I just pointed out to you that the way you write many a times does not promote any unity at all, and this contradicts all the values that you say you believe in.

Sometimes it is hilarity but other times it is not really so and many people know this too well.

Thanks for pointing out the extra “L” that I used in the word intolerance and for explaining how text feature in comic books.

I rest my case & will not add anymore comments.

Regarding the wealth I did not say that under successive PN governments there was no wealth created, however, a good amount of that wealth was created on the notion of living beyond our means as a nation and too much money was wasted along the way.

The current Governor of the Central Bank has repeated this many times and all Economists did this before.

With regards to directing my insults on the Labour party, I would rather criticize constructively rather than insulting them and I must say that unlike the PN this time round they seem to want to listen to everyone and they are opening up their doors.Finally it seems that apart from a bit of lipstick they are also attracting very intelligent people to their ranks such as Profs Scicluna, Marlene Mizzi & many others. Now we have it confirmed on this blog that your style is directing insults and sometimes even very personal attacks on the Labour party members and their families!! This style is really admirable and very unifying in fact many confuse your style with that of Barack Obama!!!! It is simply impossible to discuss objectively with you that is my main point and many people know this. Your intollerance & hate for any opposition to the PN knows no limits, honestly how can you manage to keep all this hate inside you? (actually you express it in writing). By the way I know people like you even Labour supporters but that is not the point!!! Why all this anger & hate?

[Daphne – (1) I am not biased. I have political opinions and am not wishy-washy about them. (2) No, the accumulated wealth in this country is a state of fact, not opinion. (3) It is not wealth that is created by living beyond one’s means, but debt. (4) You do not criticise constructively but insult those you do not agree with. Read your comments in my regard. (5) Edward Scicluna and Marlene Mizzi have always supported the Labour Party. They have not had a Damascene conversion. (6) What you view as personal attacks is a statement of facts, par for the course in the free world, not par for the course in mealy-mouthed, fence-sitting Malta. (7) I do not find it difficult to discuss with those who don’t agree with me. I find it difficult to have any kind of discussion with illogical people. I prefer not to engage at all in those circumstances. (8) You confuse hilarity with hatred. The only people who are driven by hate are the key members of the Labour Party – Joseph Muscat excepted – and very many of those who vote Labour, because they are driven to do so by hdura and pika. (9) Tolerance and intolerance are spelt with one ‘l’ and in ‘because’, the ‘a’ always comes before the ‘u’. (10) It is entirely unnecessary to use more than one exclamation mark, unless your text features in the speech bubbles of a comic-book.]

[Daphne – “You insult non voters, labour voters, AD voters & any other voters simply because they do not vote PN because in your extreme & very biased opinion the PN has created so much wealth & prosperity.” It’s not an extreme and biased opinion but a matter of recorded fact. If you don’t believe your eyes and ears, check the Central Bank records and official statistics. Whose fault is it that there’s no choice? Mine? The Nationalist Party’s? The government’s? That’s right: it’s the Labour Party’s fault. So direct your insults there, please, which is exactly what I do.]

[Daphne – Anyone can get a press pass if they have a letter of accreditation from a media organisation. The Labour Party knows this, and so does AD (lots of their non-journalists have press passes) though it didn’t stop them making the most of whining. Morality has nothing to do with it. It’s not as though he stripped naked and danced a jig. I think it was an extremely smart move, one which exposed Sant as a coward incapable of handling unexpected and unforeseen situations. This is the point you miss: that a tactic of which you disapprove exposed undesirable weakness of character in somebody who was aiming to be the country’s leader. Not that we needed further proof of his weakness of character, given that his ill-fated government imploded as he exploded, but it’s always good to refresh people’s memory.]

On the other hand, I think that Joseph Muscat was really clever in making his way to the leadership, when there was Alfred Sant he nearly always supported the positions taken by the party, however, now that he is leading the same party, he is ackowledging all the mistakes or bad judgements taken in the past.

With regards to serious politicians, unfortunately, most people think very highly about them here in Malta. In the developed world (US, EU & Canada) it is more likely that people take politicians with a very pinch of salt and that’s how it should be.

Even if it is hard for you to admit it but both political parties have a considerable number of politicians which cannot be described as serious.

We need to be critical of all politicians all the time if possible and make sure that they are accountable to us instead of glorifying them all along.

[Daphne – “On the other hand, I think that Joseph Muscat was really clever in making his way to the leadership, when there was Alfred Sant he nearly always supported the positions taken by the party, however, now that he is leading the same party, he is ackowledging all the mistakes or bad judgements taken in the past.” We have a different moral code. What you see as cleverness, I see as crass opportunism.]

In my opinion, you were not fair at all with regards to the changes that have been proposed by the Labour party’s general conference.

I am pretty sure that you have read all the proposed changes and many of these changes are in fact what Labour needed in order to become a serious alternative to the current government.

It is true that many of the “old faces” are still there, however, it is also true that the “new faces” are being involved quite more than they use to in the past.

Did you not notice the increased involvement of people such as:

Dr George Abela, Louis Grech, the prospective involvement of probably one of the best Economists Profs Scicluna?

Apart from the fact that lately the party is taking quite a positive approach and it has also supported the government in issues where the government was right. (as it should do)

Obviously, there is still more to do, however, if we are to be a bit objective, there has been a positive change in the Labour party.

At long last, it seems that Labour is listening & if they continue on this road they could become the party of the future.

By the way, I consider myself to be a very moderate left winger. I believe in the free market system & strongly believe that the best way to help the poor and those who due to many reasons fall behind is by encouraging initiative instead of promising protectionist policies. (Fully agreement with you Daphne)

[Daphne – What the Labour Party needs is not serious changes but serious people. Sadly, with Joseph Muscat, Anglu Farrugia and Toni Abela at the helm, that’s a bit of a non-starter.]

In other words, the MLP may be getting a make over, but underneath it is still the same. It may dress in new flashy clothes and find itself a new name, but the same people are still there.

That’s Socialism in its purest form. Conservatism is today synonymous with individualism and self-reliance and not government intervention, at least when it comes to economic matters. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are just two examples of politicains that managed to popularise conservatism in recent years thanks to ideological reforms. It is thanks to these politicians that most Western countries today have accepted the concepts of privitization, liberalization, and non-interventionist economic policies. The Nationalist Party is slowly but surely following the same path.

I wouldn’t call this “progressivism”, at least not in the sense of the political definition of the term.

According to wikipedia:

“In some countries, the word refers to left-wing politics. For instance, in the United States, the term progressive emerged in the late 19th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes wrought by industrialization”

“In some countries, the word refers to right-wing politics. In Ireland, progressivism refers to conservative liberal free market policies of Progressive Democrats.”

“American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations”

Seems to me like the word is being thrown around by various political factions simply because it’s very cool-sounding and attention-grabbing.

Someone will surely reply with the usual comment about Mintoff wanting integration. But that’s the whole point. I mean, integration, for god’s sake. That would have meant the UK henceforth changing its name to the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, …. and Malta. Sheer lunacy. If he really wanted us to be “British”, as he thundered in his famous speeches from the 1950s, he would have asked for Dependency status, no more, no less. Which would have suited us down to the ground.

If it quacks like Third World Marxism, to paraphrase the saying, then it is Third World Marxism. And that’s exactly what the MLP believed in. Liberation from colonialism, full employment, the welfare state, a self-reliant economy, minimum imports, antagonism towards NATO and the West, a dislike for European-style public criticism of the government, preference for social equality over economic prosperity, and so on and so forth. All wrapped up in Communist social engineering rhetoric.

This led, with very few real changes, to the culmination of it all: Labour’s opposition to EU membership. Which followed every preceding event as naturally as day follows night. It couldn’t have been any other way. And it wasn’t, as some still suggest, an idea hatched up in vacuo by Alfred Sant.

I remember stating, in the days following the elections in March, that the only way for the MLP to redeem itself would be to disband the party, and form another one. Joseph Muscat seems to have misread my comment. He left the party intact, and changed the name. He changed the wrapping but the old mistrust of anything “European” lingers on. Of course you can’t reverse fifty years of ideology overnight. And I don’t expect Muscat to even try. Political convictions aren’t dictated by the party hierarchy. They’re akin to religious beliefs. Something intimate, between you and your god. As the MLP flaps around looking for an identity, it may seek to reinvent itself as Malta’s liberal party. But in the desperate harlotry for votes, it is better to play it safe in Malta. Out go abortion, divorce, gay marriage, and all that Hollando-Scandinavian stuff which gives Tonio Borg nightmares. So we’re back where we started.

Of course the MLP, or LP, or Il-Partit Laburista, will survive and flourish. It only needs a handful of votes to win the election. That has always been the way in Maltese politics, and I expect to be writing very much the same stuff in 2013 or 2018, if I’m still around. I hope Marku will still be here though, on this blog. By then, we’ll have internet chips implanted in our brains.

In 1939 Dom Mintoff wrote a letter to the Daily Malta Chronicle. This is an excerpt:”Mala is in need of members with fresh ideas to rally all the progressive elements to change our mediaeval social system into one which would be the envy of the world.” You can find it in Pirotta’s Fortress Colony.