire show, they will not tell you that it was the argument about electricity rates, or the news about a wind-farm. They will not even tell you that it was that symbol of neurotic womanhood who stood up and gave the impression that all women with children take anti-anxiety pills and feed them to their sons and daughters, who they keep indoors throughout the summer months studying for their examinations.
No, they will tell you that it was the way the Labour leader repeatedly used the prime minister’s first name: Lawrence this and Lawrence that. It jarred not just because the only appropriate form of address for the prime minister in any forum except at home with his family or sharing a whisky with friends is ‘Prim Ministru’, or at a push the less formal but still formal Dr Gonzi. It jarred most particularly because, throughout the show, the prime minister referred to him as Dr Muscat, and not as Joseph, even when addressing him directly. The message the television audience received – at least, that part of the television audience not born and raised in a close approximation of the gutter – is that the prime minister knows the correct form (good) but the leader of the opposition does not (bad).
It might have been just plain pig-ignorance that made the Labour leader talk about ‘Lawrence’ to a television audience and the extended audience in its living-rooms. In that case, a bright person would have picked up the prime minister’s lead in calling him Dr Muscat, and would have called him Dr Gonzi in return – just as a bright person at table takes note of which fork others are using when he thinks he has picked up the wrong one himself. To persist in calling the prime minister by his first name when the prime minister is addressing you in the formal manner is so much the height of clodhopping bad manners that it leaves me quite breathless.
I hope, for the sake of this country, that somebody has at least had the presence of mind to teach the leader of the opposition how to handle his cutlery and how to behave at table, because in my quite extensive experience, those who don’t know how to address others are also strangers to the correct code of behaviour in almost every other social situation. I hope, too, that he hasn’t spent the last four years running around Brussels calling senior leaders Jan and Pieter and Hans on the grounds that they have exchanged a few words and they sometimes called him Joseph. The next thing we know, he will be calling the archbishop Paul and the police commissioner John. It appears that Labour has condemned itself to yet another leader who doesn’t realise that there is far more strength in impeccable manners than there is in uncouth behaviour. He would have raised his own status by addressing the prime minister as ‘Prim Ministru’ or even as Dr Gonzi, but he doesn’t have the intelligence to work that out.
The Labour leader’s repeated reference to the prime minister as Lawrence might have been a deliberate tactic: ‘Let me bring him down a peg. We’re all equals here.’ That, too, demonstrates considerable absence of intelligence. Politeness is a far more formidable weapon in face-to-face situations than uncouthness. Uncouthness undermines the person who is being uncouth. It does not undermine the intended victim, but rather the opposite. Your opponent is more effectively disarmed through perfect manners than through lack of manners, and the prime minister – because he is as sharp as a box of butcher’s knives – knows this. He also knows that the vast majority of those who appreciate the significance of manners and forms of address vote Nationalist, not Labour (I wrote the ‘vast majority’, not ‘all’), and that the many thousands of them watching the debate would have been appalled by the Labour leader’s insistence on calling him Lawrence while he was calling him – pointedly – Dr Muscat.
After the Lawrence/Dr Muscat fiasco, what struck people most was the way the Labour leader morphed within minutes into the role of a Super One reporter, a role he held for so many years. It was almost impossible for many of us watching the show not to cast him in that role ourselves. We spent years watching him heckle the prime minister – not this one – during televised debates while wearing his Super One hat. It is not at all easy for us to make the mental and visual adjustment necessary to see him as the leader of the opposition debating with the prime minister.
His behaviour didn’t help. He heckled. He interrupted. He chided. He bickered. He behaved, in other words, exactly as a Super One reporter does and nothing at all like a leader of the opposition should – with gravitas, intelligence and substance. Forget Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Here we had the leader of the opposition performing as Dr Heckle and Mr Chide. When the television audience was asked to ring in their opinion of which leader has the best vision for Malta, the score stayed more or less constant throughout: 39% for the Labour leader and 61% for the prime minister. Nobody can claim that a national television audience – and more to the point, the Xarabank audience – is skewed towards the Nationalist Party. I can’t help but think that once again, the Labour Party’s leader is going to prove to be its weakest link.
50 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
…. at last! So many I met in the last 24 hours have been waiting for your assessment of ‘THE debate’. It was so pathetic we were all hanging to read the queen of socio-politico commentary. Thank you – I laughed almost as much as I did on Friday evening. But in reality we should all cry. Ah well – plus ca change!
Ms.Caruana Galizia,
I agree a lot with what you wrote:if Dr.Muscat had done any homework before the debate,he would have spotted that the shortcomings of the Government in alternative energy resources are immense and Dr.Gonzi had also wisely prepared himself in this area by announcing the the sea- based wind farm.Dr.Muscat should have jumped at the opportunity presented by this announcement,as a very expensive and belated option when 5 years ago we had the opportunity of having a land-based windfarm which was Mepa-disapproved on the grounds of visual impact(I have seen a music/fashion video which showed a young lady looking lovingly to a big windfarm!):perhaps we should remove our ‘xarolli’ and water extracting windmills which are now part of our countryside?
The land-based windfarm would have generated 5%(not 4%) at a cost of less than what it costs from oil.This last argument would have sounded very convincing to all the people who will need to pay the new energy tariffs which ,frankly speaking,we have somehow avoided to pay in the past.
There is also no debate about the electrical power link Sicily-Malta,which proposal has its good points but also has some bad connotations like cost and security of supply:Dr.Muscat could have mentioned its importance and that we should not only debate about divorce!
[Daphne – Yes, these are valid points. Unfortunately, lack of preparation is a more worrying factor than lack of policy – or even than fallacious policy – in a party leader, because it indicates a cavalier attitude and deep carelessness, and even a failure to realise just how much one doesn’t know.]
Obama referred to Mccain as “John” during the last Presidential debate, despite the fact that Mccain always referred to Obama as “Senator Obama.” Joseph Muscat clearly tried to copy Obama here, although for some reason his “Lawrence”‘s always sounded jarring… perhaps because we’ve never heard anyone refer to the Primeminister as “Lawrence.”
Now, the debate itself was horrendously moderated by Peppi and neither Muscat nor Gonzi really impressed me. Muscat was, as Daphne pointed out, constantly interrupting, sometimes with that obnoxious chuckle of his. On the other hand Gonzi simply couldn’t reply to certain questions and was forced to resort to taking jabs at Muscat.
[Daphne – European manners and US manners are very different in this respect. While the US employs a very formal and deferential manner of address between the young and mature adults (or those who are more senior in other ways, or who require deference, like customers) – Sir and Ma’am – those who consider a newly-met person to be their equal (or inferior) will immediately address them by their first name. This is completely unacceptable in Europe, where you are expected to address even social or hierarchical equals and even inferiors as Mr/Mrs/Miss/Dr/whatever until you are given expression permission to use the first name. This does not count, of course, in very informal situations or between young people. Some European cultures are much more formal than others in this respect, especially those which have the polite form of address built into the language – e.g. Spain, Germany, France, Italy. English does not have the polite form of address – ‘you’ is always ‘you’ – but operates an elaborate system of manners that replaces this.]
From the point of view of someone who has voted PN, MLP, AD and abstained in general, EP and local elections, I would not say this has been a walk-over debate won by Dr. Gonzi. Dr. Muscat still has a few things to learn, but as a first debate, I think he managed it quite well. I also think it would have been inconsistent had he switched from “Lawrence” to “Dr. Gonzi” during the debate. Results of televoting polls are definitely not a scientific means of assessing the pulse of the people. Even if Dr. Gonzi is leading in the popularity stakes, it’s definitely not to the sound of 61%. So yes, Xarabank audience is skewed. It’s a Where’s Everybody program after all.
[Daphne – Results of televoting are in no way scientific but they do give a very good indication of public perception, especially when the gap is so wide. I know because I monitor these things. If the result were 52% and 48% it would tell us nothing except that people were sticking to their rival camps, but this tells us a lot, especially because it is five years away from an election and so people are not thinking ‘tribally’. The Xarabank audience on set was skewed in favour of the Labour leader – this was immediately obvious from the enthusiastic applause for everything he said and the scattered applause for the prime minister (together with the occasional booing).]
It was a consummate performance by our PM…he made Chicken consomme’ of Gowzef
Actually, “you” (now denoting second person both singular and plural) used to be the English formal or “polite” form with “thou” being the second person singular. So, in a certain manner of speaking, one could say that English has only the polite form left but the notion of its politeness has been forgotten.
As usual, the article hit the nail on the head with the Lawrence/Dr. Muscat mode of address. Perhaps he was inspired by McCain but we’re not in the US here and thank God, we still haven’t done away with the use of addressing people properly, if not for any other reason, to show respect. Frankly, I thought it was unacceptable for JM to address the PM as “Lawrence” and would have felt the same way had the PM addressed JM as “Joseph” but, then again, the PM is endowed with enough emotional intelligence to make him realise that that forum was not the proper one for him to address JM with his first name, if for no other reason, simply because he needs the vote of the people who would be annoyed with such a clear demonstration of ill manners.
I was also upset, really, to see that the Leader of Opposition could produce an article from a sensationalistic newspaper (illum) and actually quote from it as though it were the National Statistics Authority. The information could have been correct for all I know, but if you want to woo people like me whose votes he needs, he simply cannot quote from “illum” and expect me to take him seriously. It really shows that he does not know that politics is not some Grade 6 project for which our children cut out pictures from newspapers and stick them in a scrap-book and call them “research”.
Another thing which stuck out like a sore thumb was how painfully evident JM’s lack of credibility was and this goes on to prove what a bad choice JM has been since the very beginning. I believe that, no matter how JM dresses up his own speeches, his own ideas even his whole personality, even if he wipes that smirk off his face, he will still have to face that huge skeleton in his political cupboard. I feel he’s checkmated even before he sits at the chess board and the Labour Delegates were idiots enough not to realise that they should have thought about this well in advance.
Perhaps time will prove me wrong, perhaps JM will be a brilliant politican, at the end of the day, but he lacks emotional intelligence and a general sense of savoir faire and I very much fear that we’ll be hitting the cupboards for our dose of valium in five years’ time, and the thought is not a comforting one.
Gerald – Seeing that you were planted in the audience, maybe you’d like to tell us how wonderful Muscat was?
Can someone tell Dr Muscat that his “journalist” days are (thankfully) over! It’s now time to provide answers not questions?
Hai voluto la bicicletta, Adesso pedala!!!!
I’m an AD supporter, but i thought Joseph Muscat was totally outclassed by a superb performance by Dr Gonzi. Clearly Dr Gonzi was well prepared for this debate and did his homework well, no doubt he has a great backing team.
Did anyone notice that Joseph Muscat mentioned, at the beginning, that he was inviting open discussion with all parties, then went on to mention specifically PN and AD but left out AN. Strange since his policy on immigration seems closer to that of AN.
No, il problema è abbastanza evidente però! Egli, caro Sig. Joseph Micallef, non sa pedalare! Ha cercato di fingere, ma quando è arrivato al dunque…..beh, è fatto la figura dell’idiota.
Il buffu tac-cirku!
A journalist and MEP cannot turn into Opposition Leader overnight. This was very evident last Friday. Doctor Muscat should have waited for 3 years, at least, before doing what he did on Xarabank. What a gross error of judgement. Opposition leaders do not chuckle, ask questions and chuckle again. They put forward strong alternative policies and with conviction. Until he can muster a formidable team to do his homework for him, he should confine himself within the precincts of the Casa Rosada. A premature debut if you ask me.
sryyy, i meant HA FATTO.
my mistake, Daphne..
At Drew: If McCain were the President then Obama would refer to him as Mr. President and not John, I gurantee you that!
what do you expect from a vertically challenged person trying to avoid follicular regression? Dr Gonzi is of the same height and losing his hair, but he accepts both features gracefully. He doesn’t try to carry himself trying to appear tall and he’s not bothered about his hair.
It looks like the Labour elves are out on The Times online again, judging by the mis-spelling of the surname “Degaetano” here:
“Ian Degeitano (1 hour, 41 minutes ago)
@ Dennis Catania & Mario Borg.
I understand completely because i used to vote PN but i can’t associate myself more to these kind of politics Lawrence Gonzi and Co are doing . On the other hand i am feeling comfortable to side with the new MLP Leader. He is bright and his vision for Malta is FAR more concrete”
(Extracted from: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081019/local/energy-reform-will-be-countrys-biggest-prime-minister )
It’s funny really, because to try to sound authentic, they chose what they probably think is a “tal-pepe” surname, only to mis-spell it in the process. (Tal-Labour jaghmlu kollox tac-cajt.)
Amanda Mallia
Degeitano? Just another misprint.
In Esperanto maybe? ;-)
Hi All,
Just had a baby boy – and that makes 3 boys:) I am not destined to have a daughter it seems! :)
[Daphne – Congratulations.]
@Amanda
I’m afraid you’re wrong. You can tell that a Times reader’s comment is elfish because the contribution starts off with “I used to support the Nationalist Party but then Joseph Muscat entered my life and I saw the light” or a slight variant thereof.
David Buttigieg – Congratulations! (Boys are company for each other anyway; a girl would generally have none – or hardly any – from two brothers.)
Fausto Majjistral – I know. The whole content of the comment itself simply reeks of elfdom; the surname “Degeitano” simply confirms the comment’s origins.
David : Another 8 and we’ll have a football team with a formidable coach. Congratulations!
In one of your earlier blogs I had quoted(with reference to Dr(?)Muscat)the famous Maltese saying ” min qatt ma libes qalziet j***a fih”. Well his pants must be really stinking by now !!!!
Once again thank you Daphne for putting into excellent writing what most people felt when watching Xarabank. But allow me to write what my elderly mother said on watching the show. ‘Miskin Muscat ghadu bahbuh – ghad irid jitkisser u jgib l-esperjenza.’ And it is true. At one time I pictured Lawrence Gonzi debating with George Abela. Now that really would have been something to watch.
With regards to preparing for debates – I guess Muscat was too overconfident and did not ‘rehearse’ well before. It is amazing how, in this country we make rehearsals for wedding ceremonies, which in my opinion should be done naturally and spontaneously and then we do not prepare ourselves well when we present ourselves to the judgement of thousands of people on national television.
Somebody remarked about Peppi not being a good moderator. I agree. After all these years he still struggles to say anything which is not on the script. It is a pity because he is full of energy and ideas. But then a journalist has his own personality and you can choose not to watch him (for example Lou Bondi gets on my nerves the way he seems to gobble his words, is always interfering and saying much more than he needs to and treats people like the President and the Archbishop as if he were interviewing a nonentity). But I choose not to watch while one has to listen to what a prime minister and leader of the opposition has to say – they cannot be bundled into the same category.
Congratulations David!. Welcome to the Sleepless Nights/endless bottle prparing/nappy changing world of the modern Male Metrosexual.Had a girl last week who seems to think night is day and vice versa!
I completely agree that Joseph Muscat was outclassed by Dr Gonzi. All Dr Gonzi needed was not to be condescending to the little upstart. It is a mark of the man that he was not, but Joseph Muscat behaved exactly like a little prat. The man and his team have no sense of strategy or moment. They fly by the seat of their pants hoping that it will be all right on the night. What Daphne didn’t mention was when Gonzi hit back with a remark of his own about the current Muscat buzzwords like “Generazzjoni rebbieha” or “ruh socjali” and other such balderdash. Joseph did exactly what I expected him to do….he quibbled. Every time he was with his back to the wall, he quibbled. All brash and NO substance is our Jowey. Let’s face it, Dr Gonzi and his team are by no means perfect. There are some ministers i could happily strangle at the moment. But there is no comparison. Even more so when a seasoned Prime Minister is faced with shallow nothingness.
I wasn’t referring to the audience in the studio, which contained vociferous supporters of both sides. The patterns of the audience watching Xarabank at home is another matter. I don’t think a Where’s Everybody audience (on debate/political programs at least) is representative of the electorate, especially since Labourites perceive Lou and Peppi as being biased.
[Daphne – There is no such thing as a Where’s Everybody audience. Xarabank has the biggest television audience of all, and last Friday’s would have been bigger than ever.]
The PM at least answered my questions in great detail but JM didn’t answer them at all. However as Daphne said the Xarabank debate was no place for Gonzi and Muscat and made them play to the populist gallery.
Daphne,
Do you recall Dr. Fenech Adami addressing Dr. Sant as Alfred Sant. He never referred to him or addressed him as Dr. or as Prime Minister. Did you ever comment about this in the past? Or is it the usual instance of two weights two measures?
[Daphne – I very much doubt that, in a one to one debate between Fenech Adami as leader of the opposition and Sant as prime minister, Fenech Adami turned to Sant and said ‘Alfred Sant’….So….]
I earnestly hope that the leader of the Opposition desists in future of responding to points put to him by the PM with bursts of sarcastic laughter. Arguments can only be won by better and more convincing ones. Sarcasim is the cheapest and lowest form of wit.
@ Daphne
You said that “this [Xarabank’s televoting] tells us a lot, especially because it is five years away from an election and so people are not thinking ‘tribally'”
Can’t you argue that ‘people not thinking tribally’ give Labour “landslide” victories (relatively speaking) at the local council elections and repeatedly tell them where to get off at “important” elections? I ‘m trying to say that it doesn’t really matter what people think “in between” elections.
Also, if I’m not mistaken, George Abela was preferred over Joseph Muscat as MLP leader in a Xarabank survey…
I don’t have much faith in Xarabank surveys, for the simple reason that I find their “data collection strategy” dubious…
[Daphne – George Abela was definitely the preferred choice of leader among those who usually vote Nationalist, and not only in the Xarabank survey. The Labour Party chose to see this as some kind of complicated strategy of reverse psychology: they want us to choose George Abela because they’re scared of Joseph Muscat. Can you believe it? People preferred Abela because they preferred Abela. I bet there were thousands of people thinking last Friday when watching Xarabank how much better the whole thing would have been with Abela there instead of Muscat. And even though they’re friends, there wouldn’t have been any George-and-Lawrence business going on.]
@David Buttigieig
“Just had a baby boy – and that makes 3 boys:) I am not destined to have a daughter it seems! :):
And there i was thinking that it was your better half that did all the pushing :)
congrats!
Gerald – “The PM at least answered my questions in great detail but JM didn’t answer them at all.”
It looks like you’re slowly removing your rose-tinted specs, Gerald. Well done!
Maybe Joseph was following his advisor/s when he referred to the PM as “Lawrence”. The same advisor/s which brought us the “Gon ziiiiii” cunning plan live from Birzebbugia?
this blog reminds me of the days when Mintoff used to ridicule Fenech Adami by calling him ‘vavu’ in his (EFA’s) early days as leader of the opposition. Mintoff was then defeated within 4 years’ time. As it was then, so it is now. Contempt and under estimation of your opponent leads to a rapid defeat.
Muscat attacked the Prime Minister for not implementing the recommendations of the Ombudsman and Commission for Injustices. The Prime Minister replied that only those recommendations that do not involve the Govt were not implemented e.g those involving HSBC. This is manifestly not true. Is it possible that the Civil Servants are not aware of Govt policy?
@Dave. I agree with you – Joseph Muscat handled himself very well bar the self satisfied smirk and annoying chuckle. What you’re witnessing is part of the PN spin machine recasting Dr. Gonzi’s dismal performance. I can imagine all the kunsillieri down at Tal-Pieta being instructed to call to vote for “Dr. Gonzi” to up his poll numbers after they had to sit through his lackluster performance. Nothing can get away from the fact that Dr. Gonzi’s trademark smile had been wiped off his ashen face. Contrary to Daphne’s spin Dr. Muscat handled Dr. Gonzi’s initial curve ball to address the assembled gaggle of kunsilliera very ably. Poor Dr. Gonzi when Dr. Muscat put him on the spot asking him to simply agree that he would allow PN MPs a free vote on the divorce issue he stammered and stumbled and mumbled about having to discuss the divorce issue further. Where has he been while people have been discussing this for years in the media, online and in their living rooms? Enough discussion – will you or will you not allow PN MPs a free vote on the issue as Dr. Muscat has committed to do with MLP MPs? That’s a yes or no answer, no more waffling Lawrence!!
[Daphne – oh my god, here’s someone who presumes to know more about the situation in Malta than those who actually live here. You have identified with Joseph Muscat since way before he was elected. The fact that you like somebody should not blind you to the way he is perceived by others. What you are doing here is trying to convince yourself, against the odds and against overwhelming opinion to the contrary, that Muscat came out of it well when he clearly didn’t. Rest assured that if I – as somebody who observes these things with a professional eye – had observed Gonzi to be performing dismally against Muscat, I would have been the first to say so, and not just in private, either. As for your praising Muscat for giving his MPs a free vote on divorce – you shock me. If he believes divorce to be a civil right, and he has said that he does, then what he is saying here is that he is prepared to allow his MPs to vote AGAINST a civil right. I believe you are homosexual, if I recall correctly from earlier posts, unless I am confusing you with somebody else. But even if you are not, just perform this simple exercise to see just how appalling Muscat’s ‘free vote’ suggestion is: switch ‘divorce’ with ‘gay rights’. Allowing your MPs to vote against divorce when your party says it is a civil right is no different to allowing your MPs to vote against more rights for homosexuals. You either believe in pushing something through because it is a right, or you don’t. By allowing his MPs to vote No, he shows that it is not divorce legislation for Malta that he wants, but to look as though he is doing something about it.]
Comment of the day for Monday:
“Every time I read her [sic] I realise that her prime motivation for her behaviour so obvious in her writings is the need to feel superior to everybody else.”
Valerie Borg in Monday’s TMI.
[Daphne – Sigh.]
Raise your hands those of you who do not feel superior to our Valerie!
All in all, the contest – if it can be called such – ended up with no winners and no losers. It was a healthy debate that should pave the way for a more constructive way of doing politics, as both politicians wished for.
@Daphne. On the divorce issue Muscat is doing what other Party leaders in other countries have done on matters that involve questions of conscience be it divorce, abortion, civil partnerships – instead of using the party whip to force a vote along party lines he is allowing members of his party to vote according to their individual consciences on a moral issue. Instead of applauding him for this socially progressive and politically astute move you seek to criticize Muscat. Is it too much to ask Dr. Gonzi to give PN MPs the same sort of freedom? And more importantly, why did the Prime Minister dodge the question? It required a yes or no answer. Instead viewers got evasive waffle. And where do you stand on this – Mrs. Socially Progressive Columnist – are you unable/unwilling to give an opinion on what you think Dr. Gonzi should do?
[Daphne – No. I don’t think MPs should be given a free vote on matters of civil rights. They are free to act according to their conscience in matters which concern them. They are not free to impose the workings of their conscience on the rest of us. An MP who disagrees with divorce is free not to divorce. He or she is not free to use the power of his or her parliamentary vote to ensure that the rest of us conform to his or her conscience and don’t divorce either. Did you miss what the prime minister said? “I don’t agree with divorce, but that doesn’t mean I am going to impose my opinion on everyone else.” Exactly. Just imagine if MPs had a free vote when adultery and sodomy were decriminalised, or when civil marriage was introduced. We would still be arresting people for buggering each other or having affairs, and if you wanted to marry you’d have to do it in church whether you were religious or not. A free vote on civil rights? You must be joking. If other legislatures allowed a free vote, then you can rest assured it was because they knew the majority would vote in favour. We have no such assurance here, but rather the opposite. A free vote on divorce will mean the failure of the divorce bill. Worse than that, MPs will not be able to shelter behind the excuse of the party whip, and will feel they have to vote against to win kudos from the church and their more conservative constituents.]
From the Daily Telegraph: Embryo Bill deserves a free vote
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 24/03/2008
Have your say Read comments
In the 18 years since the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, there have been such significant medical advances that the need to update the legislation is unanswerable. That, at least, all parties in the current controversy are agreed upon.
What has turned this issue into such a thundering row is the inexplicable clumsiness with which the Government is handling it.
By resisting a free vote, Downing Street has succeeded in picking a wholly unnecessary fight with the Catholic establishment (including a number of Labour MPs and ministers). It has also prompted renewed concerns about the Government’s basic competence at a time when it is already struggling in the polls.
When the 1990 legislation was introduced by the last Conservative government, Tory MPs were allowed a free vote, an unusual concession on a government measure. ***Yet there is a sound parliamentary convention that the big social and ethical issues of the day cannot be crammed into party political boxes.***
***Abortion, divorce, homosexuality – all were reformed on free votes in the Commons, though all started out as private members bills, not government legislation***
With the 1990 measure, these two principles were elided. Such was the complexity and urgency of the issues that the government of the day felt impelled to bring forward legislation itself, ***but took the wise decision to treat it as a conscience issue and not to whip it. It was rightly seen as a matter best left to Parliament, not party.****
Gordon Brown has chosen not to follow this sensible precedent. The new bill has already been whipped through the Lords and, at the last two Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Brown sidestepped calls to allow a free vote in the Commons. It is a decision he can duck no longer.
advertisementYesterday, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, preached an Easter sermon describing the measure as “monstrous”, while a more measured Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor urged a free vote.
With Catholic Labour MPs promising rebellion and some Catholic ministers pondering resignation, Mr Brown is in some difficulty.
The suggestion from Downing Street yesterday that a free vote would be offered to those MPs who feel strongly about the issue, but only on condition that it does not jeopardise the legislation, will appear to many to be both panicky and cynical.
The danger here extends far beyond the embryo bill – as is shown by the way Stephen Byers (who describes himself as a “non-practising Methodist”) has jumped on the bandwagon to demand a free vote.
Mr Byers is a Blairite outrider and his unexpected foray into medical ethics is aimed not at the rights or wrongs of hybrid embryos in medical experimentation but at the rights and wrongs of Mr Brown being in Downing Street. The Prime Minister needs to get a grip on this row quickly before it causes more lasting damage.
[Daphne – The embryo bill is not divorce. You can’t compare the two. Britain already has abortion. What this is about is fine-tuning. You may wish to have your rights subjected to the free vote of a bunch of people who wish you to live according to their moral rules – Marlene Pullicino, anyone? – but I don’t. How would you feel if MPs were given a free vote on gay marriage, for instance, and the bill was defeated because the majority of MPs feel that gays shouldn’t marry, even if they are not gay themselves and it’s none of their blinking business? I will think LESS of the prime minister, and not more, if he removes the whip from the vote on a divorce bill. If he thinks that divorce should be introduced, then his MPs should be instructed to ensure that this happens. A free vote, indeed…whatever next?]
Congratulations David , I also have three (smashing) boys ,( you can always say: ” ghandi zewg subien u tifel! ).
When you get older they will bring you gals at home.
@ Daphne: I noticed something in Joseph which resembles the cock which behaves as if it is the one responsible for the sun to rise when it crows at dawn.
Somewhere I heard him praising Obama. Now everyone knows that Senator Obama stands a very good chance to be elected president.
If the MCESD is worried about water and electricity bills he tries to ride the wave and state that now a new social pact is forming (under his protection).
Now that the oil prices are coming down he is “demanding” that the water and electricity bills go down. As if Dr. Gonzi wants the cost of these services to go up.
In other words he wants to give the impression that he’s got what it takes to be PM .
Dr Gonzi jumped on Dr Joseph’s comment about public transport.I think the opposition leader wasn’t aware of what hit him , with his comment, he gave the ‘go ahead’ on public transport reform to Gonzi on a silver platter.
@Daphne. What you say flies in the face of British Parliamentary convention which provides for a free vote on matters of conscience. I sent you an article from the Daily Telegraph on the Embroynic Stem Cell Bill to prove my point. Since the Maltese Parliament is based on the Westminister model I assume that the Parliamentary convention applies in Malta’s Parliament.
I think that your fears of the bill being defeated are greatly exaggerated. I believe that a majority of Labour MPs and a small minority of PN MPs would vote for a conservative divorce bill (eg. 5 year waiting period) if given a free vote on the issue.
[Daphne – A vote on divorce is not a matter of conscience. If you are prepared to let Marlene Pullicino, Anglu Farrugia et al decide how you should live your life, then I am not. British parliamentary convention is what it is because it deals with British parliamentarians, not Maltese.]
Something i cannot understand . Dr Muscat never consulted the MLP Executive about proposing to submit a divorce law Yet he expected Dr Gonzi to do the same . Surely the Nationalist Party must first decide if as a party they are in faviour of divorce . So i wonder why DR Muscat insisted on Dr gonzi to pronounce himself.
[Daphne – Joseph Muscat doesn’t want to introduce divorce. He wants to look cool and progressive. The two are different. No party leader determined to introduce divorce would give his MPs, most of whom are antediluvian, a free vote.]
@ Malcolm Buttigieg
“All in all, the contest – if it can be called such – ended up with no winners and no losers. It was a healthy debate that should pave the way for a more constructive way of doing politics, as both politicians wished for”.
Why do I have a feeling that I read this comment somewhere else?
Plagiarism is a no-no. Be a bit more original, will you?
@ Marku
Valerie Borg and others like her will never understand that one who is naturally superior doesn’t feel the need to be but simply is.
Perhaps she is peeved that unlike Daphne she’s not listed in wikipedia
And I say this not because she is my sister.
Re: Joseph calling the Prime Minister ‘Lawrence’…
Let’s be clear about Joseph first.
We call him Joseph, and the Prime Minister would have been correct had he chosen to call him so, because upon being elected leader, Dr. Muscat told everyone that he should be called by his first name ‘Joseph’. Hence some still refer to him as ‘Call me’ Joseph.
If he chose to be called Joseph, that was his prerogative but it does not give him the licence to call someone else by his first name. The correct address should have been Prime Minister or at the very least, Dr. Gonzi since the latter never instructed anyone to call him Lawrence.
With regard to McCain / Obama reference somewhere in the above comments with Obama calling McCain John, I see no comparison here since both are Senators – same rank and in the States formality is almost a choice, although juniors are still very much in the habit of calling their seniors Sir or Madam.
The debate between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister clearly illustrated the ocean which divides Dr. Muscat and Dr. Gonzi when it comes to class and experience. Joseph was so irritable that two Maltese expressions immediately came to mind- tad-daqqiet ta harta, or – sicc (two dots on the Cs.
Those who think otherwise better check their television set or computer monitor, they may have severe distortion problems.
Daphne is absolutely right in that MP’s should be disciplined by the party Whip to vote in favour of divorce because it is a civil right. Indeed, a MP who is worth his/her salt should not even require Whip control to vote in favour of any civil right becuse that would amount to denial of rights. I would even suggest that it should be taken for granted that the divorce bill would be voted into law and the bill should just be the means to legislate what type of divorce law we should have (in my opinion, the most liberal). It is here that dissenting MP’s may find the pretext to vote against the divorce bill: a MP may always bring in, as an excuse, the argument that he/she agrees with divorce but not as presented in the final reading of the bill and votes against.
A free vote should be out of the question just as a referendum should not even be contemplated. Civil rights are not the subject of plebiscites because they are self-evident.
In Malta we vote for candidates , who are party members. No matter what the whip instructs, the vote cast by the MP counts. Dom Mintoff’s case is a glaring example where the MP votes according to his conscience.
When I first heard (call me) Joseph stating that he will be proposing a private member’s bill in favour of divorce my first reaction was: “here we have another Dr Alfred Sant” . Instead of proposals coming from the grassroots the MLP have yet another leader who tries to impose his ideas on his party members, in ‘off the cuff’ speaches.
Divorce was not an issue during the election campaign. How is it then that -the unelected -Joseph wants to impose his bill by a simple majority in parliament ? Is this the way how to treat the voting public from the opposition benches?
If one is in favour of something controversial let him express himself on the matter BEFORE an election. Someone who never contested for a parliamentary post which he now occupies should be very prudent.