(i) because he has to pay the cost of two more seats in parliament and the consequent benefits than it should have had to;

(ii) it will have to pay Justyne Caruana a higher pension if her current ill-gotten term results her in serving parliament for sufficient time to earn her a higher pension;

(iii) that throughout these years there was misrepresentation in parliament.

Might I remind you that the general election is a choice between two, and not a decision on whether you think the Nationalist Park deres your vote. Does the Labour Party deserve your vote? Does it deserve to be returned in the next election? Obviously not. So focus.

Best reply so far …. and the one that makes most sense.

I do think that there are competing pressures on the Chief Justice and things are not quite as clear cut as you suggest.

We agree that his intervention in the Toni Abela matter was unsound. I simply find it hard to believe that there was some sort of trade-off. The benefit to the judiciary is just far too peripheral to make it worth their while.

Your suggestion that he need not confer to make an opinion public – while sound in theory – must be considered in the context of court management.

Equally, making public any disagreement with the appointment of Toni Abela is quite different to private objection followed by a decision notionally taken by consensus.

I remain of the view that he has erred in this matter, but I struggle to see any realistic reason for the motivation which you suggest.

If the Nationalist Party are so thick about recognising this condition NOW while they’re in Opposition, should have the motivation to and have all the time in the world to do so, pray do tell what makes them worthy of returning to power and how can you have confidence in them that they have the competence to be a good ruling party?

Please don’t tell me you couldn’t be fagged to write the word in full.

No, it wouldn’t have been “unfair to others”. David Thake has broadcasting, communications and ‘nose for a story’ skills which The Others patently lack. And he also has the kind of sense of humour that The Others – based on my observations – don’t have and might not even understand, but which his audience does.

So it follows that taking him off Radio 101 is not ‘unfair to others’ but wholly unfair to him.

Oh, and another thing: the political party which wishes to win a general election – just like the army which has to win a battle/war and the corporation which has to win a project award – puts its best people in the positions where they are most effective. That means fairness doesn’t come into it.

Team-playing doesn’t mean everybody’s in their Chinese communist uniforms from the 1980s, doing the same thing. It means pulling together without envy and spite and acknowledging that needs must when the devil drives. Look at a football team – are they all centre-forwards and goal-keepers?

What now becomes urgent is a change in the rules of the counting of votes, allowing for a RECOUNT when asked for in certain circumstances. Recounts are allowed in other countries which have millions of votes to recount.
In our case, a recount would have taken at most an hour and not over three years, not to mention the cost in time and money.