Because, you see, you would have lowered your standards by voting for them and thus are below contempt.

Just wonderin’.

[Daphne – I’m a bit slow tonight. You’ll have to repeat that, because I don’t understand what you mean.]

I put it down to the basics not being in place. His Sunday speeches seem more suited for a general conference where the principles upon which to build policies are outlined. Instead, his words betray a personal need to drive home where he stands. If I were a traditional Labour voter, his repeated calls to consider the EU as a reality would mean something. In reality, I’m not and would only be surprised to the opposite.

Either he hasn’t found his footing yet, due the disparate currents, (one has to see how the old terzomondisti, anti-west guard will ever accept those whose idea of Labour is Tony Blair), or he’s utterly incapable of sorting out the helm.

I think it’s a mixture of both, one week he’s overshadowed by Alex Sciberras Trigona, scurrying around with Manuel Mallia the next. .

One thing is sure, he knows he’s an outsider to both camps. Loathed by the reds for being aspirational and lacking in political depth, an object of suspicion by those who want to make of the party their own business. A snob, inverted or not, he isn’t.

The tension caused by Alfred Sant hasn’t been sorted. The latter had been the only one brazen enough to take it upon himself to challenge Mintoff’s ideology. He knew that if there’s one thing they follow, it’s charisma and the aura of superior intellect.

That Muscat isn’t up to it is evident by the void around him, it seems no one wants to be seen too close.

However this only applies to those ‘Labourites’ that have a degree of intelligence, no matter how little.

The Lucianos of this world can’t evaluate a political party and see the LP for what it really is. Politics to them just means talking BS and measuring how well that BS was sold once the votes are in.

Unfortunately, standards have also fallen in the PN recently. Franco’s antics is a case in point. That is why the difference between the two parties is now so blurred that people are crossing the political boundary sometimes unwittingly.

These people have a modicum of intelligence (Deborah Schembri or Cyrus are hardly an idiots). What they do not realise is that the PL leadership despises people who have a brain and a mind of their own. In time they will feel lost in poliical wilderness, not quite here or there.

They will be out of favour within months of an elected Labour government.

I think that analysing the psychology of the Labour Party can be very interesting.

You say: “the people in the party are there because it’s the route to power and influence…”

All parties exist for that purpose among other purposes, but the limitations of those who normally support and lead the Labour Party do not make it fit for anything else.

Hence those in the leading positions within that Party are only able to focus on using the tools available to them to control others and in their interest.

As for your statement: “There’s more than one reason why the Labour Party wants the votes of people like me and others who share my sentiments. It’s not just because they need every vote to win the general election. It’s also because – I would say MAINLY because – Labour thinks our votes are more valuable and our choices more meaningful.”

I would say that a key reason why they would want the vote of people like you is to be able to exert control over you. Again, this is the obsession with power for the sake of power.

I think that Labour appeals a lot to those who have little or no sense of rule of law.