It was a mistake to shaft AD at the very death of the campaign. It showed a Machiavellian side to Eddie, who, a few weeks earlier, was blowing kisses to AD, who were backing EU entry in the referendum.

[Daphne – For God’s sake, Chris. Nobody shafted AD and certainly not the prime minister at the time. As has been explained, the election of an AD candidate would have ‘broken’ the mechanism by which the number of seats in parliament is adjusted to reflect the number one votes of the two main parties. If you were prepared to risk Malta not becoming a member of the European Union just so AD could have its ruddy seat, then others certainly were not, and I was one of them.

F**k AD, quite frankly. They were prepared to shaft the country to get a seat, and you say THEY were shafted? I spent the last few days of the campaign explaining to people why they shouldn’t vote No. 2 AD unless they were quite mad or didn’t particularly want to become EU citizens, and I don’t regret it for a minute. When AD activist – now a reporter for The Times – Kurt Sansone gave me an earful of poison over the telephone, I just told him where to stuff it, adding helpfully that I hoped it would fit.]

Up till that point, AD/PN could have happily co-existed, because both parties had principles, indeed, to the young/educated/pro-environment thinking person, AD had a lot to offer. It was also the obvious choice for disgruntled PN voters, who could never bring themselves to vote LP.

It would have been miles better to keep all the thinking electorate on side. PN squeaked it in 2008, but what price 2000 odd votes now, eh Daph?

I have to constantly remind you that we’re not all journalists/lawyers/doctors. The real middleclass (not mittelkless) have been the only sector who get some foreign exchange in and successive PN administrations’ way of saying “thank you” has been to make them pay for PN’s profligacy/inability to tax other sectors.

The ‘masterstroke’ of 2003, which rendered AD politically irrelevant, now means that former PN voters who want to tweak PN’s ears can no longer do this.

MMC is spot on in his first para.

I suppose an electorate so easily scared by (an inexistent) “babaw” in 2003 needs a reality check – and it sure looks like it will get it in 2013.

Definitely, Eddie was right.

With our electoral system, voting No. 2 for AD can make a difference because if candidates from more than two parties get elected then it is the seats which count and not the number 1 votes.

The adjustment of seats according to No. 1 votes takes place only when candidates from just two parties are elected to parliament.

Taking, for example, the results of the last election – if one AD candidate was elected instead of a Labour candidate, then Labour would have been in government because the number of seats would have been as follows: MLP 33 (instead of the 34 elected), PN 31, AD1. This is because of “imperfections” in the design of the electoral boundaries.

You seem to know something! But will JPO and JM be on the same list?

Neither Eddie Fenech Adami nor you ever successfully explained how voting no. 2 for AD could possibly affect the election result as regards to who clinches power. So, no Daphne, Eddie laid nothing to rest. I was there and so were you. History will prove that this was ultimately a mistake.

[Daphne – What was ultimately a mistake, Chris?]

Times, Maltastar and Maltatoday must be availing themselves of the services of the same proofreader.

Ara veru ma jisthux.

Min jigi jsemmi l-imparzjalita fuq PBS —– Gino Cauchi MP (Labour) li hu stess jipprezenta il-programm dwar il-gazzetti tal-gurnata fuq SMASH TV. Immaginaw x’ rapport johrog ezatt

and whilst listening to Radio 101 news this morning on the way to work, I discovered that the American singer ‘Ri-H-aNNa’ annoyed an Irish farmer and was asked to get off his land.

They also concluded that the British Labour Party was a “Policy Free Zone”

Editorial standards and prewf reeding of The Times journalists are going down the
a) pan
b) shitter
c) swanny
d) all of the above