Astrid Vella – her public affairs tactics are modelled on those of Alfred Sant

Has Astrid Vella studied the public affairs communications tactics of Alfred Sant, when he was party leader, or is it just pure coincidence that she uses precisely the same methods of misleading opinion through the use of half-truths about which, when challenged, she can say ‘Oh, but I never said that!’?

This is my field, so I observe these matters keenly and notice things that others might not.

Strangely enough, lots of people appear to have picked up the similarities subconsciously, without knowing exactly why the behaviour of Astrid Vella and FAA rings so many ‘Labour alert’ bells.

FAA is being accused of being in cahoots with Labour, provoking the reaction from members of this NGO that they are apolitical (Helen Caruana Galizia apolitical? This is the woman who went to war with me because I wrote scathingly about – how dare I – her hero Alfred Sant).

So let’s take their word for it: FAA are apolitical.

But people – not THE people, just people who are commenting on the internet and speaking here and there – are picking up something ‘Labour’ about them, and they’re not getting this feeling about any other environmental/heritage/aesthetics NGO.

So what is it that people are picking up, subconsciously?

That’s right: FAA’s public affairs methods, which include the strategic deployment of half-truths, a cavalier disregard for the facts, disingenuous language and sophistry.

This is ‘the means justify the ends’ communication style which we associate with Alfred Sant (Joseph Muscat hasn’t really got going yet, and I suspect he doesn’t have the manipulation skills required).

And hence lots of us have made the mental link between FAA and Labour without knowing why.

Read this current exchange from the comments-board on timesofmalta.com, and you will see what I mean.

ASTRID VELLA: “We have nothing against a new parliament being created, but it makes more sense to treat Valletta holistically and examine all the alternatives first, as some, like the Mediterranean Conference Centre and the Auberge de Baviere were being considered as a new parliament as recently as last year, while plans exist for the building of a larger parliament over Main Guard.”

ASTRID VELLA: “Guggenheim already approached Malta, but no interest was shown.”

DAPHNE CARUANA GALIZIA: “Astrid, ‘Guggenheim already approached Malta but no interest was shown‘. You don’t say. Do you actually know what you are talking about? ‘plans exist for the building of a larger parliament over Main Guard‘ – again, do you know what you are talking about? There are no plans for a larger parliament over the Main Guard: I should know, given that I have been covering this ongoing saga since Renzo Piano’s first plans in 1989. I imagine you have no idea how small the Main Guard is, as for plans for a parliament house to be built ‘over’ it, I can just imagine what your reaction would be to any such plans (and you would be justified in any negativity).”

ASTRID VELLA: “Daphne,as one who does not know what I’m talking about, I’m surprised you are asking me so many questions. I happen to know that Guggenheim approached private investors (please note that I never said it approached the Maltese Government) with a proposal which was deemed to be too costly so the idea was not pursued. I have seen the correspondence, so do I know what I’m talking about, but being a private company it would not be ethical to say more. As regards the plans for a large parliament over Main Guard, these were drawn up in the late twenties and until recently were available in Government archives. We have not said that they would be suitable for today’s needs but the concept could be relevant. The footprint was not limited to the Main Guard but the building of a first floor over the flanking buildings too.”

DAPHNE CARUANA GALIZIA: “Astrid, please stop being disingenuous. It really doesn’t wash. Your statement was “Guggenheim approached Malta” and not “The Guggenheim Museum approached a private company in Malta.” ‘Malta’ means the Maltese state, as represented by the Maltese government. It does not mean Borg & Camilleri Ltd, a Maltese company.

So the plans for a parliament built over the Main Guard were drawn up in the 1920s. You should have said so, instead of trying to give the impression that they are current. Anything drawn up in the 1920s when there were far fewer MPs than there are today and when parliamentary business was completely different is quite obviously irrelevant. I cannot for one moment imagine why you would mention it, unless it was to mislead by leaving out the fact that these plans are 80 years old.”