What is a 'real Nationalist'?
I ask after reading this letter:
Letters to the Editor, The Times, today
No fear of losing votes (3)
Joseph Scicluna, St Julians
Just a short note to remind The Boss and the boys at Pietà that we real Nationalists are not a flock of sheep who will jump into the abyss just because you have done so.
I’m curious as to what makes somebody a ‘real Nationalist’ as opposed to – what? – a pretend one or a not-quite-Nationalist. I have a nagging suspicion that it has nothing to do with politics or policy.
There are people about who can’t seem to let go of the glory days of old, those nights spent guarding the stamperija and addressing the party leader as ‘Eddie’ to his face, even when he became prime minister.
This one says that ‘real Nationalists’ are not a flock of sheep who will jump into the abyss just because the people they feel have excluded them have done so.
Aside from the fact that the creatures he’s looking for are lemmings and not sheep, I have the most curious feeling that jumping into an abyss is precisely what he plans to do: act to make Joseph Muscat prime minister, by not voting to return Lawrence Gonzi.
The trouble with such people is that they actually believe their decisions are principled and even heroic, which is why they boast about them. They also think they are original and have short memories.
I still remember all the boasting by the most unexpected people in the aftermath of the 1996 general election, all of them rushing to be the first to say they had voted Labour. Within three months they had all changed their tune, and if you were to remind them of it now, they would say you were lying. But you wouldn’t be.
It didn’t take me long to realise that it wasn’t because they were ashamed of having voted Labour. It was because they were embarrassed, in the cold light of dawn, to be seen as having had such poor judgement and lack of foresight.
31 Comments Comment
Reply to R. Camilleri Click here to cancel reply
You seem surprised by that sort of comment, Daphne. Most Maltese do not treat politics as the practical matter of choosing who to put in the driving seat of the country.
It is, as one mentioned in the Bundy thread, a tribal matter.
Not unlike one choosing to side with Italian or English football teams. Most do not give a hoot about the principles (or lack of) of the party. Come election time, most would barely be able to mention a couple of points from their own party’s electoral manifesto let alone that of their opponents.
You often mention that clear-thinking people are attracted to the PN. I think the truth is that by far the majority are attracted to whatever party is supported by their family.
[Daphne – You approach the question at the wrong angle. All clear-thinking people ARE attracted to the Nationalist Party. To say that a person is clear-thinking and a Labour voter is an obvious oxymoron because rational analysis tells you that one party is far more efficient and has far sounder policies than the other. You cannot be clear-thinking and choose the worse option, because that means that you are not clear-thinking. Clear-thinking is NOT a synonym for intelligent. It is perfectly possible to be of average or below average intelligence and still think clearly. I know many highly intelligent people who make very poor decisions in almost every area of their life. Equally, I know people who can’t add up with a calculator but who make very sound decisions. That is the truth. The problem is that clear-thinking people, because of a variety of reasons directly linked to education and the family environment, are in the minority. Everything about the way children are raised in Malta militates against the development of analytical skills, information-processing and good decision-making. Over the last few years, though, there has been a major shift among young people that is, I think, the direct result of better and prolonged education. It accounts for the fact that it in the last general election, the new vote massed in its entirety behind the Nationalist Party, including the sons and daughters of people whose families had voted Labour for generations.]
A smaller number are attracted by whoever can provide them with favours. The ones who think about who to vote for are a tiny, insignificant fraction.
Daphne, Than why do you always say that the next election is a foregone conclusion? By your reasoning ‘clear-thinkers’ will still vote for the PN.
[Daphne – Yes, of course. And as I said, I’m one of them, unless I succumb to some kind of dementia and end up voting for the Three Stooges instead. A bit of logic here: all clear-thinking people vote PN, but not all people who vote PN are clear-thinking.]
The “floaters” are the ones whose decision is based on favours and/or spite.
I am no big fan of PN or politicians in general but when one thinks of the alternative, there isn’t one.
“All clear-thinking people ARE attracted to the Nationalist Party.”
I am still in my early twenties. Yet I’ve come to realise that in Maltese politics such sweeping statements hold no ground.
[Daphne – It can be statistically and historically proven that Nationalist Party policies are better for Malta than the Labour Party’s. Clear-headed people, before voting, assess past performance and future potential, based on policies and personalities. They do not vote with their emotions, prejudice, tradition or with their fingers crossed that the worse party will magically become the better one if they vote for it. So yes, if you vote Labour you are by definition not clear-minded. The worst offenders of all are those who have repeatedly voted Labour for the last 30 years or so. Despite all the screaming evidence of failure and ineptitude, they keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result: the definition of madness.]
You tend to discuss politics in black and white language. There’s no “grey” in your vocabulary.
[Daphne – It is precisely because there is grey in my thinking that I don’t expect perfection from the government while having much lower standards for the Opposition, a crime of which so many black-and-whiters are guilty. I am the sort of person who understands that if you have the luxury of carping about the colour of the lifebuoys, then it’s because the ship isn’t sinking.]
Some time ago you also said that anyone who votes for Joseph Muscat is a closet homosexual or something along those lines.
[Daphne – I said nothing of the sort. I said, immediately after his election – as party leader, because he was never elected to parliament, remember – that he appealed to a certain kind of homosexual man. That is no longer the case, I think. My antennae tell me that his gay appeal is long gone. I also remarked on how odd it is that his conversational style with men is no different to what it is with women: he flirts. That’s still the case. It seems to be the only form of conversational engagement which allows him to feel comfortable.]
A few days ago you wrote that only self-reliant people and those devoid of LANZIT and HDURA vote for PN.
[Daphne – Basic logic should really be compulsory in schools, I think. I did not say that only self-reliant people devoid of lanzit and hdura vote for the Nationalists. I wrote that self-reliant people devoid of lanzit and hdura vote for the Nationalist Party. Think about the difference. All people who are self-reliant and devoid of lanzit vote PN, but not all people who vote PN are self-reliant and devoid of lanzit.]
Truth is … there’s nothing different in principle between the character and personality of one who votes for the PN and one who votes for the PL.
[Daphne – On the contrary, there is a massive difference, which is why I am able to tell exactly how people vote after the briefest of conversations about matters that have nothing to do with politics.]
There are many people who are self-reliant and utterly devoid of lanzit and hdura who vote for the PL and there are also many people who are not self reliant and are spiteful who vote for the PN. You just can’t make a sweeping statement like that.
I reiterate the point I have done many times on this blog; Gonzi is not a leader. He is a good man, would make a loyal general, but he does not exude vision. Five, six dissenting backbenchers can’t all be wrong; the MP’s salary fiasco is a telling sign. Once he goes in to sort out the mess, he does an excellent job to pacify the dissenters, so who the hell is advising him?
Again I will reiterate that as Gonzi is no visionary, he relies on others to plan out strategy. As he seems to lack the qualities of a Richard Cachia Caruana in his cabinet or amongst his entourage, he needs to shoulder the responsibility of their failings. Just look at the Dalli mess. It is obvious he wasn’t to blame of the disparaging campaign on Dalli. Yet what did he do about it? How clinical was he? I have learnt that in management if you’re not clinical and deal with an issue immediately it will come back to haunt you. Just as Gonzi wasn’t clinical enough with the appointment of Paul Borg Oliver and Paula Mifsud Bonnici, that are more of a liability than anything else. You well tell me these were freely elected. Oh right. So were Anglu Farrugia and Toni Abela.
Yet, in your eyes, as long as we have a job, a car and ‘petlor’ to fill it in with we should all be grateful. Unfortunately it does not work like that and although I don’t agree with John Bundy’s reaction in your blog, I do agree with a point he mentioned. Unfortunately, nowadays, there is no place in the Party for Nationalists who want to constructively criticise. Just look at your reaction each time anyone dares to criticise this party. This is symptomatic of ‘il-Partit tas-sitta’!
[Daphne – I have a very low tolerance threshold for muddled thinking, Jean.Really low. It brings me out in hives. That is why I write about politics rather than being a politician.
When you’re a politician, you have to manage nutjobs, stupid people, backbiters, pains, cretins, the works – and you have to be nice to them and deliver on their (daft and cretinous) expectations. Politicians can be cold and clinical in their decisions only when they can afford to be.
That is the difference between managing a company and managing a political party. A manager can sack his hirelings, but a prime minister can’t sack an MP.
Only the electorate can do that, every five years. With a solid majority of seats, the prime minister can withdraw the party whip and effectively cast a badly behaved MP out of the party. But you can’t do that with a majority of one or two or even three seats.
The paradox is that with a solid majority, this wouldn’t even come into play, because MPs behave badly only when they know the prime minister can’t withdraw the whip without sinking the government. When the possibility exists of having the party whip withdrawn, they behave well. Yes, exactly – just like children.
Your arguments and those of others meet with my severe impatience because they are half-assed and devoid of context. Context is essential for arguments. The context is this: a choice between Lawrence Gonzi and Joseph Muscat. Full stop. If you’re not happy with Gonzi, then go for Muscat, but stiop expecting perfection because nobody’s going to deliver on that. You wouldn’t be carping about the colour and texture of the lifebuoys if you were on a sinking ship, I can tell you. ]
Daphne in principle I don’t fault any of your reasoning in this reply. However I’m perplexed as to why it has to be always a choice between the lesser evil and evil i.e. Gonzi vs Muscat (as if that is a choice).
[Daphne – You don’t see why it has to be that sort of choice? It always is, where the choice is between two. Follow any election in the United States and Britain. It’s invariably a stand-off on those terms. And it is usually true.]
And why (when we are/were years away from an election) we can’t constructively criticise this government to improve its accountability (BWSC), sensitivity (honoraria increase), responsibility (ministers, party officials jetting/ferrying with businessmen) etc. You (together with Peppi, Lou etc) simply decide to accept these faults de facto. I find that illogical.
[Daphne – Funny how you mention three people who actually think about things unlike, say, John Bundy who doesn’t think at all, or say, Miriam Dalli, who thinks what the Labour Party pays her to think, at least on televison. I think it is absolutely hilarious when employees of a political party and propaganda hacks who work for Super One, KullHadd, Maltastar and the rest, accuse me of bias, or say that – cue spooky music – I am paid by the PN to write what I write. And they are….what, exactly? Paid by the Labour Party to promote Labour propaganda and target the party’s perceived enemies, like me. It doesn’t seem to occur to you that there might be other reasons why I don’t share your interest in a power station contract. It’s not interesting. Oh, and by the way – don’t be so ready to hoover up the gunge that the Labour Party feeds out as a substitute for policy. ‘Lou, Peppi and Daphne’ are not an item – not like, say, ‘Jeffrey, Bundy, Musumeci and Herrera’, who are.}
A real Nationalist is someone who thanks God every single day that the PN is the party in government, and that those horrid days of Labour’s ‘marmalja’ are over.
With reference to your reply; i would rather refer to such an individual as being a fanatic.
Kieku kont inhares lejn il favuri, wara li ghamilna dak kollu fil 1987 (u zgur Bundy ma ghamilx daqskemm ghamilt jien u shabi dak iz-zmien) kieku ilni li tlaqt lil PN.
Imma jien inhares lejn il=partit kif kien jghid Kennedy “Hares lejn x`tista taghmel int ghall-pajjiz, mhux lejn x’jista jaghmel il-pajjiz ghalik£. U
dawn kolla bhal Bundy hekk iharsu, lejn x’jaghmel u jakkwistaw il-partit anke jekk ikun hemm bzonn jitilfu l-irgulija.
During one local elections campaign I visited a family who were not going to vote because of an ill-fitting manhole cover in front of their house.
Every time a car passed over it, it would make a loud and irritating click-click sound. They felt this was the PN’s fault (obviously) and were refusing to vote.
In the end they were persuaded to vote but only after a minister and the PM himself had visited and talked to them. Incidents like this make me wonder what sort of other trivialities cause voters to ‘float’.
What is amazing is the fact that a minister and the PM himself had to pay a house visit to these floating voters. They must be very desperate, I wonder if they will have time to visit all the voters who are not going to pick up their vote or not vote for PN at the next elections.
[Daphne – I hope they do. It’s called stooping to conquer. And if that will lower the risk of having the country run by the Three Stooges, then so be it.]
Antoine, would it not have been easier to fix the manhole cover rather than bring in a minister and PM?
This unfortunately is not an isolated case as there are many similar situations where people have to suffer because of the gross incompetence of the local council or some government department.
What the minister or PM should have done is to see who was responsible for this shoddy piece of work and make heads roll.
In reality I do not believe that ministers and even more so the PM should get involved in such petty matters but it seems it is the only way to get something done.
Isn’t it a bit absolute stating that “All clear thinking people are attracted to the Nationalist Party”?
I suppose that clear thinking means, for example, giving yourself and, inevitably, all MPs a hefty raise just when most people find it hard (or else, to be fair, perceive that it’s hard) to make ends meet, and then discover that, of course, this was a major PR blunder which you would need to rectify…is that it?
[Daphne – No, Albert, that’s an example of unclear thinking: yours. To check whether you think clearly or not, take this Cosmo mini quiz. There’s a general election. The doorbell rings and two police officers are on the threshold, with your voting document. Do you: 1, bin it; 2. keep it to wave around after polling day has come and gone; 3. take it to the polling booth but scribble ‘F’gh*xx gONzi” over your ballot sheet before folding it up neatly and pushing it into the ballot box; 4. take it to the polling booth and vote Labour because you’re a Laburist; 5. take it to the polling booth and vote Nationalist because you’re a Nationalist; 6. ask yourself, now who would make the best prime minister and deputy prime minister, then sit down and tick the Labour boxes; 7. ask yourself the same question and tick the Nationalist boxes. Clear-thinking people go immediately to the root of the matter: it’s not about how you would like the country run, but about who of the only two options would run the country better than the other]
Or first by refusing to allow witnesses to be heard by the PAC regarding some issue or another, and then say that…oh yes, we will not only allow wistnesses to be heard, in fact why not have 150 of them?
And please don’t mention finances..if they are “fis-sod” or not…financial policy is an EU, not local matter, now even more than before.
Long-term financial policy is set by the EU and governments simply carry it out. So I don’t give any laurels to the government when it’s simply joining the dotted lines to make a drawing, like we used to do as children.
[Daphne – Oh for heaven’s sake, Albert, listen to yourself. If governments had no say in financial policy then Greece and Sweden would be in the same situation. And so would Malta and Ireland. Or Spain and Denmark. But they’re not, are they.]
…well…the situation in Greece, Ireland and Spain has taken the turning it did precisely because they did not follow the EU’s, and more specifically, the Euro’s rules, to which rules they voluntarily signed up.
[Daphne – You undermine your own argument with that statement, Albert. You do understand that there is a major risk the Labour Party in government will do the same, particularly given that it has a committed stance against the EU?]
If they were not bound by these rules, and if they had their own currency, they would have solved their problems easily simply by devaluing it.
Apart from the fact that no-one would ever even had to know that Greece, for one, consistently lied about its financial situation. It could have continued to cook its books to its heart’s content.
The EU, especially the euro zone to which we belong, sets its rules (rightly so) and the Member States have just a small leeway within them (which leeway is now getting smaller).
Therefore, yes, financial and economic policy are more or less an EU, not a national, matter now. I am not saying it’s right or wrong. But it is simply so.
No Maltese government can expect to be lauded just for keeping within parameters set from outside. Having “finanzi fis-sod” is now not a promise to the electorate which can be simply ignored like many other promises, but an enforceable obligation in a international Treaty that Malta has signed up to.
I don’t want to labour the point. But you made a statement there….that the LP has “…a committed stance against the EU.”
Well, to make that statement you have to back it up with chapter and verse.
[Daphne – WHAT? Are you for real?]
You have to tell us when and where did the LP and its Leaders declare that they will not feel bound by the EU’s and the euro’s financial and economic rules.
Just quoting Alfred Sant in the 80s and 90s wont do (when Malta was not bound by the EUs rules anyway), 20 years on.
Otherwise your argument would rest on the Maltese “”u iva..tal-Lejber mhux dejjem hekk..” basis. I do not find that acceptable to people who think clearly.
You seem to be thinking of monetary policy, which is mostly in EU hands.
A real Nationalist is one whose political values are rightist. Ironically, the more time passes, the more the PN shifts its policies to the left.
As I mentioned in other comments, financing an overburdened welfare state, an excessive tertiary education budget (even for those with the propensity to pay) while taxing enterprise and disallowing incentive is a socialist methodology which true Nationalists can never come to terms with.
Labour which is a wholehearted socialist party is definitely not an option. This ultimately means that disgruntled voters who always voted PN up to now will not necessarily vote Labour. But open critisism of current government policy is a democratic right and this is one blog which openly allows one to do so.
People are disgruntled at incorrect decisions and endless bureacracy not to mention government induced inflation. Something we could have avoided had our Enemalta debt been tackled at source rather than accumulating unsustainable interest on a power staion which has now become nearly obsolete.
We could even have avoided the drydocks pay-out if matters had been controlled prematurely.
Our unions also play a crucial part in this wherby one of the more prominent union leaders defeated the concept of unionisation by riding a political bandwagon last MEP election.
This was obviously motivated by pure ambition (not to mention greed). A union which is meant to protect the entrepreneurial sector from bad administrative decisions and forewarn the administration on economic implications of bad governance coupled itself with the party in power.
This was reminsicent of the marriage between the GWU and the Labour Party back in the eighties. A true Nationalist is a person who believes in conservatism, creation of wealth and the only way to achieve this is through incentive, not taxation.
While I am certain that things are moving in the right direction, it would be unwise to close a blind eye to all these grievances simply because of the fact that true Nationalists will never vote Labour.
Is the decision to raise the honorarium of MP’s and Ministers, or the implementation of that decision, a clearly thought out decision? Hardly. Irrespectively of whether the rise is justified, the reaction to it was perfectly predictable. One test of clear thinking is predicting the consequences of decisions.
[Daphne – Yes, exactly. As repeatedly remind the befuddled, the consequence of anything but a vote for the Nationalist Party is Joseph Muscat as prime minister and Anglu Ferrugia as deputy prime minister and minister of the interior. Yes, that’s right: Anglu Farrugia, responsible for the police force. THAT’S clear thinking: ignoring the daily dross and keeping your eyes on that ball.]
Though we still do not know what the PM agreed with JPF, some sort of U-turn or compromise is surely in the recipe.
To my mind, such would be an admission that the original decision was not clearly thought out. The statement that “All clear-thinking people ARE attracted to the Nationalist Party” merits some qualification, I should think.
[Daphne – Your logic is flawed (but then you are not clear-thinking). Read this: All clear-thinking people vote Nationalist. Therefore all people who vote Nationalist are clear-thinking. Spot the error.]
I am not a real Nationalist but having grown up in Cospicua I know what a real Laburist is. I was even brought up to think that Christmas presents were given to me by Mintoff not Father Christmas. Today I can barely make ends meet but it would never cross my mind to vote Labour. It is like kicking my family in the face.
The days of the labour ‘marmalja’ are far from over, as has been pointed out several times in this blog.
On another note Daph, if clear thinking people are in a minority it may also be that actual policy or decisions are keeping people from thinking rationally. Whether this is their fault or not, is irrelevant, because the vote of one individual who isn’t thinking clearly is as valid as one who is.
A true Nationalist is one that would have not sold his family jewels. A government is a reflection of it’s ppl. What some fail to realise is that both parties now have the same goals, principles and aims.
[Daphne – I don’t know how I’m going to put this delicately and without offending my more sensitive readers’ sensibilities, but your family jewels are in your boxer shorts. The expression you need is family silver. Or perhaps you really did mean that a true Nationalist is somebody who won’t sell his testicles.]
The PN moved to the left and the PL moved to the right. Whoever is governing is still controlled by a higher entity called the EU. So there’s no need to fuss anymore as we will get the same of same even with a change of government.
No need to worry folks nothing will change, if PL is elected, the sun will still rise in the morning and you will still get your pay cheque at the end of the month.
What I dream of is to see is a genuine strong fresh Liberal Party with innovative ideas, able to challenges the status quo, open minded and ready to stand up for the red and blue bitches and do so well that it will shake the electoral system.
I would be the first to commit my vote towards this aim.
Antoine, it’s a bloody joke to have the prime minister on the eve of the last election to run like a headless chicken crying and begging for votes.
[Daphne – You’re right, but you know what, I’m glad he did it, because if he hadn’t, that marionette with the black wig would be prime minister today. That’s how screwed-up some people are. It is those electors who are the bloody joke, and not the individuals who work to undo the damage their childish behaviour causes.]
Antoine Vella, the problem with the manhole, is the PN’s administration fault , as nobody is accountable in this country.
PN governments brought progress, liberties etc…but not accountability.
Why do you have to report a manhole fault and you go from A to B to C and it’s never done.
You report to local council, council tells you that it is contractors fault, then again to council and then to government department e.g WSC.
All the councils and departments are full of excuses but no real action.
This happened to me personally until finally we had to bring in PS Chris Said to resolve the problem, after years of no break through.
What’s with this foggy language and emotional hyperboles.
“Imweghhin.” Say again?
Surely we can point out exactly where we disagree with points of policy or personality. John Bundy was right about one thing: we’re a nation of spineless amoebae. We’ve no intellectual balls.
I was present at the last PN general conference (no I’m not a party member). Not one delegate stood up to challenge anything, or even to ask some searching questions.
All we got was a succession of success stories from assorted zghazagh li hadu l-ISTEPS, persuni b’dizabilità, cancer survivors, the whole sugary lot.
In the end, the motion, as always, was approved unanimously. So where were all these mutinous “real Nationalists”?
Vote Labour to have a man-hole cover fixed? Really unbelievable.
[Daphne – No. Vote Labour because the government didn’t fix the manhole and needs to be punished for it.]
Anybody who thinks of himself as a Nationalist or a Laburist is not clear thinking if you ask me.
I’m in my forties, so have voted in a few elections/referendums etc. I have always voted Nationalist, but I do not consider myself Nationalist.
I always voted for those I thought most qualified to do the job of running the country.
That always happened to be Nationalist. Would I vote Labour if I thought they could do a better job? Of course I would, but it hasn’t happened yet, but who knows! That’s clear thinking!
[Daphne – G-R-O-A-N. I’ve broken off from watching Dallas Divas and Daughters, Kendra and the Kardashians, and then I find this. What makes you Nationalist, Conservative, Labour, Socialist, Communist, a Democrat or a Republican is not the way you vote but your political philosophy. First you work out what sort of approach you favour to things like the economy, educaton, welfare, and so on, then you work out which party espouses those principles. Then you vote for it. Political parties don’t change their political philosophy except over many generations, so if you switch from one party to another at every general election you might as well scream out to the wind that you don’t know what your own politics are. You vote Nationalist time after time almost certainly because you share the party’s political philosophy and approach to fundamental matters. If you shared the Labour Party’s political philosophy, you would vote Labour.]
Er, I think I have to agree with Steve here. Many of us who vote PN do not share the party’s political philosophy (what is it, exactly?), except its pro-European stance.
We just vowed to do anything to prevent Labour winning the election, after they destroyed the best years of our lives with their anti-European nonsense. And we can go further back to our deprived childhood, with Mintoff and Karmenu at the helm. So please.
On an administrative and ideological level, PN is the lesser of two evils, so there you go. I wouldn’t call myself a floater, and I have no problem revealing my voting preferences. (Would that my hand withered when I voted for Cassola in the first European election!)
I am with Baxxter on this. I have always voted PN and will do again in the next election.
A voting preference forged in the 80s and further reinforced by Sant’s stubborn anti-EU stance. Factor in PL’s failed macro-economic and financial policies both in government and in opposition and I have no alternative. PL is simply not an option.
I do obviously agree with many policies espoused by PN but with all things equal I would be happier voting for a more liberal party.
What ideology? Both parties have one ideology and that’s don’t do anything that will rock the boat. That’s why no one ever does anything about hunting, divorce etc etc
Both you and I know that most people who call themselves Nationalist or Labourite do so out of some misplaced sense of loyalty, probably handed down to them from their parents. The rest of us, vote with our heads. The parties call us floaters because we drive them nuts. It’s not a question of not having an ideology or political philosophy. I’ve never voted Labour, but I do not automatically vote PN either. There’s nothing wrong with the Labour party’s core ideology. Their problem, as you keep reminding us, is they keep choosing a bunch of nutters to lead them. That may never change, and I may never vote Labour. We’re not talking about some right wing Nazi party here. In that case, yes, it’s an ideology call. I would never vote for a party such as that on principle.
If anything I would call myself left leaning, which in any other country would mean I would probably vote for the Labour/Socialist/Social Democrat party, but in Malta the lines are blurred!
There’s one particular question I need to ask. I fear that next election is going to be a one-sided game with no extra time or penalties.
I forecast an MLP win. Are the Nationalists aware that the good job they did could be reduced to nil?
Is democracy in peril again? Are university students aware of this scenario?
X’tahseb Daphne? Tghid nergghu ikollna pulizija twerwer lic-cittadin?
Thank you for the compliment – I find it most charming and goes a long way towards bringing me back to pn after a short absence. Sorry, your logic is no less flawed.
The fact that Joseph Muscat would be elected detracts nothing from the unclear thinking of the PM and his u-turn/compromise. The two issues are unconnected, as my old professor of philisophy would have insisted. No cause and effect.
[Daphne – I did not connect the two. You did. You appear to believe that the statement ‘all clear-thinking people choose PN, but not all people who choose PN are clear-thinking’ can be disproved by a decision taken by the prime minister. If, as you believe, the prime minister is not clear-thinking, then he falls within the category of non-clear-thinking people who vote PN.]
So, according to your reasoning, whatever Gonzipn does is OK as long as the PL are not elected. Now how’s that for logic?
[Daphne – My goodness, your reasoning is really muddled here. I don’t think a professor of philosophy figured anywhere in your life, as you claim. I only have a maths O-level but even I can work this one out.
The country must be in deep doo-doo. I have serious doubts that you’re going to convince many to vote gonzipn with this kind of argument but then…eh… these unconvinced voters are not clear thinking, are they?
Many have trusted the pn for too long and will vote PL, clear and muddled thinkers alike.
[Daphne – By definition, there will not be a single clear-thinking person who chooses Joseph Muscat over Lawrence Gonzi. Doing that is a sign that you don’t think clearly, for whatever reason, be it tradition, family, prejudice, resentment, ‘hurt’, spite, disappointment. Muddled thinking is muddled thinking. I’m not here to convince anyone about anything. I’m here to try – desperately – to encourage people to think.]
Don’t you think that character assassination is a bit out of fashion? It worked in the last elections but only just… I guess one cannot exclude another tsunami of luck this time round and another pn victory, you never know. As someone used to say, poplu jitqanna bil-gvern li jixraqlu. Farewell! No hard feelings.
[Daphne – The only character asssassination attempts made in the last election were made by the Labour Party. I should know, as I was one of the targets, along with all three of my sons and now, my husband, my parents, and even my sisters. And they are private citizens. And am I right in undersdtanding that the Labour Party’s official newspaper, last Sunday, targeted – calling her a cheat and all sorts of things – the school-age daughter of a government MP? Shameful.]