Imagine that: mass meetings for and against divorce (biex zgur itellghuna ghal ta' Frankuni)
Let's have one of these as well, while we're about it
Saturday’s referendum was extraordinary because it was the first referendum which had civil rather than political implications. It was the first electoral exercise in which the two main political parties did not participate directly. Mass meetings normally organised in general elections and referenda campaigns were absent this time.
– Herman Schiavone, The Times, Tuesday
——-
What is a PN activist thinking when he writes as though mass meetings for and against divorce were in any way an option that the political parties so maturely did without?
I feel like I’m coasting through a 1960s hallucinogenic-inspired film when I read things like this.
I mean, what – Lawrence Gonzi, Tonio Fenech and Tonio Borg lined up on a podium pledging to make Malta the last bastion against the evil of divorce, while massed thousands of old people and refugees from Charismatic Renewal groups wave yellow and white flags, brandish rosary beads and sing songs of praise?
——–
Herman Schiavone is 100% (percentages are catching) right here, though:
Last Saturday’s result, however, shows that while, the Labour leaning districts returned a strong Yes vote, only three traditional Nationalist districts returned a No vote.
The second, third, fourth and fifth districts returned a Yes vote almost in the same proportions as they generally do in a general election for the PL. On the other hand, the Nationalist strongholds, such as the ninth and 10th districts, returned a Yes vote in spite of the PN declaring itself against divorce.
This leads me to conclude that, bar a few exceptions, the Labour supporters voted in line with their party leader who campaigned for a Yes vote. On the other hand the Nationalist vote was divided on this issue.
The PN is a coalition of conservatives and liberals. The conservative Nationalists voted against divorce while the liberals voted in favour. Saturday’s vote clearly demonstrated that there is a concentration of liberal Nationalists in the ninth, 10th and 12th districts, hence the Yes vote in these localities.
In spite of voting against their party line, the liberals are still convinced Nationalists and their natural home remains the PN. Most would tend to vote PN on the PN’s proven liberal track record, particularly on economic issues, however the PN would do well to draw lessons from the strong showing of liberal voters in its traditional strongholds
———–
The article’s conclusion, though, is half-assed.
In this referendum we have once again witnessed the power of the media and the internet. The next general election may be two years away but the battle to win over the media’s support begins now. I dare say that the party which manages to win the media’s support is likely to win the next general election.
You don’t win elections because you manage to win the support of the media. You win the support of the media because you have the right policies and positions.
The media weren’t in favour of EU membership because the PN won them over whereas Sant and Muscat failed to convince us with Partnership. We were already in favour of EU membership to begin with, and so we went for the party that put it in its programme.
It’s the same with divorce. The Nationalist Party has no support at all from the media on this one because people in the media favoured the normality of divorce legislation to begin with, and no amount of wooing by the Nationalist Party was going to make any journalist turn about and say, “Oh, you’re right. It’s a really good idea to have Malta carry on the way we are now without divorce legislation because, you know, things are going so well and the rest of the world is wrong.”
I hate to say it, but this argument of Herman Schiavone’s is exactly the same one the Labour Party uses in its post-election-failure analyses: we lost because the media backed the PN.
20 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
In what way are ‘civil implications’ not political? Or did he mean ‘partisan’ as in pertaining to the political parties as opposed to those they purport to represent?
And what’s this nonsense about the political parties not participating directly? If political parties were not involved, what was all that blathering and posturing about free votes and official party positions?
I find it extraordinary that so many are so exercised about providing a legal framework to manage social chaos while glibly ignoring the social chaos itself.
I am curious about the church’s position on gambling.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110603/local/209-operators-in-gaming-industry.368737
Is it a sin?
Why no fuss?
How about this?
http://archive.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/10/25/t2.html
All you need is Google, my friend.
I’m lazy. Or becoming more Maltese by the minute. However you prefer ..
Thank your lucky stars – we didn’t have any carcades.
That’s all we need – the media acting like our MPs already are, thinking thet they are the ones who have to be courted and schmoozed into deciding which positions they should support, instead of the other way around.
A much needed break from this tedious stuff – chavs and Burberry checks:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13626046
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110603/local/deborah-schembri-to-contest-next-election-with-labour.368759
Well, well, well, the mask has finally come off. I never trusted that woman.
[Daphne – Is standing for election a reason not to trust a woman? What – she should go back to her kitchen now u taghlaq halqa?]
All true, nice and dandy, though some influential sections of the media *cough Bondi cough Caruana Galizia cough*, would rather eat glass than go against the PN during the general election campaign – or, more exactly, would rather eat glass than not making a journalistic crusade against the PL. After all, it is them who openly swore an oath that they will faithfully vote the PN till kingdom come.
[Daphne – You think that the factor common to Lou Bondi and me is that we support the PN in general elections. That’s because, like all too many MLP/AD supporters, you’re shortsighted and can’t ‘think’ further than your nose. There’s another common factor – the one that leads us to support the PN relentlessly against Labour in the first place. Work out what it is. I’ll give you a clue: it begins with ‘br’.]
Beats me Daph, what is it? I never was good at riddles.
Oh, and you know another thing that beats me? Not why Lou Bondi does what he does, as it’s only natural that a political fundamentalist acts like, well, a fundamentalist. What really puzzles me is that it has become an accepted norm that every single year he casually gets his politically biased message across through none other than a government platform which is shockingly akin to, say, having your articles published in the Malta Government Gazette.
[Daphne – And do you know what beats me? That people like you are so blinded by petty hatreds and bias that you are unable to see the bloody obvious: that messages and politicians sell themselves and that you can have no ‘balance’ between two parties that are completely unequal. If, say, an incoherent Labour politician comes on to say that we should vote against EU accession and that we’re going to be invaded by hairdressers from Catania, and a well-briefed Nationalist politician comes on to say that EU membership will be terrific for Malta and free us to roam and work all over Europe, then whose fault is it if Labour’s message fails? Lou Bondi’s? Mine? Xarabank’s? Get a grip. The No campaign in this particular referendum should have told you what you need to know (I know it already because I work in communications): it had the support of the government, the Nationalist Party, the Catholic Church and some very prominent and influential pillars of society, and a seemingly bottomless war-chest, but still it failed. Why? Because its message was wrong. People didn’t want what it was selling. Simple as that.]
I was just watching the news and could not help posting this, although it has nothing to do with what you wrote today. With all due respect, but who does Austin Gatt think he is?
He has declared he would be voting No, thus confirming his pre referendum beliefs, but he had also said that he would not be contesting the next general election.
Tajjeb ta, mela jahdem b`ruhu u gismu halli id-divorzju ma jghaddiex, u imbaghad sentejn ohra iddabbar rasu, mhux xorta? X`jimpurtana mir-rizultat tar-referendum u min-nies. Veru qeghdin kif Alla jridna hawn Malta.
Who does Austin Gatt think he is?
Austin Powers
Wow looking cool in blue velvet and a ruffled shirt
Yeah baby
U iktar inkunu minghajr politici bhall Austin.
U hag’ ohra: dan qieghed jigi jitmejjel mil-voti, mhux bhal-ohrajn, ghax mhux se jerga jikkontesta. M`ghandux ghalfejn ihabbel mohhu, ghalhekk qal b`wiccu (sfaccat?) minn quddiem li ha jivvota Le, u kontra il-volonta` tal-maggoranza. Veru ma jisthiex mil-bambin li halqu.
very well said Pat!
We need a new plan:
To settle this voting issue we should have a new referendum to decide if last Saturday’s referendum was binding or not. The probable outcome should be a whopping YES! The only fault in this plan is that the result would still have to face our undemocratic MPs.
U nergu nigu cikku briku!
Perhaps “bajd u laham” does not know that Lou Bondi was a Socialist. That he changed over indicates that he grew up intelligently.
Our PN , and our PM, have an a la carte morality.
They strongly opposed divurce, as if they were defenders of the faith.
They tell us nothing about the hundreds of thousands of euro pocketed by the government through payments to porno sites where payment is routed through Malta.
Anything to make a quick buck.
Rattling nice layout and great subject material , practically nothing else we want : D. reseller hosting | reseller hosting |