What is the point of the Labour Party?
Middle class by American definition, working class by British
There’s a really interesting column by Janet Daley in The Telegraph online today.
It’s called ‘What is the point of the Labour Party?’ and I think that pretty much the same things can be said of our own situation here in Malta.
It strikes me that the sole point of the Malta Labour Party is now nothing more than to serve as an alternative government, to fill in when people get sick of the Nationalist Party and decide they need change for the sake of change (literally that, and they will say so if you ask them).
But in and of itself, the Malta Labour Party has no essential point or purpose. It has long since lost its way and has never found new meaning.
I can’t reproduce the article here, but I’ve posted the link on the comments-board below. I strongly recommend that you read it.
It certainly cleared up one thing for me: the confusion in Malta over the term ‘middle class’. It is obvious to me that when the Labour Party says ‘middle class’ it means working-class people whose work and living conditions (and aspirations) have improved considerably within the current generation. Many of his supporters define middle class the same way.
That is the American definition.
The British definition of middle class is entirely different, and it’s the one properly middle class people in Malta use, which is why they are completely alienated by political talk which pigeonholes them with people who have children called Byon Jo or Quinton. Their needs, their aspirations and their whole way of thinking and behaving are different.
Here’s Janet Daley on the subject:
Who are the potential Labour voters now?
We know some things for sure. The old hereditary heartland support – what used to be called the respectable working class – has fragmented and effectively disappeared.
Much of it became aspirational in the New Labour sense: property-owning, car-driving, computer-using and, for all intents and purposes, middle class even if it was not professional by qualification or conditions of employment.
These ex-working class voters were the ones who defected to the Tories in the 1980s and whom New Labour was designed to win back.
(In the United States, such people are always referred to as middle class meaning “ordinary working people”, which leads to some confusion in Britain. When American politicians advocate “middle-class tax cuts”, they do not mean reducing taxes for the higher paid.)
The repudiation of Blairism by Labour’s current leadership puts the party in a hopelessly unclear relationship to this hugely important constituency.
Mr Miliband talking about the “squeezed middle” does not help: he defines this as the lowest end of what could conceivably be called “middle income” and makes it clear that anyone escaping that narrow range deserves no sympathy.
What signal, as they say, does this send to the truly “aspirational” who were once happy to vote New Labour?
31 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/8786528/What-is-the-point-of-the-Labour-Party.html
The PL (MLP) is pre-eminently a tribal movement – a sad reflection
For all those who are screaming for a change. Have a closer look at this picture of the 3 stooges and try to imagine them planning for our future.
There’s a really interesting column by Lino Spiteri in The Sunday Times today.
Qoute:
He (Lawrence Gonzei) speaks in absolutes. According to him, he is always absolutely right. He leaves no room for self-analysis – he is right in all regards.
He only sees what he wants to see. A number of sycophants (some of your bloggers) do him the sisservice of not even whispering in his ear the reminder that pride comes before the fall.
Unquote
EX PN
From same article
Lino writes:
meanwhile, there is an open field. For all Gonzi`s self-assurance, there remain pointers of discontent. A couple came up to me in a restaurant. WE are Nationalists, they said, but the PN has been there too long. We`ll vote Labour……………..i stressed i am out of politics. But they are straws in the wind. Spin and bluster have not removed them. Stooping to personal attacks is unlikey to do so, either.
Unquote
Ex PN
[Daphne – Oh hello Ray. Here’s a lesson for you (Mr Spiteri probably doesn’t need it) in human psychology: when people feel the need to accost you at your restaurant table to tell you that they used to vote for the other person but will now vote for your lot (this applies in fields outside politics, too), don’t trust them. Instead, question their motivation. Why would they want to tell you something like that?]
Daphne dear, kindly refer to page 14 of the SundayTimes of
Malta issued today. Lino Spiteri has said it all. It is food for thought.
[Daphne – You would think that, wouldn’t you. And nowadays, we post links, not refer people to the print version.]
I guess the editor wanted to put this article into the right perspective when he picked the following sentence from Spiteri’s article.
“Lawrence Gonzi speaks in absolutes. According to him, he is always absolutely right. He only sees what he wants to see”.
The rest of the sermon and virtual reality coming from a man who during his time in politics lifted himself to the status of a demi god (if not God’s brother) on earth is, to me, utter bollocks and an insult.
Do anybody remember the names or titles that the ministers of finance during Mintoff’s regime used to give to the budget; this includes Lino Spiteri’s?
On Sky News this morning they said that ‘one in four’ of the Labour Party members prefer Mr. Miliband and ‘three in four’ prefer his brother David.
I think somehow this is also a common factor with all Labour Party activists, to be sorry after they goof it.
An excellent comparison of the challenges facing both Labour parties. Thank you for pointing it out, Daphne.
However, the Malta Labout party has one major advantage. Their supporters and members are incredibly stupid.
“What is Labour for? Who does it represent? What unique contribution can it make to political discourse? What does it provide in terms of a clear electoral choice for voters?”
Put “PN” instead of “Labour” and they’ll be as hard-pressed to find answers to those questions.
Andrew Rawnsley asked something similar in The Observer today: “What is the social democratic offer when there is no money?” And also “What is the purpose of Labour government when there’s no cash?” Makes interesting reading.
From the comments on Daley’s column:
“The point of the labour party is to give a voice to people’s destructive urges: “it’s not fair”; “I am entitled”; “I want”; etc. Labour gives an ideological cover to people’s destructive urges, by dressing them up as noble aims.”
“bellajtilhom wahda daqshekk”:
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=16618
I compare the Labour Party to a mediocre soccer team when playing against a better team.
In such games, the lesser team’s tactic is to ruin the game by playing super defensive and at times aggressive on the opponent’s best players.
Their aim is to go through the 90 minutes without letting the game take off and hoping for that break of scoring a goal on a counter-attack.
In such instances, if the better team is not that good or falters at some point, the lesser team wins.
What is the point of the Labour Party?
To requisition land and give it to its own supporters, to re-write history by claiming that they expelled the British military from Malta, to use violence so as to oppress any form of democracy and freedom of speech, and so much more in that vein.
What about the NP?
Religion et Patria – What is the point of having a party which stresses the importance of religion and was clearly against the introduction of divorce, even after having passed the hot potato to the electorate in what it thought was a way to rid itself from taking a decision (and spend 4 million euros).
That clearly did not work. The Prime Minister is still against divorce, even after the people who elected him chose to introduce it.
How about the building of a parliament and theatre (which in my opinion will look beautiful against the baroque architecture of Valletta) with funds which are not available?
I think there were far more pressing issues than these, and please don’t tell me that the building of a new parliament represents the democratic stance of the liberal and progressive NP (liberal and progressive, with the finance minister having the virgin mary telling him how hurt she is regarding the introduction of divorce) as the track record of their attendance in parliament clearly shows their disrespect to this ideology.
I recall an image of Carm Mifsud Bonnici slouched over his chair clearly asleep. ‘Those who speak of parliament as though it is an inconvenience best shoved into some existing and ill-suited building in which MPs can camp out and make the best of a bad job reveal that they have next to no understanding of democracy’. How about those who act that way? Imagine Kenneth Clarke having a quick nap in the House of Commons.
Than there is the increase in the ministerial wages, muxx ovja jahassra, they only rely on that pay hux, heqq they need a raise as once they become ministers they make away with all their private practices, imsieken.
[Daphne – Unfortunately, your last sentence reveals your true sentiments and so it is impossible (and pointless) to have a proper discussion with you.]
“Unfortunately, your last sentence reveals your true sentiments” – and these are?
[Daphne – Silly and shallow. And VERY Malta Today-ish.]
Pity you chose the last paragraph to brand me as being silly and stupid. In any case, your prejudice needs to be taken lightly in view of the fact that, until a couple of months ago, you thought that Mr Engerer would be the start of the liberal faction in the NP.
[Daphne – Shallow, not stupid. And ever so…Malta Today-ish. As for prejudice, my decisions are taken clinically, aided by the fact that I’m fairly sensible and, I suppose, moderately bright. I see a bunch of incompetent arseholes with a terrible track record on one side and I see a bunch of terribly unglamorous, rather boring people with a good track record and a pretty high level of competence on the other, and I will vote for the latter bunch because politics isn’t entertainment and boredom and glamour don’t enter the equation. My reassessment of Cyrus Engerer has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with common sense. Sensible people reappraise situations (and people) as the evidence changes. Given new evidence (to me, at least) that Mr Engerer is a total prick, my appraisal of him has changed. That evidence – to me – is not his switch to another party but entering an ex-lover’s home, filching personal pictures from his computer, and emailing them to his boss and colleagues in an attempt at getting him fired or into some form of trouble. That is evidence of a deeply insecure, vengeful, unstable and unreliable personality. Consequently, I no longer think that Cyrus Engerer is suitable politician material, despite his ability to speak well in public.]
I meant silly and shallow. (Must have been a Freudian slip with the ‘stupid’ part as you obviously think that anyone who does not vote PN is stupid)
Believe me, it never crossed my mind to think that your are anything but sensible. Your grasp of the English language is one of the reasons I keep coming back to this blog. The fact that you took the time to explain yourself with regards to my post, rather than disregard it completely, speaks volumes about your ability to engage in a form of dialogue which is lacking in the PL.
Should the opposition be able to bring forward someone with the same sort of eloquence, rhetoric and investigative nature as yourself, it would definitely attract that niche of people which are fed up with the status quo yet they don’t see an alternative with the other half of the spectrum.
[Daphne – Richard, the essential point, which you appear to miss, is this: the political parties are not equal in terms of quality or ability. They are equal only in size and electoral support. The Labour Party, try as it might, is never going to get the vote, still less the public support, of somebody like me – once we’re talking about me, which I hate – because the qualities that you find admirable in somebody like me are the very ones which make me see Labour for what it is.
Eloquence alone is not enough. Arguments have to make sense and be locked into facts. Let’s put it this way, when I meet somebody who seems bright and sharp, and I later find out that he or she supports the Labour Party, I immediately revise my opinion of their intelligence – downwards. Yes, I make allowances for their upbringing, hatred of the PN, years of family prejudice, and the rest, and still I think they really can’t be that smart. By a certain age, you should be able to leave prejudice and family political brainwashing behind you and work things out for yourself based on the evidence. Exactly how thick does a person have to be to believe Malta has a better future out of the EU, for instance?
I keep reminding people of the fact that I did not grow up in a Nationalist family – both my mother’s family and my father’s supported the Strickland party – because it is important to consider my political views and opinions in the salient context of my HAVING MADE A CONSCIOUS AND CONSIDERED CHOICE, which few people in Malta actually make because the parties their parents supported are still around. I speak with conviction because I chose with conviction. Even the thought of voting for the Labour Party is laughable to me. I really would have to have no self respect at all. It would be like buying a badly made dress at 20 times the cost of a far better one, just for kicks and a change.]
President Obama was all for change, and he had me hoping that the US could maybe, just maybe have a chance at being a country which is respected for its political decisions. This was done by his rhetoric, his mannerisms and his speeches. However this has changed. His stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows that he too is a puppet of the Jewish US. I believe it was Time magazine which portrayed him as being the first Afro American Jewish President. The fact is that, even though the US is facing another recession with Bernanke deciding to inject the economy with 400 Billion dollars, I would hate to see Perry becoming the next US president. I believe that you see the same situation happening here. The choice is not whether we should have a competent government, it is based solely on the fact of keeping the incumbent party because of a lack of alternatives.
I hope that as the election looms closer, both parties will provide for electoral manifestos which give the people choice, rather than the lack thereof.
Brian Hansford
Food for thought ; When a football club is about to play against an opponent the coach never reveal his team just minutes before kick off, A good coach keeps them his opponents guessing right till the end….
[Daphne – Politics as football. Bloody idiot.]
Cyrus Engerer on Facebook yesterday:
Dalgħodu attendejt għall-ftuħ tal-kampanja Start organizzata mill-FZL. Kampanja li qiegħda tara diversi żgħażagħ minn kull qasam tal-ħajja, b’passat politiku differenti, jingħaqdu flimkien b’għan wieħed: It-tisħieħ tal-pedamenti tajbin mibnija minn Gvernijiet differenti tal-passat u viżjoni ta’ bidla, fejn hemm bżonn, għal futur b’għixien aħjar għal kull cittadin fil-pajjiż. Dan hu l-Moviment tal-Progressivi u Moderati fil-prattika!
Yay!
What is the point of the Labour Party? Do you need to write this piece – look at the picture; Tony Abela = (former) alternattiva, now Labour = present alternattiva; and quite an enviable position too, with Maltese profoundly disaffected with anything including jellyfish blooms and ignorant of the chaos abroad (by that I’m not meaning the Eurovision) its easy to just say something in the way of offering a more attractive alternative to an admittedly not unpleasant reality, and unfortunately memory is mercifully short so that the painful experiment is almost guaranteed.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/…/large-mass-grave-found-in-libya.386374
The point of the Labour Party right now is the consolidation of a market.
It has resorted to niche creation by implementing all the existing subcategories; retro, hi tech, fuzzy logic, trendy, metro and badge engineering.
This limits the capability for defining and evolving identity and brand values.
What it lacks in core values and brand history it tries to compensate with emotion and novelty. This carries the risk of missing the market’s demands, being late to respond and pushing unwanted needs.
It is pertinent to note the lack of irony, implying an admission of lack of confidence in its previous products and performance.
Marketing without a product is a slippery slope nowadays.
On the other hand, it’s the very definition of modern business.
It’s the other lot that’s out of touch. A circle jerk of Fehmiet Bazici nostalgics carping on about core values.
The raison d’etre of the Labour Party is to be as crassly idiotic as possible, taking all the wrong decisions (when they matter), making their political opponents appear to be an even more attractive proposition than they may be in reality.
Wrong decisions like in their choice of leader.
The British Labour Party chose the wrong Milliband.
The Malta Labour Party have been choosing the wrong leader for as long as I can remember.
Richard,
Lawrence Gonzi was against divorce but always said he would respect the result of the referendum, which he did.
Joseph Muscat was against the EU, said he wouldn’t respect the result and to this day doesn’t acknowledge it.
H.P.Baxxter
You’re right up to a point.
Carping about core values without actually subscribing to their abstract nature denotes hesitation to the design possibilities of the former.
The PN’s reluctance to lead the divorce debate one example.
If it had to be a question of conscience, it shouldn’t have been allowed to overshadow their commitment to policymaking, which is their product.
It’s the style which was sacrificed, albeit to confirm the product itself. Call it a recall.
I would like to add that Lawrence Gonzi himself is becoming one of the values of the PN. He’s managed with a one seat majority to keep the party and the country on course.
The impression Labour are giving is that leadership is something to be avoided at all costs, and that Joseph is only the scapegoat to blame as soon as the going gets tough.
The fact that he has to portray himself as a Mintoff, whilst at the same time emphasising how nice he is, has to be the greatest contradiction in their philosophy.
That could be why they insist on revising history, then glorifying Lorry Sant in a relatively low key affair.
And also why policymaking is sorely lacking in tangible proposals.
What the Nationalists need is to set their mind to it, and to hell with those who won’t commit to it. Whoever didn’t was rejected by the whole electorate anyway.
It’s the one characteristic which keeps the Maltese afloat and convinces the undecided.
The question is, where do the Maltese want to go in 2013? I doubt whether Karmenu Vella, the FZL, the Ideat thingy and the multitude of secretaries have any clue. All I see is regimentation.
Concepts are hard to verbalise and crystallise if the language is poor.