Comments on: Joseph Muscat wipes out Alfred Sant and takes it right back to Mintoff

By: Antoine Vella

Antoine Vella — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:18:41 +0000

In reply to Neil Dent. What the PL also doesn't admit is that the "perverse" result of 1981 was not a coincidence but the result of deliberate gerrymandering.

By: Jozef

Jozef — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:22:09 +0000

The speech in the clip is Labourspeak when the audience is their own.

What he tells the rest of us is something else. Remember his logic to the EU referendum result? ‘With hindsight, and given the election result, (barely a month later), partnership lost’.

According to Joseph it was democratic to ignore the referendum result as they had declared they would do so anyway.

We’ll get these contradictions on a daily basis.

By: Żeża Ta' Bubaqra

Żeża Ta' Bubaqra — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:19:56 +0000

I think his comment about not expecting anything as a right was a smart move. Franco should take that advice.

By: Neil Dent

Neil Dent — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:06:20 +0000

In reply to Grezz.

I replied to George Cutajar’s comment on timesofmalta.com’s board, remarking that the subject of Debono’s infamous thesis should have been picked up by mainstream media such as that newspaper itself, instead of by a young blogger.

They didn’t upload my comment.

By: Neil Dent

Neil Dent — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:13:59 +0000

Was ‘Lil Din’ the solitary applauder when he made that great admission about 1981?

I’m pretty sure nobody else clapped because they were still stunned, trying to work out what the hell just happened to their 1996 majority of 8000 votes!

By: Neil Dent

Neil Dent — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:03:58 +0000

In reply to Jake.

Jake, his admission about 1981 is irrelevant. It’s widely known and accepted (admitted?) that the the majority of votes went to the PN in 1981, and that the PL held onto power due to its parliamentary majority – i.e. they held more seats than the PN.

Such was the voting system back then, but amendments were made after that to make sure that such a perversely undemoctatic situation cannot be repeated.

What the PL will never admit is the scandalous way in which they governed between 1981 and 1987, holding onto power well beyond the usual 5-year term.

By: Catsrbest

Catsrbest — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:57:36 +0000

It could be that he wants his supporters to forget the awful and pathetic way with which he harassed the greatest leader Malta has ever had – Dr Eddie Fenech Adami. Also because of the obsession he has with ‘his image’ probably he does not want to remind himself and his supporters that back then he was merely a ‘super one’ reporter.

By: Antoine Vella

Antoine Vella — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:31:37 +0000

In reply to Jake. Jake, we don't need Joseph Muscat to tell us that the majority of voters wasn't behind Labour in 1981. We can see it for ourselves by looking at the numbers.

By: Min Weber

Min Weber — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:17:11 +0000

In reply to Antoine Vella.

I think you have made a very good point here.

Muscat sees himself as the personification of the myth of Mintoff.

There are usually two concepts: the real person and the myth. Muscat identifies himself with the myth.

Just like Mafiosi copy the myths created by movies about the great wise guys of the Prohibition golden era.

Ranier Fsadni wrote about this phenomenon some time back, saying that real mobsters imitate movie characterisations of mobsters.

By: Mitqlu Deheb

Mitqlu Deheb — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:42:05 +0000

It is looking more and more that Joseph Muscat is nothing other than a stooge, put forward as an acceptable face of PL by the Mintoffiam old guard that is increasingly visible within PL structures.