KOLLHA KEMM INTOM BLAJTU L-LIXKA B’KOLLOX TA’ MUSCAT.

Kif qatt tistgħu temmnu kelma milli qal bniedem li inqabad jaħdem minn taħt għal Muscat minn ġol-GRTU? Li Sandro Chetcuti bħala rapreżentant tal-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni iltaqa’ mad-diriġenti tal-PN kienet ħaġa aċċettabbli, u rajniha fl-aħbarijiet. Mil-bqija, jgħid x’jgħid Chetcuti QATT m’hu ser nemmnu.

Kieku Chetcuti iddaħħal kandidat mal-PN (wara li ġie mgħarbul mil-Kumitat tal-għażla tal-kandidati) , l-anqas kienet tilħaq tinxef il-linka tal-istqarrija ta’ din l-aħbar, li jien u eluf oħra bħali konna noħorġu qatta’ bla ħabel kontra din il-kandidatura.

Għandna gvern KORROTT minn għeruqu u din l-intervista taż-żewġ akkolti ta’ Muscat fuq Xṭra hija tattika diverżiva oħra ta’ Muscat.

Bħalissa għandna lil-kullħadd kelma waħda fuq il-każ tad-drogi f’Għawdex, b’żewġ ministri involuti. Fuq hemm għandna nitkellmu, mela fuq x’qal Mintoffjan li għaddej xalata taħt il-gvern ta’ Muscat.

https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2015/10/ill-be-back-with-my-brother-to-finish-you-off-sandro-chetcuti-to-vince-farrugia/

People like Chetcuti need to be guided and shown how the party can develop ideas into concepts into a product which benefits all. This is possible only if one is capable of producing design processes and calibrate Chetcuti’s bottom line into the process.

I do not delegitimise his activity. If anything I despise the fact he’s handed the right to opinion on the aesthetics of nature, and that’s the nature of aesthetics, no word game intended.

But it was hilarious when he said how garigue is ultimately something to embellish, prettify, beautify or whatever it is we’ve been doing since 1987.

Honestly Anton, I’m one who couldn’t take the lumpy, overdone, sardinella-loaded ‘belvedere’ plonked down the sweeping road to Wied iz-Zurrieq. Killjoy.

But if we don’t acknowledge having a sense of order and a determination to conceive quality beyond Chetcuti’s, he will expect to lead and not follow.

Giving him credit which he does not, policymaking to innovation, is the worst mistake. It’s also a sign of laziness in the quest to go beyond Labour.

Chetcuti is an ignoramus, period. Asking him to be a candidate is acknowledging he is the competition. And how, pray, does that give us the edge?

The result being this anodyne and piecemeal group of statements which must somehow satisfy every position and its opposite.

This is why I keep insisting on getting to terms and become literate with the Soft Left’s use of philological illusion.

Yes, there has to be a minimum of strength, power and menefreghismo to do this, and the inevitable minefield of magic words must be taken into account.

And yes, the all too predictable outrage, backlash and plain distortion coming from all sides must be planned for, but ffs, cautious is simply did not happen in this day and age.

I mean, in the name of all that’s sane, why do they link Chetcuti to votes? If one is a political party, fora and all that, how is it that these potential votes are not translated into policy directly, and ultimately, why is it Chetcuti who has the better answers than everyone else in the party?

Marlene Farrugia’s comment implies a similar attitude, that Chetcuti has some legitimate exclusive hold on policy. This is simply NOT true.

It’s sick. We will never resolve environmental issues, traffic, etc. If Chetcuti is considered the one to consult.

He is simply limited in scope, intelligence and vision. We can do better, resolve issues AND pre-empt any qualms from his end, if his interests are deconstructed and improved clearly and pedagogically to him and his group, it’s as simple as that.

Your analysis is overly simplistic and ignores so many variable factors that it cannot be taken seriously.

For example: the alternative to Fenech Adami in the 1992 election was Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. And there was no Internet let alone social media so many things were able to happen that ministers, MPs and senior political figures wouldn’t be able to do today – like spend every Sunday out on boats owned by influential business operators.

In 1996 the economy was doing very well, but Alfred Sant won anyway, because he was the first credible Labour leader in decades, and his messages about corruption and HBIEB TAL-HBIEB and BARUNIJIET had got through.

In 2008 the economy was doing extremely well but Gonzi almost lost to Sant.

As long as a high percentage of the electorate are those who struggle to make ends meet or a bit better (as is normal everywhere), the only principle that wins elections is the economy.

There were also corruption allegations even in Dr. Fenech Adami’s first term, the 1987-1992 golden years, yet the feel good factor was enough to make him elected again.

In all probability, this may not be the time for the PN – whatever it does, and whatever further emerges from the Panama issue.

The PN will eventually be in government some time further, and it will be better for it to learn from the good this government has done, in terms of increasing ‘satisfaction’ of the people.

I am not referring to personal favours, but those that touch their time and money, like reducing court and hospital waiting times, medicine shortages, day care centres etc.

The mistake the previous PN administration made is that it took people for granted too much, basing much on Gonzi’s charisma.

Elections have nothing to do with these things. The electorate will chose who can improve their quality of life, and not who is smarter.