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.

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.

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.

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’.

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?

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.

Given that Labour’s turned this election into a referendum for a power station, AD’s neutral position is untenable.

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.’]