E=mc2, you must be either sincere and really have no idea what you’re talking about or you are being falsely naive.

Antoine Vella has slipped badly – his definition of “floaters” smacks of true fanaticism. Floaters are those who are slave to no party and no ideology. The highest bidder is the one who offers what the voter perceives to be in his interest and that of the country – this does not make the floater a mercenary. Mercenaries are those who obtain the undeserved through clientelism. A floater’s sympathies may change during the course of a government’s five year term.

Jomar: I would be the last to have favoured integration with Britain but Mintoff’s purpose seems to have been that of accelerating progress in Malta (through integration) by bringing up the standard of living of the Maltese to the same level as that enjoyed by Brits at the time within a span of several years (I believe he was thinking of 5-10 years). At the time, many were skeptical that Malta could survive without Britain. Mintoff’s efforts were undermined, among others, by the Catholic Church – it seems some prelates even feared Catholic colleagues from Britain taking their places in Malta!. Of course, Archbishop Gonzi who dictated what length of sleeves women should wear at the time, regarded integration with horror – divorce, civil marriage, protestantism… in a few words, Sodom and Gomorrah…It is to Borg Olivier’s credit that he believed in independence and obtained it in a peaceful way and set Malta on the painful road to development.

Enough said: I have nothing to add to my first comments which provoked these reactions.

Most of the floating voters in Malta are actually selfish grasping mercenaries who will give their vote to the highest bidder.

“… in this matter (clientelism), the two parties have little cause to criticise each other”.

Really, E=mc2?

8,000 people employed in the few weeks before the general election of 1987 had its equivalent under a PN government when exactly?

Trade licences awarded to people on the basis of their political colour had its equivalent when under a PN government?

Winding main roads built in a way that shows who were the Nationalist famers and who were the Labour ones had its equivalent when under a PN government?

Thousands of transfers and promotions given solely on the basis of support for the Labour Party had its equivalent when under a PN government?

Thousands of houses requisitioned by Labour governments to be given to Labour supporters (and Labour clubs) had its equivalent when under a PN government?

Patronage was elevated by Labour to a system whereby you could only enter university if you what they called a ‘sponsor’. You even needed a sponsor to get a colour television (paying something in the process of course).

Clientelism, patronage and nepotism are the bedrock of Labour politics. Go to any Labour club weekday mornings and talk to the people there and see how unchanging Labour is in its strong belief of clientelism.

“Some of these unaffiliated wanderers may have voted PN in past elections but are now more hopeful of finding some justice in the PL”. I take it that by ‘unaffiliated wanderers’ you mean floaters .In order to put a good argument forward, one has to analyze who the floaters are.

In my opinion, floaters are ‘non fanatic, generally unbiased, not egotistic and above all, respect democracy and the good of the nation’. This is not to say that affiliated voters are not as patriotic, but generally speaking, they are biased. Anyone trying to find justice would be unwise to try to find it within a political organization of any kind, unless ‘justice’ means something different to you.

Going to your favourite political party for ‘favours’ is not the same as seeking justice – as a matter of fact it is the exact opposite because seeking a favour invariably means getting something you do not deserve or if deserved, you want to get it ahead of everybody else.

The NP never boasts that ‘it will be a government by the Nationalists for the Nationalists’ as opposed to the LP who on more than one occasion and by prominent officials declared, at the conclusion of the last election campaign that, ‘we will be a government of the Laburisti – and we know who will do what and where – we have a list ready to appoint those we trust in sensitive positions, etc.” You call that justice? Please don’t tell me that it was election rhetoric. We know better because we have experienced labour methods of the past like hiring 8000 on the eve of an election and crippling Malta’s finances for two or more decades. Some justice!

The floaters you talk about can stand back, observe, listen, analyze and finally at the ballot box make a decision not based on any party influence but on experience, observation and fairness.

It is for that reason that the majority of ‘floaters’ will again vote NP because thus far there is not a slightest hint that the LP today is any different than that of decades ago which produced leaders without a vision, without trusting the ability of Malta’s workers, more interested in indoctrinating its uninformed blindfolded followers for the sake of gaining power.

The LP remains the ‘No’ party whose leader, while boasting of ‘new beginnings’ and ‘new way of doing politics’ found it necessary to dig deep into the past and rehabilitate individuals from the dark days and welcoming back anti-EU campaigners.

You cannot declare yourself progressive when surrounding yourself by regressive people. Floaters will see through the smoke and mirrors and invariably make the right decision. Besides, many of them have been once (or twice) bitten and will definitely be twice shy voting for Labour in a general election.

The Catholic Church had the right to express concern about certain consequences of being integrated with Britain with only three representatives in the House of Commons among some 350. One of the sticking points was the question of divorce. But remember we are talking about some 50 years ago and the attitude then was quite different and divorce in Malta was hardly ever mentioned or felt necessary.

Mintoff’s problem was always ‘my way or no way’ because if he thought about it, he would at least appear to try to get some guarantees that divorce and some other five church objections would not be implemented in Malta. Britain could not do that anyway, since then, Malta would not fall under all British laws. Mintoff could have tested the people’s attitude, held a referendum and complied with the result. But again, Mintoff did not want to risk it because he knew that the chances of winning the referendum was next to nil.

That’s all water under the bridge, but if one looks back, one cannot be other than thankful that events unfolded as they did. Imagine if we had been integrated fifty years ago. We would be flying the Union Jack, we would have no government of our own, no control on our destiny, still a British naval base, Gordon Brown would be our Prime Minister and we would have very little influence in the House of Commons.

Now, what scenario do you prefer?

Remember, the MLP portrays itself as the party which made Malta a republic, Malta neutral, Malta with veto powers etc. Is this the same Mintoff’s Labour Party which wanted our flag to disappear, be subject to a foreign country’s policies with nary a flea’s power to change things in our favour?

The Labour Party was and is the party of political opportunism, without a vision and without measuring consequences of shortsighted policies it presents from time to time. It is a party which is unable to build on what is already there but when it governs it invariably tries to reinvent the wheel.

For 22 years its wheels have been consistently square.

It seems some have now been employed on an indefinite basis and some of these seem not even to possess enough qualifications Others are retained in employment even after pensionable age (receiving their pension as well as their salary) while those without patronage must retire even if they still wish to continue working: two weights and two measures.

The treatment is not the same for all. If the writer of the article is close to the PN, he must know these people and yet s/he has the gall to accuse the PL of clientelism. Indeed, in this matter, the two parties have little cause to criticise each other and I’d go as far as to say that the PN have refined clientelism into an art. Perhaps Labour were a little crude about it (after all they are a workers’ party) but the PN have devised nicely legal ways to do exactly the same thing with more finesse (after all, they are a party of the professionals).

Open your eyes and look at reality for none are as blind as those who will not see. It is those who are affiliated with neither of the parties who fare worst for their turn to taste the cake will never come. This is the kind of “democracy” one lives in. Doesn’t the PN consider that this may have had something to do with the result of the recent MEP election? Some of these unaffiliated wanderers may have voted PN in past elections but are now more hopeful of finding some justice in the PL. After all, if the PN will only look after their own, where’s the harm in trying a party which despite its past may not be so bad after all?

Joseph Muscat did apologise. You must have blinked and missed it. It wasn’t a carefully considered and finely worded apology – just a brush off, like flicking gel flakes off your shoulders.

At the time I got the impression that he had some sort of ‘to do’ list where that apology was squeezed in somewhere between buying a loaf of bread and taking out the garbage.

As they say the road to heaven is paved with good intentions.

What I’m saying is that the intentions were in themselves good but their implementation was irreversibly littered with perverse ideology apart from the underlying notion that basic excellence was considered a luxury. Vision was completely missing apart from that of instituting a socialist society with a number of “first amongst equals”. For example, free quality education is the maximum one can hope. If you drop the “quality” the resulting system is catastrophic, and we still have not come out of the repercussions.

Jake, Joseph Muscat has already made numerous mistakes. He declared himself against the EU when he should have known better, basing his arguments on serious lies. He ran for leader and manipulated the party system to his favour. His greed is his doom – he would have done his career a great favour had he ran for deputy leader. He miserably failed to reform the MLP. When he brought in a CEO rather than change the statute to fire Jason Micallef (which he could not do because the latter helped him get the leadership chair) he showed his lack of leadership. He has disrespected institutions on several occasions. He has made abusive declarations for his own benefit. He has made promises he can never keep. He is harping on being progressive but he has failed to explain to his followers what he means when he says so.

He may win the next general election, but at this rate he is bound to have a tough time governing.