My, my – how times have changed
Luxembourg-based Jacques Rene Zammit is the ‘blokker’ the Labour media love to love, the one they always quote or take soundbites from when busy pretending I don’t exist.
He is also the ‘blokker’ who loves to run me down because he is superior and floats above the nitty-gritty of political debate on a cloud of superciliousness.
But for once, Jacques Rene and I are in agreement on the subject of the Labour Party. I have long suspected this to be the case, but I imagine that in the face of yet more unutterably embarrassing tactics which have tipped views of the Labour campaign from admiration right into ridicule, he could not contain himself any longer.
Good going, Jacques. By now you know it’s not a game, so it’s always better to be forthright. Jacques Rene’s post is linked below.
15 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.akkuza.com/2013/01/22/the-love-labours-lost/
If I may, Labour’s isn’t falso buonismo, but what is called ‘volemosi’ bene.’
I think he’s right in being disappointed, blaming the PN for Labour’s failure to provide an alternative, however, isn’t.
Perhaps what’s really bothering him is AD’s green credentials going down the drain in the name of misplaced diplomacy.
I speak as someone who chats regularly with their old school. Most are, to say the least, disgusted at AD’s prudence of late.
The PN want an interconnector and a pipeline.
AD’s considering another power station, gas terminal, storage tanks, regasifier and jetty. Not to mention the operating risks and consequences of sea water process supply. Potential benefits they said.
I think the PN’s billboard trimmed in green is most appropriate.
I also think AD’s ‘maghna taf fejn qieghed’ is a contradiction in terms.
AD have been badly let down by Edward Mallia who could have given them the scientific insight to lambast the environmental heresies of the Labour proposal.
For reasons known only to himself, Edward Mallia is refusing to acknowledge the shortcomings of the plan and speak out.
Antoine, Edward Mallia is not one to discuss the engineering and economies of scale to determine the savings promised.
He tends to the theoretical, reduced to correcting Joseph’s misquoting him on The Times. I don’t expect him to delve into insurance requirements set out by risk managers.
I don’t blame him.
This article is the proverbial straw which can break the camel’s back.
Deep surgical analysis, I must say.
I am sick and tired of people acting and talking like we live in some war-torn country with Gonzi pulling the trigger.
I watched another one of Labour’s videos. It made me laugh.
It just goes to show what sort of perception the PL wants to create.
“I want to live in a Malta where you get ahead not because of who you know but because of what you know”.
Sure, so they want to create a country where no one networks, good will goes out the window and marks on a paper must mean you can apply skills and use your brain practically.
“I want to live in a Malta where my child can breathe clean air”.
Because this person would rather have water and electricity partly (at least on paper) owned by investors who only care about money, build a new power station we don’t need (ahem, environment) with gas tanks that might blow up and kill an entire village.
It goes on and on, all lies and propaganda.
And all the while I couldn’t help think that people must honestly believe this is true on some level. Why?
It’s worth noting that while Jacques Rene Zammit speaks in very negative terms about Labour, he does not advocate voting PN as an alternative.
Rather the general drift of the blog is that voting AD is the only sensible option in the circumstances. I’m sure you disagree with that, but I thought it worth highlighting for the sake of completeness.
[Daphne – Yes, of course I disagree with that. I agree completely with his assessment of the Labour campaign and of JosephMuscat.com. But unlike Jacques Rene, I am quite logical and pragmatic, so if I don’t want a Labour government, I’m going to vote in such a way as to help that not happen. I am not going to vote AD and then, when Labour is elected, say ‘Oh dear, but my conscience is clear because I didn’t vote for them.’]
Given that Labour’s turned this election into a referendum for a power station, AD’s neutral position is untenable.
I have a confession to make. In my first ever free election (the others were the EU election and 2008, when I had to vote tactically to block Alfred Sant, so they don’t count) I gave my first preference to AD, to Arnold Cassola.
And I wish my hand had withered et cetera…
AD is a joke. At best, it is an interest group. At worst, it is a fraud.
Let us not forget that it was founded by, among others, Toni Abela and Wenzu Mintoff. Hardly your liberal Greens.
Which is why AD sits so well with Labour.
You see, they both hanker for change, but they’ve no plan for after the change. Some time in the late 90s, AD added the little label “The Green Party”, or “il-Greeeeens”, spoken in Cassola’s unique accent. Beyond some vague “green” politics, what else does AD stand for?
Surely, now that the green agenda has been enthusiastically adopted by both parties, AD’s job is done, and it can go back to being a lobby group?
Surely this would serve its interest much more effectively, since it could fight the hunters’ and construction lobby inside their own ring, instead of party-to-lobby-group.
AD sits so well with Labour because, just like Labour, it is a catch-all party, a home for dissidents, more likely for rebels without a cause.
It’s no coincidence that its current leader is Michael Briguglio, whose official biography describes him as “sociologist, politician, drummer and activist”. He’d do well to add “Lino Briguglio’s offspring”.
I mean AD, WTF?
And what about Dr Harry Vassallo, long time AD leading light?
Dalli waved a few crisp fivers in front of him and Harry came panting like a dog being made to beg for a biscuit. So much for ‘principles’ and ‘untainted’.
I knew Harry of old. His wife, Sue, is one of the nicest people one could wish to meet.
Whenever our paths crossed, he struck me as a believer.
And whilst I disagreed with Harry, I did respect his idealism, his fervour and his vision.
Till one day, he sold out. What a disappointment he turned out to be.
Whose favourite philosopher happens to be Marx.
If it exists. Cacopardo also seems to have a serious issue with progressive tax deductions.
Cacopardo tried to defend the indefensible.
If as he says, he has serious doubts and thinks the project will take longer, why does he wait for Labour’s documents to take a stand?
It’s useless blaming lack of airtime, there’s no reason to qualify the argument against. It’s his conclusion.
It’s the self imposed neutrality clause which requires meandering on TV. It’s making him look like an imbecille.
Unless, following Abela’s waxing lyrical on AD, there’s something we should be told there as well.
All those who intend voting AD have to learn that they will be wasting their vote, considering our system.