A two-fingered reverse salute to BOTH political parties (and the bishops)
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Joseph Muscat and his Labour Party have been left high and dry by the triumph of the Yes vote.
This was the single issue with which Muscat hoped to trump the Nationalist Party in 2013 (with the promise of a private member’s bill and not an electoral commitment).
Now it has been taken away from him.
Worse still, the result screams out the fact that Labour supporters did not back him or follow his lead in voting Yes. A huge number of PN supporters voted Yes – certainly eight out of every 10 people I know, for a start – which means that a huge number of Labour supporters ignored the directive to vote Yes.
If they had voted with their leader, the Yes vote would have won by a good 70%-75% over a turn-out of 98%.
Muscat has already begun attempting to save face by telling us that they ‘obeyed him’ and stayed home instead of voting No. Obeyed him? Had they done what he wanted them to do, they wouldn’t have stayed home or voted No. They would have voted Yes.
One thing is clear from this referendum result – apart from the fact that Maltese people want divorce legislation – and it is this: supporters of both parties in the main gave the political leaders a great big reverse salute and voted as they wished irrespective of their party sympathies.
They did the same with the Catholic Church, sending out the message that they understand the distinction between church and state. That message should not be lost on Archbishop Cremona, but I fear it will be lost on Bishop Grech, many of whose flock really are “wolves in the skins of lambs” even if they vote No (especially if they vote No).
Joseph Muscat will be holding a Press conference at 14:00hrs. He is expected to refer to the fact that Labour voters who intended to vote NO stayed at home and opted not to vote at all. This appears to have materialised after his appeal in the last days directed at the heart of the core Labour vote
16 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
A classic backfire on the little garden gnome.
“A huge number of PN supporters voted Yes – certainly eight out of every 10 people I know, for a start – which means that a huge number of Labour supporters ignored the directive to vote Yes.”
I find this conclusion puzzling. Opinion polls might support it, but I just don’t see how the poll results themselves reveal anything conclusive about how PN and PL supporters voted.
(Actually, the Yes percentages were higher in traditional PL strongholds; but that, in itself, does not prove anything either.)
[Daphne – Right, I know your interest is professional. I belong to a very particular sector of the electorate which swings the PN’s fortunes. I can always tell which way things are going just by picking up the sentiment of those in my wider, extended circle of acquaintances. Basically, if eight out of 10 in this extended group are planning to vote Yes, then the only way the No vote can win is if lots of Labour supporters vote No. I thought they would vote No. But instead, they stayed home. The Yes vote was higher in DIEHARD WORKING-CLASS Labour strongholds. Those are the people who vote blindly. The trouble with polls is that they don’t pick up the specific groups that make a difference, so they miss out on whole tranches of opinion that swings the vote. In general elections, for instance, the most accurate way to assess the situation is now not to poll right across the population, but to poll the Sliema/St Julian’s/Swieqi area and first-time voters. The party which has the majority of the latter has the election. And if the Nationalist Party is struggling in Sliema/St Julian’s/Swieqi then it’s struggling overall. In this referendum, the polls missed a key group – and for the obvious reason that they are outside the reach of pollsters: those planeloads of people who flew in to vote. I’d say they all voted Yes, bar a few.]
“…those planeloads of people who flew in to vote. I’d say they all voted Yes, bar a few.”
Don’t count on it. The Brussels/Maltese diaspora crowd don’t all belong to your social group. They include some types from way down the social ladder who work abroad because their profession demands it (EU translators, progr–sorry, developers, and various assorted engineers and doctors).
I’d also say that a good chunk of those who did not vote were absolutely in favour of divorce (and by Sant’s Golden Rule, would count as a Yes) but were sick of the whole spectacle. This was the case in my wider circle of acquaintances.
But you’re dead right about the crucial swing vote which decides PN’s fate. The party has become hamallu through and through, and there is no one whom we can identify with, unless you count Simon Busuttil.
PN members will get very defensive when this is pointed out to them, because they will invariably think I’m denigrating their social background. But I was raised within that very same social class.
If proof were needed that class distinctions do exist, and that they influence voting patterns, one has only to look at the result in Gozo.
‘I belong to a very particular sector of the electorate which swings the PN’s fortunes. I can always tell which way things are going just by picking up the sentiment of those in my wider, extended circle of acquaintances”
Daphne, do not underestimate the “birds of a feather…” factor.
Your “wider, extended circle of acquaintances” is almost certainly NOT representative of the general population, in many, many ways.
Comparing trends here with observations relating to general elections is not very fruitful, as voter behaviour is bound to be considerably different due to the nature of the poll.
[Daphne – Yes, birds of a feather is unsafe reasoning. but not with this particular flock. I’ve looked at the numbers and it turns out my assessment was pretty accurate: Labour voters stayed home or voted No, and PN voters from the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th districts carried the day by voting Yes. I’ve been out most of the day but will be writing about this.]
Tonight, my heart goes out to the people of the Philippines.
We have betrayed them by leaving them alone.
No, there’s the Vatican City State. Actually we should sell off Gozo to the Vatican and have a big party.
Can you imagine eating “Gbejniet tal-Vatikan”?
Or perhaps it hasn’t occured to you that many did not see it through your red-blue specs because both party leaders were non-partisan and did not mobilise the vote on traditional political lines.
I know at least two Labour voters who voted No.
I actually had to convince another one to vote Yes, by saying that if she didn’t confess than God wouldn’t know.
“Iva, vera vera “.
Ginger, you qualify as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Whatever! The writing is on the wall for Gonzi PN.
The result is also an eye opener for the Church.
Daphne, as previous, I tend to disagree (only, however, with your comments re why the YES won – nothing else!).
Divorce is a hard sell, without the PL exhorting it’s unquestioning supporters – the same people who would cheer Mintoff one day then switch with barely a pause for breath to cheering KMB (!) – No would have won overwhelmingly, because of so many factors working against:
It is hard to distinguish between voting for essential divorce legislation, and the whole divorce process (and what led to it) itself, a highly negative experience, certainly not something to desire;
The religious aspect;
The fear factor;
The fact that the PN actually took a public stand against.
The results show larger YES majorities in very predominantly Labour districts, ambiguity or NO in conservative PN districts, the more conservative the stronger the NO (Gozo – and please include as Gozitans those Maltese predominantly PN supporters who have second homes there and hence a Gozo ID card).
The only trend reversal relates to the degree of conservatism of the voters in a locality. Maybe connect conservatism with age, if you wish. In this manner one can see than in somewhat more “enlightened” “modern” areas such as the very broad Sliema / St Julians / Ibragg area, there is a moderate YES majority, if not as strong as in Labour areas.
So, assuming for argument’s sake that a more cosmopolitan, more PN locality will at best give only a moderate YES advantage, then left to their own devices the other localities would certainly have done a Gozo.
To be blunt, I think Stupid saved the day, for all the wrong reasons.
[Daphne – Wrong. The numbers show that PN voters voting Yes swung the thing, and not Labour voters.]
I don’t get this. Take a look at:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/divorce-referendum-2011-live-blog (scroll below JPO)
and you will see not only the majorities in districts 2-5 (Labour) but also the number of YES votes are actually the largest – running from 10k to close to 12k, NO OTHER DISTRICT broke through the 10k YES barrier.
Of the others, they are a mixed bunch, but conservative PN areas voted “NO” and “liberal” areas “YES” but not by the number of votes in the Labour areas.
I don’t honestly think that any further analysis can be claimed to be any more than gut feeling.
What I do know is that I know several PN supporters, and I don’t refer to your average idiot, who openly declared they will be voting No, as opposed to your what your feelers told you, so really it is not too meaningful to base any predictions or analyse on the behaviour of any “circle”.
Interests and personal affinities, often dictate the type of people we mingle with and exclude others, but all have an equal vote. And different priorities and outlooks on life.
If you still think I’m wrong re the figures kindly do point out the fault in the logic, as I am not getting this!
[Daphne – It’s got nothing to do with logic or gut feeling, faulty or otherwise. It’s just plain old market analysis, like you would use for sales of Fanta or whatever. But you need the whole picture to do that (EP election figures, 2008 general election figures, and so on). I have some deadlines and then I’ll put up a post about this. As for the gut feeling, it isn’t so much a gut feeling as an educated guess. So far it’s been quite accurate. That’s because the people I know – in a wider circle – tend to be the ‘liberal part’ of the coalition that makes up PN support. The way they vote determines the fate of the PN every time, and that’s why Joseph Muscat is after us. Another group that determines the fate of the PN is young people, especially first-time voters, from the same circle and their very much wider network (because people that age influence each other in a way that adults do not). In the 2008 general election, they practically all voted PN – even those who had Labour parents. They’ll have voted Yes now. I find this all very interesting (and I see that you do too) – but truly, by polling young people and socio-economic group AB ‘liberals’ you can tell which way the wind is going to blow every time. The only exception was with the drive to get rid of VAT in 1996, which ‘warped’ patterns, though even there – with notorious hindsight – I remember many people I knew being suspiciously silent about politics in the run-up to the election, and afterwards saying that they voted Labour.]
Daphne, I look forward to your figures when you have the time.
I also agree 100% with this statement here:
“… the people I know – in a wider circle – tend to be the ‘liberal part’ of the coalition that makes up PN support. The way they vote determines the fate of the PN every time ….
Another group that determines the fate of the PN is young people, especially first-time voters, from the same circle and their very much wider network (because people that age influence each other in a way that adults do not). In the 2008 general election, they practically all voted PN”
But this is where we part company, (until I see your figures at least!) in that I think comparison to voter behaviour in any general election is not wise. Because no-one was determining the fate of the PN / PL here.
[Daphne – OK, now I see that we’re talking at cross-purposes. You have to look at the numbers for 2008 because that is the only way you have a basis of comparison for the vote in this referendum. It emerges quite clearly from these numbers that the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th (and I think also the 8th) districts had an ‘abnormal’ pattern when compared to the rest of the country (except Gozo, which was abnormal in a different way): it is clear that a dramatically high percentage of electors in those districts who voted PN in the 2008 general elections voted Yes in this referendum. In those districts, they are actual PN voters in the same way that the people in the 2nd district are actual Labour voters, and unlikely to switch to the other party. The message to the PN is clear: its policies and attitude have to change to accomodate these supporters, or risk having them become increasingly disloyal and estranged.]
Maybe we are losing focus of the argument – or perhaps, we are not realising what the argument was/is.
In my case what I am saying is that I think that PN liberals certainly would have voted YES, but that fact alone, without the PL exhorting it’s supporters to also vote YES (as clearly reflected in the 2-5 district results, where there is probably a dearth of liberal PN supporters) the NO would have triumphed, for in these districts – Labour and also “conservative”, widely church-going and maybe with a higher percentage of individuals not fully able to understand the divorce concept, the NO vote would almost certainly have obtained a majority.
[Daphne – You are entirely correct in saying that left to their own devices, Labour supporters especially in those districts would have voted No. I have always said throughout this discussion that Labour could never introduce divorce because its core support is even more conservative in these matters than the PN’s (the working-class tends to be extremely conservative, and the ‘socialist’ movement in Malta actually took advantage of that). For saying this, I was mocked by some people commenting on this site, the sort of ‘pseudo-liberals’ who take things at face value. But the facts of this referendum have borne me out: despite being told repeatedly by their leader and his wife to vote Yes to divorce, thousands of Labour voters especially in Labour strongholds didn’t vote at all. It says a great deal that they were prepared to go against their party leader rather than doing the usual and obeying blindly. They struck a compromise by not voting at all instead of voting No.]
Needless to say, also without Labour’s pressure, the figures would also have been different in ALL districts – however the relevance of its effect is simply more clearly seen in known Labour areas, that is all.
I suggest to Ms Marie Louise Coleiro Preca that she should fund a new confessional political party: the party of Catholic hypocrites who are angry that people are now able to sow more wild oats than they did when younger.
“The Yes vote was higher in DIEHARD WORKING-CLASS Labour strongholds” I agree with el bandido guapo because of your earlierr comment – I would just change his word “stupid” to your word : “blind”.
So the blind saw the light :)