This means that there is a triumvirate at the helm (you see them holding hands usually on the stage at meetings) and then a general secretary and CEO (in the PN this is the same person). Obviously such a structure is top-heavy and if you have people in these positions who are more interested in pushing themselves than the party then obviously there will be trouble. I would suggest to anyone who can help the Labour Party solve its problems that the party is in dire need of restructuring, then of soul searching. then of policy building and at the very end, when their message has been sold to do the research and see if it is being understood and supported.

I agree with you 100% here that the Labour Party bases its policy on market research – and the half-baked, non-committal policies are proof of this.

If the post of secretary-general was not taken up by a competent person, then the party and its leader should start searching better and being careful who they promote within the ranks and maybe stop trying to elevate ignorance as ignorant people tend to remain so whatever post you give them (Mintoff has a lot to be blamed for here).

If the structure was wrong, then change the structure but democratically and using the proper channels not single-handedly. Is the Labour leader so unsure that he will convince his people about what’s best for the party?

Many might think that what the Labour Party does in its own house then it’s their business. But when you consider that this person might be your next prime minister then you should also consider that what he does in his party is a prelude to what he will do in government.

Imagine if he deems the attorney general not to be doing his job and then decides he can do without him? Imagine what it would be like to wake up one morning and find that MEPA has suddenly been dismantled and that we are back to contacting the minister, his driver and his henchmen to get a permit.

Imagine that these things happen not because there has been wide discussion and that is the way forward but because someone thinks that is the way to go and that’s it. I think that smacks of arrogance.

Not quite that. I wrote:
‘I hold that the office carries more responsibility than power, however high an incumbent tries to raise his profile – and that applies not just to Labour … If the general secretary accumulates some power along the way, he does so at the pleasure (or the peril) of the party leader. The place of the general secretary is inside the engine room not strutting on the bridge or playing with the controls’.

It is not about over-rated officials, but about officials over-rating themselves.

Otherwise, on what the role SHOULD be, we are in agreement.

With regards to PN general secretaries, my point was that, with the exception of Galea and contrary to appearance, they had no real power vis-a-vis the party leader, who possesses the real power. It was in the context of not confusing responsibility with power.

Great Spin Daph! Masterly!

[Daphne – Iva, Edward, shed that ruddy chip, f’gieh kemm hemm. Not to put too fine a point on it, it was the very politicians you most hate and despise who made it possible for you to live and work where you do now, in Britain. Mur arak x’kont taghmel b’passaport Malti fl-iSvizzera fil-Mediterranan ta’ Sant u Muscat.]

quote
‘they micro-monitor public opinion, rally the vote, organise the campaign at all levels, raise funds, keep tabs on everything and everyone within the party, see to every detail, and are aware at every hour of every day where the vote is going and why.’
Haha so what does the prime minister do then. Sleep perhaps ?
big pow-wow haha I must admit that was funny. And the Quack hehe

In another paragraph you say that it is the secretary-general’s role to micro-monitor public opinion.

Which one of these is your opinion?

[Daphne – Trust you to misunderstand with intent, Edward. You know as well as I do that making policy is one thing and that selling it is another. Public opinion is monitored so as to sell the policies that are not selling so well, and to adjust the non-policy factors that are causing problems, if this is at all possible. Public opinion is not monitored so that the political party in question can decide whether it’s going to be extremist, moderate, left, right, or centre, whether it’s going to run with the hare, hunt with the hounds or try to do both at once. Those things come first.]

Dr. Abela would receive better dividends if he were to channel his energy into laying out a strategy and telling us what the Labour Party plans to do when in office, rather than squandering time in his office laying a strategy to battle and win a legal argument against you.