Where’s the plague when you need it?

It’s become too much of a cliché for people like us to yell “A plague on both your houses” at the PLPN and all they represent. The first line of defence is always that your repetition of the PLPN mantra is an obsession. Hand on heart however, how many can sincerely say that this is not the era of the proverbial fecal matter hitting the rotating device. We’re knee deep in doo-doo and the rot is only obscured from the man-in-the-street’s eyes because he is high on a double dose of “Taghna Lkoll” pills and post-trouncing of the nasty PN euphoria.

Here at J’accuse I should be popping champagne bottles and rejoicing that our warnings of a dire future that would be caused by this obsession with a race to mediocrity have been (are in still in the process of being) proven right. Naysayers will chime in with that ever so wonderful chorus – “Sure but we had not alternative other than to vote in more of the same”. Right. It’s not like observations such as those that often were to be found in the posts on this blog were only directed at the creation of a credible third alternative. No, they were and are also directed at the fact that as a nation of supposed discerning voters we stop enabling the farce and the circus that are the Nationalist and Labour parties.

What did we do instead? We immersed ourselves in this delectable Maltese version of the war of the roses and threw all caution to the wind. Seven months of Labour and what do we have as a result? In your face appointments that defy reason, unshamefaced cavorting with people of questionable history and the selling out of the nation as an outpost to (parts of) the Chinese behemoth. Elsewhere these ugly warts of Labour’s je ne sais quoi are being dutifully exposed. Well done and more – though it took some people quite some time to notice that the Chinese deal is all about the PV market (Liang Mizzi’s appointment being only yet another unpleasant spin-off of the “già che ci siamo“) kind. Focusing just on one minister – take Anton “Minimum Wage” Refalo as a random example … opens up a pandora’s box of no nos that only serve to demonstrate Labour’s inability to conceive of what democratic representation and the rule of law is about.

Meanwhile Joseph Muscat has turned into photo-op PM hoofing around the world trying to get his not so attractive mug in as many photo shoots as possible. When he is not giving lessons to the United Nations as to how to notice that the REAL sufferers in world immigration are the Maltese he is teaching the United States the secrets of Malta’s economic success (So we are successful now?) to FOX news journalists. Back home his cabinet is engaged in a free for all that makes a herd of pigs battling at a trough look like a silver service  dinner at the Ritz.

The opposition is lost in its own thoughts but is increasingly sending out signals that all is not too well and settled in its house. This blog has already voiced its opinion as to what the early steps in the rebuilding of the PN should be so we will not go there again. As far as we concerned the real measure of the EU Parliament campaign for the PN will not be so much how well it fares vote wise but really how much of the old strategies (read vote driven) still survive. Will the candidates be chosen purely on their propensity to attract votes and their marketability (are we still in DJ’s and popular faces mode?) or will their be a block of political thinkers being pushed? I suspect the temptation to go along with the old fashioned “motley crew” is still very much what the PN is about. Tant pis. It will be a missed chance to inject real quality.

So yes, we are left with wishing a plague upon both their houses. There will not be of course and the population is entitled to dream that everything is fine and dandy for a while longer. That is until the sums are made and the result is not very much to their liking. Pleasures yet to come.

 

In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle. 

Facebook Comments Box

Di che pasta sei fatto?

It appears now that Dario Fo has waded into the fold à proposi the raging controversy provoked by the comments of Barilla Chief Guido Barilla about the place of homosexuals in his company’s advertisements. Interviewed on a radio and asked whether the famous Barilla adverts could be “improved” by including reference to homosexual couples Barilla had categorically stated that there was no place for homosexuals in his company’s advertising.

Here is what Barilla had to say to La Zanzara (the programme where the interview took place):

La nostra è una famiglia classica dove la donna ha un ruolo fondamentale. Noi abbiamo un concetto differente rispetto alla famiglia gay. Per noi il concetto di famiglia sacrale rimane un valore fondamentale dell’azienda. (Ours is a classic family in which the woman plays a fundamental role. We have a different concept to that of a gay family. For us the concept of the “sacred” family remains a fundamental value for the company).

My first reaction was very much in the line of shock. Such words are the kind of words that should not be uttered because they reinforce certain attitudes and mentalities that are downright discriminatory. Yes, I too was affected by the initial shock value that was very obviously what the Zanzara interviewer wanted to obtain.

A few breaths and organisings of thoughts later though the source of my anger had shifted dramatically. This was after all an assault on a private entrepreneur’s right to advertise and sell his or her product as he best deems fit. Barilla have over the years built a type of advertising timbre based around the concept of the family. It’s a utopic ideal of a family – recognised by Italian sociologists as the “Mulino Bianco” Family. Mulino Bianco is in fact a trademark created to distinguish Barilla’s pasta from the non-pasta range of products. The idea of the Mulino Bianco Family was born in the early ’90s:

Agli inizi degli anni novanta la strategia comunicativa dell’azienda cambiò puntando sul “ritorno in campagna”. Nell’episodio iniziale del 1990 della Famiglia del Mulino, una famiglia media italiana, il padre Federico giornalista, la madre Giulia insegnante elementare, i due figli Andrea e Linda e il nonno, esprimono il desiderio di vivere nel verde e si trasferiscono in campagna. Sullo sfondo del mulino di Chiusdino, vennero ambientati una serie di episodi di vita quotidiana della famiglia. La Famiglia del Mulino assurse ben presto lo stereotipo della “famiglia perfetta” inserita in un luogo fiabesco. La pubblicità della Famiglia del Mulino andò avanti per tutta la prima metà degli anni Novanta.

In his open letter to Guido Barilla, nobel laureate Dario Fo is appealing to the company owner to “improve” the ads and catch up with the signs of times – reflect new attitudes to society and family. All well and good. It is a choice Barilla has and can make if it likes. Yet it is a choice. It cannot and should not be bullied into making it. Other companies like Ikea (and apparently now pasta rival Buitoni) will have hooked onto the possibility of attracting clients from other segments of the market (though I find it hard to see that a specialist “pasta-eating homosexual” consumer market existed before this fuss was kicked up and a boycott encouraged).

Guido Barilla may have committed a commercial hara kiri by stating that “gays can shop elsewhere” and he will have to pay the consequences for that. His opinions apart though one cannot but take stock of the collective bullying of one company simply because it opts not to include a new stereotype in its vision for selling its products. Had Barilla simply stated “We are happy enough with our advertising as it is thank you very much” would that have still provoked the ire of the internet? I’d like to think not.

The absurdity lies in the question originally put to Guido Barilla. Why the hell should I want to influence (or rather impose) a company as to how it advertises its products? What is all this rubbish about political correctness or (worse) being so easily offended. I do not see much of a difference between a muslim mother asking for a cross to be removed in a school and a gay lobby group insisting on Barilla having a gay-friendly advert. Where do we stop? Should I as a gluten-intolerant coeliac feel offended unless Barilla inserts a cameo role for the sad man at the table who is obliged to pass on the delicious looking plate of spaghetti pummarola because “Hey! I’m intolerant” (sad face and all?).

Just because the likes of Ikea think it is trendy to promote their products with new commercials thought up to be more gay friendly does not mean that other companies are obliged to follow suit. This is a huge fuss being kicked up for nothing (or at least for the not-so-carefully chosen words by Guido Barilla).

Just eat your bloody pasta e non scassate i coglioni.

 

Facebook Comments Box

I know nothing

“I know nothing” can be quite an intelligent motto to carry around – particularly if it is as an expression of the Socratic paradox (scio me nescire). An appreciation of the limits of one’s knowledge is an important tool to carry about in life. Ignorance of the kind that is basically the mere absence of knowledge is a tool badly wielded. I am not sure whether feigned ignorance is any better either. At the end of the day “I know nothing” outside the comfort zone of the aforementioned Socratic paradox becomes a sort of Manuel-ish expression. Manuel as in the waiter from Barcelona.

Minister Chris Cardona and I were course colleagues and I would hate for him to fall under the category of ignorant advocates that our beloved faculty and university seem all too ready to produce nowadays. My worry is quite egoistic I admit though I am sure that Cardona’s latest flurry of denials of knowledge (a polite way of saying “proclamations of ignorance”) is probably based on the stressful nature of his post and the undeniably hard time he must be having catching up with all things commercial – what with his ever so unsuitable qualification as a lawyer.

So here he was faced by a Times’ journalist and posed with the question of whether something was not amiss with Malta Enterprise’s direct appointment of the wife of Energy Minister Mizzi to some post as an envoy for procurement of business from the Far East. Our modern day Lord MacCartney is none other than Sai Mizzi Liang the Chinese born wife of Minister Mizzi. Chris Cardona decided to faff through different phases that bordered between justification and denial:

1) I had no idea : “Don’t ask me I don’t know” was the gist, just before he proceeded to assume that ME (Malta Enterprise) needed a specialised person, that the recruitment system works in that manner and that ME picked out the person that best fitted what they deemed they needed.

2) How I think it should be done : Next Cardona gave us a lesson in opinion or “how I think it should be done”. Certain appointments should be made on the need that you have, he explains. Righto Mr. Minister but that is not legal is it? As in, it’s not why we have laws? Appointing people on the need that you feel you have is what, for want of a better word, an autocrat or a despot can do. For us mere democrats there’s boards and exams and calls for applications.

3) It’s always been like this : Inevitably this one had to be slipped in. Those nasty nationalists were apparently (or allegedly since Cardona was on a roll of assumptions there) doing the same thing in the past (really? How many Minister’s wives were appointed as envoys anywhere?). Far be it from me to look into evidence of the murky nationalist past – I don’t need to anyway. Aren’t we supposed to have a transparent and meritocratic government? Isn’t this the change they voted for? What rubbish.

4) The appointment was done in good faith: When facts fail you head for religion. We are to take the Minister’s word on the fact that he trusts that whoever made the appointment made it in good faith. Of course we do Chris. Somehow though I have a feeling it should not be working like that. Especially not with the loads a bull your government fed the people about meritocracy.

5) She is specialised: And then came the best part. Pressed for more answers by the journalist, Cardona had to answer the rather irritating question “But what is Sai Mizzi Liang specialised in?”. He starts off with a bit of mumbling about the fact that she is specialised in the “negozju” (commerce) of these nations but then cuts off suddenly and concludes: “She’s from there, she has a natural knowledge base”. So it is ignorance. Of the craziest kind. Still, you couldn’t expect anything less from a government flouting Vienna Convention rules in its appointment of diplomats. Ah the law… such a fickle thing.

To conclude I present you with a useless bit of our constitution that will soon (probably) fall redundant and be replaced by a new article entitled “On Appointment by Hunch, Good Faith and Nationality”. Enjoy it while it lasts. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. (Subarticle 6 is particularly juicy).

 

Article 110 of the Constitution of Malta

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, power to make appointments to public offices and to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in any such offices shall vest in the Prime Minister, acting on therecommendation of the Public Service Commission:

Provided that the Prime Minister may, acting on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, delegate in writing, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the instrument of delegation, any of the powers referred to in this sub-article to such public officer or other authority as may be specified in that instrument.

(2) A delegation of a power under this article –

(a) shall be without prejudice to the exercise of that power by the Prime Minister acting on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission;

(b) may authorise the public officer or other authority concerned to exercise that power either with or without reference to the Public Service Commission; and

(c) in respect of recruitment to public offices from outside the public service, shall, unless such recruitment is made after a public examination advertised in the Gazette, be exercised only through an employment service provided out of public funds which ensures that no distinction, exclusion or preference is made or given in favour or against any person by reason of his political opinion and which provides opportunity for employment solely in the best interests of the public service and of the nation generally.

(…)

(6) Recruitment for employment with any body established by the Constitution or by or under any other law, or with any partnership or other body in which the Government of Malta, or any such body as aforesaid, have a controlling interest or over which they have effective control, shall, unless such recruitment is made after a public examination duly advertised, be made through an employment service as provided in sub-article (2) of this article.

Facebook Comments Box

Broken Bad the second

“We may be broke but we are not broken”. I may be paraphrasing Beppe Fenech Adami a little here but that was the thrust of his address on the granaries last night. Well, that’s too bad Beppe because I’ve chosen the title for this little series about the PN quandaries and it’s there to stay. Obviously I do believe that the party is pretty broken besides being broke and I will not deny that the not so subtle reference to one of the greatest series ever written for TV made the choice of this title much much simpler.

Having got that off my chest let me now turn to the PN Leader’s speech last night. Simon Busuttil switched away from reminding us how Joseph Muscat has lost his map and for one night seems to have focused on his own house that needs setting in order. This is the right time of course in which the PN can engage in a little introspection and the granaries is the right forum for such introspection to be given the seal of approval. Busuttil told the crowd that the PN has always had vision and has had vision for 49 years and he added that the PN still has vision now. But does it?

Some readers will hopefully forgive me for another reference to Guy Ritchie’s movies but all that talk about vision reminded me of a Vinnie Jones speech in Snatch – he had an idea about what exactly it is that has drive and clarity of vision, he was not too impressed about its cleverness though. The thing is I have an aversion to party conference/mass meeting/staged event rhetoric and that aversion is deeply rooted in the fact that most times the basic building block of such rhetoric is good old bull. The point about having vision is not that you talk about it but that you act upon it. You see Simon, to people like me your talk about having vision is not very different from Joseph Muscat’s talk about having a road map.

Six months have passed since the ignominious thrashing at the polls for the PN. During those six months it was supposed to go through the inevitable “sackcloth” moment that involves a diet of humble pie and much (very much) introspection. During those six months we did not expect the PN to renege on its constitutional responsibility to act as an opposition and guardian. The latter work comes as second nature of course but its importance should never be underestimated – the opposition has a very important role to play within our constitutional structure and an important part of that task is keeping the government in check when it comes to seeing whether it is delivering what it promised.

But that’s not what the “vision” bit is about. The vision bit is directly linked to what I spoke about in the first part of this series. The PN is supposed to be asking itself what kind of party it wants to be. In a way it needs to be reinventing itself to a certain extent – particularly if it does not want to fall into the same ruts of the past. It is encouraging (very) to see Simon Busuttil distinguishing between the politics of salesmanship and the real politics of values. What is not really credible is the assertion that the PN has already found its vision. Really?

Unless this vision has been cloned from some outside source there have been little clues to show that the PN is reforming its forma mentis and that it has developed a new basic building block upon which to build a real plan that can be pitched to the voters eventually. Nobody is expecting the PN to come up with an electoral manifesto as of yesterday and to be honest we would even be prepared to wait a little longer than six months given the structural deficiencies (administratively speaking) within which such intellectual revival needs to take place. In the meantime though I would dare suggest that the PN undertakes an exercise of intellectual honesty with its closest members as well as with the more discerning of voters.

“We have worn the sackcloth, we repent, we recognise where we need to go and we are beginning to work to get there” would have been a splendid start. Throw in an appeal for involvement that does not smack of a recruitment campaign for billboards and yes-men (and women) and you might just be on the right track.

Returning the nationalist party to the value-driven movement that is built on the value of the human being and his potential does not have to be a step back. It can be a step forward (as they like to say). It will take a bit of discipline to ignore the instincts and bad habits that have developed over the past.

It will mean that they don’t need to bother much about a few misplaced boos here and there.

Sticks and stones.

 

Facebook Comments Box

That China Connection

1. From Closed Shop to Open All Hours

In 1405 the Great Emperor Yongle sponsored a massive mission of world exploration that would be captained by the explorer Zheng He. The boats used by these expeditions were among the largest sail powered boats the world had ever seen – by comparison Colombus’ three vessels when he set off for the Indies would measure one-eighth of the Chinese behemoths). This Age of Chinese exploration was brief. The expeditions went far and wide and magnificent gifts were brought back from places such as Malindi in Africa (most memorably a giraffe). The next Emperors though believed that such explorations were a waste of public expense and China would soon close in upon itself and clam up to the world (including an outright ban on sailing ships).

Fast forward to  1793 Lord Macartney made a trip to China in a bid (sponsored by Mad King George) to convince the hermit power to open up to European trade. Emperor Qianlong fobbed off the British entreaty towards openness (See the rather interesting reply here) and while ordering King George III to “tremblingly obey” his wishes Qianlong maintained what would be a short lived policy of closed-shop. The main reason imputed to Qianlong’s decision was that China already had everything it needed.

Fast forward again and watch how in gradual steps starting in the nineteen-eighties Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao transformed China’s outlook towards the world. The giant nation is now a huge force to be reckoned with and is bulging with economic muscle that can be flexed around the world. This time there should be no turning back…

2. Ma Tagħmlu Xejn Ma’ Dr Joseph

Which brings me to the current government’s sudden trysts with the Chinese behemoth. In the run up to the election we already had a Labour delegation scooting up to the new land of opportunity presumably to prepare the preliminaries for deals should they get into government. Nothing wrong in that, at all. The media exercise in recent days has been such as to highlight the fact that Chinese Investement is sought after across the continent and not just by the Taghna Lkoll government. Such news is brilliant for the non-discerning voter of course – and all it took Joseph Muscat was a little trip to a sort of Economic Forum in Dailan China (a sort of young leaders exercise mainly intended to promote China and Chinese economic clout).

The Bulgarian and if I am not mistaken Finnish Prime Minister also attended this little chat to a mostly empty room in Dailan. Attendance was not important from the Maltese perspective though, what really counted were some sound clips from Muscat such as the fact that Europe lacked real leadership or the assumption that “EU PM’s agreed that Chinese investment is important”. The impression given by the press bytes back home was that there was an impromptu EU28 meeting of heads of state in Dalian and that the leaders had all agreed to issue a statement confirming the importance of Chinese investment.

It’s not that Chinese investment is not an attractive opportunity. Not at all. The CIC that basically manages $200 billion in dollars of foreign reserves for the Chinese government and is constantly injecting capital into public and private projects (Joseph Muscat did mention their foray into Thames Water as an example of special national services being sold to the Chinese). “As of August 2013, the CIC has 575.2 billion in assets under management.” (Wikipedia)

One type of investment occurs when Chinese companies buy into European counterparts. I drive a car that’s nominally Swedish (a Volvo) but the manufacturer is owned by Geely Automobile who bought it off another non-European company called Ford. American today, Chinese tomorrow – capital wise that is but still Swedish safety and know-how. So the Chinese companies are attracted by the expertise and know how of the company they are ultimately purchasing. Back in China the purchasing company gets additional credibility through its collaboration. Luxembourg’s Cargolux was under scrutiny for a similar kind of buyout only last week.

Then there is the Maltese MOU with the Chinese authorities. We should premise that nothing is certain about what was exactly agreed and that we have to wait for the details to be stamped out – presumably in a decent parliamentary debate (without the excuse of economically sensitive information shrouding the whole exercise). The first glaring inconsistency in this “investment” is that in the economic world you do not get something for nothing. So if we do know that the Chinese are paying €200 million into Enemalta we need to know what they are getting in return.

Moody’s seem to know more than the media in this respect, here is what they said in their latest report:

In addition, the government recently announced that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the China Power Investments Corporation (CPIC), one of the five largest state-owned electricity producers in China. As part of the agreement, Shanghai Electric Power, a subsidiary of CPIC will become a minority shareholder in Enemalta, providing the Maltese utility company with a cash injection that will improve its financial position. Enemalta and CPIC also plan to set up a joint venture to produce photo-voltaic units for sale in Malta and across the EU, which would help Malta reach its renewable energy production targets,while providing China with a foothold in the European solar energy market.

Another initiative between both parties is the setting up of a Energy Service Centre that will cater for the maintenance and service of energy production plants in Southern Europe, Turkey, the Gulf and Africa, a venture that is likely to further boost economic activity in Malta.

So if Moody’s are right then the CPIC will provide the “cash injection” and in return set up a “joint venture” to produce PV units in Malta (apart from the Energy Service Centre). Which brings me to the balancing out part of the equation. So the Maltese government has effectively charged a Chinese company 200€ million in order to “allow” it to set up shop in an EU Territory and break into the PV market that is worth trillions of euros last I checked. It does not stop there. The 200€ million give Shangai Electric Power a stake in one of our most important assets – Enemalta – effectively limiting our sovereign independence where energy is concerned.

Many more questions need to be asked about the PV manufacturing plant in Malta. Hopefully these will be done in the right forum in Parliament. Meanwhile the optimism among the Labour crowd is palpable. Joseph Muscat has got Malta a “deal” like some latter day Mintoff and brought much needed money to the Enemalta purse. At what cost though? Are we fully aware of the risks involved and of what really has been sold to the Shangai Electric Power?

As for Moody’s report. It just calls a spade a spade. IF the Labour promises do work out then the outlook is deemed to be good. Call me negative if you will but the most significant paragraph in the report is the following – something none of the media seems to highlight:

We do note, however, that the planned reforms are ambitious and there are risks to its successful implementation. For instance, the building of new infrastructure relies on the interest of private partners, adding a degree of uncertainty as to whether a suitable partner may be identified. Moreover, Enemalta’s financial health could be jeopardised by a premature cut in tariffs should anticipated savings be delayed. Nonetheless, we believe that the sovereign will benefit from a less volatile Enemalta and a more resilient energy sector that is likely to attract greater investment to the country as input costs fall.

Private partners can easily be found if you sell your wares for cheap or if you offer to “prostitute” your sovereignty for a measly cash-injection (Shangai Electric Power are buying into our sovereign Energy for the price of two Welsh International Footballing Superstars – and they get a foothold into the PV market to boot). True the opposition populist taunts of “China with a finger on our Energy button” are still part of the same old same old diatribe but then again other huge alarm bells begin to ring when you notice that our Energy Minister has a not too nuanced China Connection that runs in the family so to speak.

Add to that the wanton nonchalance with which this labour government seems to want to appoint personnel in the diplomatic and economic fields on the basis of what can only be described as nepotism and you can begin to piece together a not so rosy picture.

This government was elected with promise of cheaper light, it seems to be rushing headlong into a tunnel of darkness. And this is not only thanks to the Chinese.

 

Facebook Comments Box

Broken Bad the first

The most expensive salvage operation in history takes place today. It will cost nigh 300 million dollars to lift the Costa Concordia out of the waters close to Giglio Island in Italy. Captain Schettino’s handiwork has led to a magnificent effort in logistics and this in turn has hogged the headlines this week – ahead of Japan’s latest natural crisis.

Closer to home the Nationalist party begins its preparations for the annual Independence Day celebrations. The young PN leader was the author of what I thought was a rather weak catchphrase in the run up to the last election: “Gas down għal-ġol ħajt” would be repeated with ecstatic fervour by the die-hards at every other rally. Fast forward half a year and Simon Busuttil finds himself at the helm of a shipwrecked party that risks total collapse into oblivion if no salvage operation takes place some time soon. Sadly the focus seems to be (or, given the way things work in the PLPN world, has to be) on the money.

I hate to use words like “the problem is” because this blog is about punditry that does not go to the extent of scientific analysis. In other words I have no polls and statistics to back what in the end are “hunches”. Yet, given the sufficient dose of necessary caveats, I would not think it to be amiss to state that “the problem with the PN is” that it is still thinking in the same old, same old mould. This “Broken Bad” series is an attempt to look into what is wrong and what can be righted. Like the legend of the phoenix…

Get Lucky?

So to begin with, what is left of the PN admin seems to have this massive obsession with financial debts. You cannot reasonably claim that this worry is not understandable yet there is much to be said about the fact that the financial burdens of the PN are an inheritance that is directly related to the current modus operandi and mindset of the party. In other words the current debts can only get worse if the party keeps on thinking in terms of playing the game as they have for the last thirty years. Unsustainable media and the absence of a real thinking machine (that was forfeited ages ago to be replaced by a combination of “crowd sourced blah” and “knee-jerk-I-have-an-ideas”) meant that the PN was fully equipped only for the race to mediocrity.

The whole party structure is geared to reward yes men and “loyalists” of a very troubling kind. They’re the kind that think in term of village kazini and would follow any dictat without batting an eyelid. Don’t be fooled by the upstarts who brought the last government tumbling down – they were the price to pay for an all-embracing pick and mix of candidates that our two party alternating system has created. They are the wrong symptom to look at.

What the PN should be focussing on at this stage is one crucial question. “Where are our leaders?” The answer to that should explain why there is a current dearth of leadership now and even more crucially why there does not seem to be a concrete possibility for future leaders to emerge. The PN could wrongly try to emulate the PL and come up with populist rhetoric and cheques that will bounce back in the very near future. The temptation is there and the current brand of PN politician is very much made in that mold.

It is useless to think strategically if you have no basic plan. It is even more useless if your lack of a basic plan exposes the lack of a soul. The PN should be asking itself why it is in the business of politics. Yes, after all these years this is the kind of question that should be at the very basis of it all. The next step would be to build around that. To start thinking again instead of reacting ridiculously. Get out of the box. Think differently and build a party around those thoughts.

It is hard, very hard for a whole system to be completely upgraded… from scratch. The last six months have exposed a seriously weakened PN – lacking moral fibre it has coughed up hopeless positions that are sons of panic thinking. Just think on how the PN congratulated the Labour government for its Libya energy agreement only to notice much later how shallow the MOU really is. This weekend the PN toyed with the idea of making a fuss about Busuttil being booed – it’s back to the “x’gharukaza these Laburisti” way of thinking that will get it nowhere.

So the first rule the PN must look at is the most important one: Know thyself. Why is the nationalist party in politics in the 21st century? It takes a second to wreck it… it takes time to build. 

Facebook Comments Box