I take it Joseph Muscat doesn't need five years of hindsight for this referendum result
If Joseph Muscat had any sense, he would belt up.
Does he honestly think that the thousands of people like me – yes, people like me – who voted Yes are planning on voting Labour in 2013?
My Yes vote had nothing to do with him. Nor did the legions of Yes votes that I know of. I couldn’t stand him yesterday, and this morning I still can’t stand him.
We may share an opinion on divorce legislation, but we share nothing else.
I still think Muscat was promoted way beyond his abilities and that he only got where he is today because Labour had to scrape out the bottom of the barrel.
In thinking like this while still voting Yes to divorce legislation, I’m far from alone. I’m one of tens of thousands. When the number crunchers get to work – but not Jason Micallef, who doesn’t even know I’m a journalist and thinks that I’m a cookery writer, which is why he sent the Super One cameras after me (because Super One viewers are mad about cooks) – they’ll see this.
As for Joseph Muscat standing around on television glorying in the referendum result this morning and saying that he’s proud to be on the right side of history….he really is not very bright at all.
It just forces us to remember how he was on the wrong side of history in the last referendum, and how he ran about for years telling us to vote No because the Sicilian hairdressers would eat us alive.
He still hasn’t told us whether he voted No to EU membership or did as his boss did and didn’t vote at all. But we do know that he didn’t vote Yes, that he campaigned against membership, and that it took him five years to admit ‘with hindsight’ that the Yes vote won.
Now just watch him go. What an idiot, honestly. Something else: whoever is advising him on his appearance should just tell him to go bald gracefully because baldness is normal in men and funny tricks with the hair a la Silvio Berlusconi and Alfred Sant are not.
Whatever thickening and darkening spray he used up there this morning looked damned ridiculous. Please spare us from any more of this nonsense.
We don’t need politicians with hair. We need politicians with brains.
33 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
That totally unexpected Yes vote sees Joey’s chances of wooing the floaters go up in smoke.
Elated.
The PN should now put its money where its mouth is and leave divorce out of its electoral manifesto. This may swing the votes back in its favour since PN supporters will still remain loyal.
Even I undrstood what gonzi was saying on net tv.
Divorce we want, so divorce we get.
end of.
Now that was hilarious. A bald, brainless ‘politician’ going down in flames in his thirties. Brings to mind ‘The Bonfire of the Vanities’.
Hair might be more important than you think.
Take a look at this entertaining article about politicians’ hair and political trichology.
http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/simon-carr/ducking-and-weaving
A photograph of Barack Obama and David Cameron playing table-tennis which was published recently made me realise how much politicians have changed (in the West). Young, lean, good hair-style, photogenic… It’s all as as important as having good policies.
People like Berlusconi come from a dinosaur era.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/photo/2011-05/25/content_12578240.htm
On a completely separate note, I want to thank you for all the articles you published throughout the campaign. You armed me with an answer to every question about divorce.
Although I don’t like him much, I also want to thank Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. Although not a great politician, he has somehow managed to single-handedly pull off the impossible and his name in Malta’s history books is guaranteed.
Needless to say, I will be voting PN in the next election.
David Cameron + good policies = big society?
Shoot me first.
I am starting to resent the notion that people who voted No are somehow dullards. I voted No and not without a lot of soul searching. I am aware that I have no right to impose on others my beliefs, but then again why should others impose theirs on me?
[Daphne – By voting No, you tried to impose your beliefs on others by denying them divorce. But by voting Yes, how exactly am I forcing you to divorce?]
This divorce issue should never have been put to a referendum. It is the job of parliament to deal with an issue such as this. As it is its job to deal with all other minority (although now divorce cannot be called that) issues.
As for Muscat, what do you expect from someone who has been on the wrong side of all the important issues Malta had to face in the last twenty years? He finally found himself on the winning side. What a sensation for him!
“by voting Yes, how exactly am I forcing you to divorce?”
How don’t you understand that divorce can be forced on you against your will? In other words you can be forced out of your home and forced to give up your children. Thats the brute reality of it all. And no court wiill protect you if your spouse has a ruthless lawyer. However much you sugar it up this is the reality. With separation there was some degree of protection, with divorce there is none. It would be interesting to re-run the referendum in ten years time, the same people championing for civil liberties may be the same ones locked out of their homes and deprived from their own children.
[Daphne – How will the absence of divorce protect you from all that? It can’t. But now enough of that. ]
The individual solution aganst divorce is a functional and loving marriage relationship. Best wishes to every couple. Unfortunately, there are many who don’t succeed. There are no guarantees unless couples love each other.
Marriage with the possibility of divorce now means that marriage no longer means now you’re mine, so I can do whatever I want. The possibility of divorce is another reality check for couples doing their Cana courses, and for marriages in progress (or regress).
Daphne, speaking about Sicilian hairdressers, what was it about Joe’s hair during this afternoon’s press conference? Has he applied a voluminiser?
Oh, I spoke prematurely – I see the rest of your article is just about that!
‘We may share an opinion on divorce legislation, but we share nothing else.’
This reminds me of the old quip about the two physicians after whom the abnormal condition of Cheyne-Stokes respiration is named. It is said of the two doctors that the only thing they had in common was Mrs. Stokes.
Just watch him go indeed.
Far be it for me to put a blanket on anyone’s party, but how exactly is this “a new dawn for Malta” and “the beginning of a new era”? (Muscat’s words, more or less)
And “historic”? When we vote to do something that the rest of the world has done ages ago? Oh see, big white queen bring running water to Waziristan, Gunga Din now become chief?
from me.
working in Malta has corrupted my English
Daphne, I think the word “impose” is either not appropriate in this case or it appropriate always.
I was asked to decided if I wanted a particular kind of divorce and I said No. I was also asked whether I wanted Malta to join the EU and I said Yes.
In both case a sum was drawn and Malta moved ahead accordingly.
He has lost most of his hair to male pattern baldness.
Perfectly normal androgenic alopaecia.
Joey has to decide whether to go the Alfred Sant and Berlusconi way or to follow in the steps of Winnie.
The former two are sad accidents in history. The latter, alopaecia and all, the politician/statesman par excellence. One of the greatest amongst the great.
It is Joey’s choice.
Or else, Labour should stick to midget cameraPERSONS. That way, we will only see Joseph’s chin, which, contrary to his hair, is prospering.
Tghid izomm dan il-pettne fil-but?
http://www.amazon.com/Cover-Your-Gray-Color-Brown/dp/B0000XMQBS
Can someone please explain to me Lino Cert’s conviction that divorce “can force you out of your home and force you to give up your children” ? He keeps repeating this in all his posts. I honestly cannot understand this reasoning and I swear I am not being sarcastic now.
Damage Control Plan B: Play down the LP’s role in divorce win like crazy. You are trying hard, I’ll say that.
“Good night and good luck”, as Ed Morrow used to say.
[Daphne – What role? The only one trying hard here is Muscat, joyriding on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s bill and Deborah Schembri’s campaigning, while he sits about and puts on make-up. ]
bye bye gonzipn.
Daphne, a while back I wrote that it was a smart move by Lawrence Gonzi to put the controversial divorce issue on a national referendum now rather than wait for the next election. Now MLP can’t put divorce legislation on their electoral manifesto. The PM shrewdly snatched an important card from the deck.
Many disgruntled Nationalists can’t stay home or vote Labour because they wanted divorce law. Dr.Gonzi must come with a good legislation soon before the next general election. He has to kill this issue well before 2013.
Frighteningly, this result could have been a victory for the MLP. Let us hope the PN will get their act together before it is too late. This election is a root awaking.
I wonder now what is JPO ‘s next strategic move? Would he bring down the PN government? Would he switch parties?
I certainly don’t trust him with my teeth let alone with my family’s future.
“a root awaking”
Is this some sort of reference to Jaffrey’s (part-time) profession?
ChavsRus, Daphne is trying her utmost to make us forget the sad truth that the party she’s so infatuated with got kicked in the balls pretty hard today.
[Daphne – Why would I do that, Bajd? I’ve been cheerleading for the Yes vote for the last few weeks. I’d rather the PN got kicked in the balls than me, quite frankly. And it would have had to be either one or the other. Try thinking straight for a change.]
She cannot stomach the fact that the political party she subscribes to, and which she describes as quintessentially liberal (yes you heard that right!) – and fyi, headed by an ex president of the Malta Catholic Action (thus, a religious fundamentalist by definition) – is the only political party in the world with an official stance against any sort of divorce legislation.
So, in an effort to make us forget all this, she harps that Joseph Muscat is bald, bad, and so we should vote PN.
[Daphne – Bad? Not bad. That would make him interesting, which he isn’t. Bad at his job, now that’s different. So yes, that’s a very good reason to vote PN, quite apart from all the reasons to do with the PN itself, which has an excellent track record compared to Labour’s utterly disastrous one, and Muscat’s history of rotten judgement (No to EU, anyone?). As for bald – I come from a family of bald men. To me, baldness is normal. But wigs, hair dye, transplants and volumisers are not. What I DID say is that Muscat should be bald with confidence rather than expose his pathetic insecurities with dye and volumisers.]
“…irridu infasslu ligi tad-divorzju u din ma hijiex xi haga facli…” – PM Lawrence Gonzi during his televised address.
I fail to understand the PM. I think there are going to be all sorts of excuses to procrastinate legislating post-referendum, and this is one of them, as the PM is aleady indicating.
The question put to the public in the referendum was clear. Do you want to vote in favour of divorce as provided for in the proposed bill? Since there is a bill before Parliament, I do not see what the problem is. The PM doesn’t need to draft a bill because the people voted in favour of the law as it is.
Now, it’s nobody’s fault that the question was asked the way it was. The fact that it was stupid to begin with. The PM can only thank his advisors, the same ones incidentally who assured him that the NO vote would win and that a loaded question would go a long way to ensure a loss. Tough.
So, the PM ought not further demonstrate a democratic deficit by now stating that he still has to draft a law for divorce. It’s bad enough that MPs have declared voting against divorce even if the Yes vote were to win – notably Beppe Fenech Adami, Austin Gatt (who said he’d resign if the Yes vote won) and Edwin Vassallo (who said he’d go out carcading if the No vote prevailed).
And it’s even worse for him to allow a free vote, according to conscience, instead of ENSURING that the will of the people is respected.
Seems you never took the trouble to read through Bill 206 – the one which speaks of “the possibility of MEDITATION” during divorce proceedings in article 73 (1) b instead of ‘mediation’.
Textually, it goes something like this: “Jiddiskuti mal-konvenut il-possibilità ta’ meditazzjoni sabiex id-divorzju jinġieb fuq qbil tal-attur u l-parti miżżewġa l-oħra, u jagħti lill-attur l-ismijiet u l-indirizzi tal-persuni kwalifikati biex joffru l-għajnuna ta’ meditazzjoni għall-miżżewġin li huma mifrudin.”
I guess yoga instructors will be over the moon if the bill is brought into force as is.
And the obvious mistakes don’t end there, mind you.
But alas, I guess that’s the result you get when trusting dentists and wannabe lecturers with writing laws…
“We don’t need politicians with hair. We need politicians with brains.”
Instead, we get them ‘hairbrained’.
Seriously? The whole divorce affair has gone so far that this country is being shown on Sky News and what is important here is his hair?
[Daphne – I take it you haven’t bothered to read anything else here.]
Well, I proudly voted No but my husband did not vote, because he’d rather not vote than let Joseph Muscat think (as he is now) that he is voting for him.
Even a dog has more brain cells then Muscat has – does he not realise that whatever he does to his hair will not change what’s beneath it?
Most of the YES votes were PN voters, so Joseph had better think twice before spilling his beans with his ‘marmalja’ at the water front yesterday.
Ejja ninsew ftit id-divorzzju u ix -xaghar li fadallu JOSEPH. Imma ma nistux ninjoraw l-ipokrezzijja grassa tieghu. Il-bierah beda il-press conference u qal LI IL VUCI TAL-MAGGORANZA TRID TIGI RISPETTATA.
U ghandu ragun imma kemm ghandu memorja qasira. Nesa Joseph fir-referendum tal-EU meta il-maggoranza kienet ferm u ferm ikbar li qalet IVA, ma siehbu Alfred Sant mar jghid li il-LE rebhu u hargu in-nies fit-toroq jiccelebraw ir-rebha? Ghaddew is-snin qabel iddecieda li fuq kollox l-IVA kienu rebhu.
Imma l-appologija il dawk li dahaq bihom fejn hi?
Oh come on Daphne. Joseph Muscat is proud to be on the right side of history. He is bound to be. It’s his first time.
Ironically I think that the victory of the IVA camp is a far better outcome for Lawrence Gonzi than the negative long lasting effects and reaction that a No vote would have produced in terms of the next general election.
It is also an eyeopener of what needs to be done. It is clear that in this campaign the prime minister was strategically out-manouvred by the leader of the Labour Party. Gonzi now knows that he must read the signs of the times and make radical changes within his inner circle of conservative ministers, redmodelling party policy back into a representative force which accomodates the different ideological streams that define the PN – or he wiill suffer a resounding defeat in the next election.
In this divorce campaign Michael Falzon has shown that he is still a wily old political campaigner who should not have been sidelined. As for Pullicino Orlando, he has the survival instinct of a natural politician who always seems to land solidly on his feet in TELEMARK style.
Whilst not the most straightforward of characters he is a colourful one and Gonzi might consider riding the tiger by offering him a ministerial post in order to put some oomph in reviving the party’s fortunes.