In “the power incumbent” we saw how certain projects are best presented and put into effect once a party is elected to government and not before. The “best” in that sentence is of course referring to the advantage gained by the party in question and does not necessarily reflect any benefit for the electors. That is not to say that parties should be allowed to get away with superficial promises and sweeping statement. A case in point this week has been the declarations by the leaders of both the PN and the PL that (I parapharase here) they would not be averse to the idea that gay couples could adopt. The mainstream media took this to mean that both the PL and the PN have a clear position in favour of gay couples adopting.
They don’t. The only party to outrightly state that it is in favour of legislation for LGBT rights to include marriage, adoption and IVF is alternattiva demokratika. That is a fact. What Lawrence and Joseph stated was simply their personal opinion. We are far from an explicit promise to enact legislation in that sense by either of the PLPN duopoly. Having seen the dramatic protests and opposition to gay marriage in France I can only begin to imagine what would happen in Malta once the parties are finally forced to discuss possible legislation on any of the matters (gay marriage – not union or partnership, adoption by gay couples – on par with adoption by straight couples, and access to IVF for gay couples).
The electoral newspeak is switched on. You’ve been warned and remember – everybody lies.
Not many people have pointed out a particular aspect of the Labour party’s grand plans for energy and the utility bills. Scratch that “not many” and think “nobody”. Beyond the partisan exchanges fuelled by marketing vs marketing, beyond all that the voter wishes for (irrespective of, and notwithstanding any critical reasoning) there is a peculiar characteristic of how this particular electoral bomb has unravelled. Let me tell you what that is.
In traditional PLPN discourse, Labour’s major “flaw” in its presentation has nothing to do with the lesser (though not less important) flaws of planning and detail. The major flaw is that this is the kind of project that is normally announced, embarked upon and bungled AFTER a party is elected to government. How is that a “flaw”? Well it would have been a flaw in strategic terms because under normal electoral circumstances Muscat would have got away with his tired phrase of “Inrahhsu l-kontijiet” plus a few clues about new power sources &c &c. Instead, also thanks to the dynamics of this particular election, we got the pre-project plans (yes, even if they are desktop plans) as a taster while in full election mode.
Labour is not in government. But imagine the PN had presented its White Rocks Sports Park project, SmartCity or Arriva plans with a Manuel Delia instead of Konrad Mizzi. Imagine Delia’s powerpoint on Xarabank with all the aiding and abetting of Peppi or Lou. Would things have been different? I doubt it. Political parties do not go into detail about their plans and projects before they are elected to government for two reasons:
(1) Because they can. They can afford to be superficial and speak in glowing marketing terms while burying any serious criticism under the carpet because this is a zero-sum game. It remains US vs THEM and reason has nothing to do with why they will get the ultimate voters preference. Labour can yell all it likes about efficiency and cancer but the truth remains that no matter how many technical flaws are found in its plan many many voters have already decided to go for them – because it’s either Joseph or MorePN.
(2) Latent Incumbency. I know we normally speak of the power of incumbency BEFORE an election. Government makes use (abuses) of its powers to favour the gain of potential votes. In this case the incumbency is useful for projects once you are IN government. MEPA permits? Directives? Seveso? It’s all relative. When it’s a plan for an aspirant governor that’s one thing but when you are in government you can conveniently play around these issues. Take the much touted SEVESO Directive on safety. It’s all ok for Miles Seaman to come and tell us about the need of insurance and strict safety compliance (more than ok actually) but then where have the PN consultants and experts been when we have had firework factory after firework factory blowing up in our faces?
Had Labour been elected (or once it is elected, to make the flag waving Historians, Musicians and Porta-Pundits of the world happy) many of the serious objections to its plan (and by that I mean security, safety, environment even before I start counting Euros) would be brushed aside because once in government YOU CAN. That’s the point really that should be drummed into all the asthma sufferers in the South. Once in government MEPA permits can be pressured into being, once in government a few “managerial” words about “one-stop shop permits, fast tracking, efficiency” will easily mask lax controls and the bending of the laws to the incumbents needs.
Need more proof? Ask the birds (or better the conservationists unless you meet some particularly intelligent Myna). Sure I am scandalised when I hear Mizzi dismissing legal requirements with all his talk about focus groups, expression of intent and roadshow politics but isn’t Mizzi just giving us more of the same? Same, same just different.
There is no real control of government and its power unless you get a fluke situation like the Franco Debono / Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando trap that GonziPN and its spin friends walked into in 2008.
This blog has recently faced an increased assault of being “nationalist” or “passive” simply because it has never wavered from criticising the criticisable. At this stage in the electoral campaign we still believe that both mainstream parties are pushing gimmicks rather than policies in the most populist of manners.
A concrete, long-term energy plan in the national environmental and economic interest will never be the bastard son of this election. Instead whoever is elected will soldier on with their particular version of energy plan basted together out of god knows what interests and god knows what political point of expediency.
And guess what. You’ll be voting them in. Thanks. But no thanks.
AD’s PRO André Vella has submitted this post as a Zolabyte. In this piece and accompanying infographic Vella compares how the three parties square up before all the manifestos were published.
A political manifesto is the official seal of approval of a party’s agenda when (and if) in power; but the truth is that certain policies and positions are already lauded in public before approved by any party executive or general meeting.
For any political party, there are two types of issues. The issues you want to avoid, and the issue you can’t stop to talk about. Then there are the not so clear issues which are somewhere in between. Let’s take gay civil rights for example. PL want to flaunt their stance of civil union (which is more liberal than PN) but they do not want to focus on their contradictory inequality of what they are proposing (by not granting gay couples full rights). PN want to talk about gay rights as well, to regain that conservative base by scaring them with the image of a little child having two daddies, doing so knowingly that they might risk alienating the few pink votes they have. For the Green Party, at least, this issue is not in the middle as they took the clearest path towards gay marriage, being the only party fully endorsing MGRM’s proposes.
Somehow, the bigger parties always have the greatest challenge to appease as many people as possible, a task which fails most of the time as you cannot bind a long-serving successful party to populism instead of an ideology.
So while we all wait for the three manifestos to be officially approved, here is a little Infographic, shedding light on some party positions depending on public remarks passed by party officials or press releases. If it looks biased, it is because it is. Until the manifestos are publicly available, this is the pre-manifesto showdown of Malta Elections 2013!
The author is the PRO of Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party.
*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 7 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***
You would not believe me but this election has many many echoes of 2008. This government is bending over backwards in order to show the voters how much change it has already brought into place and there is no doubt that some sort of progress has been achieved. On the other hand this blog was pointing out the deficiencies of an outdated electoral system, of an outdated election rules system, of ridiculous plans for voters abroad, of the race to emptiness and of the victory of relativist thinking back in 2008. In 2008 we pointed out the dangers of anything goes appeasing promises and also in 2008 declaring a vote for AD meant that you would be labelled a vote waster (at least that).
Well it’s 2013 and short of being told “we’d have loved to change things” (and should we believe them?) nothing much has changed. Forget AD and its nine candidates for thirteen districts (where there really no other possible candidates in Gozo?) for a minute. Just concentrate on the roadshow with which we have been regaled until now. We are stuck in the”energy” point of the agenda right now and yesterday’s Xarabank is as good a measure as any for the sort of discourse we are facing. I watched the first two debates and I must admit that the wrangling match of harridan yells vs confused tired metaphors between Marlene Farrugia and Beppe Fenech Adami destroyed any will I had to soldier on. Earlier we had to watch a reprise of Mizzi vs Fenech. It was anything but a debate.
It is evident by now that Mizzi (and Labour) have exhausted all that they have to say about their plan (I won’t call it magic). We will not get any more details notwithstanding the fact that the few level-headed individuals who dare brave the partisan mire to find anything more about the idea will only be regaled with a power point presentation that skims the surface and very blatantly omits details. Don’t ask Marlene about them because like Anglu (the other Farrugia) she is not technical and she will just yap away like a baritone chihuahua about “il-Maltin jahdmu”, “il-kancer” and other soundbites that are nothing more than rabble rousing. Mizzi – the techinical chosen one – is nothing better. He is like a roughly prepared student who for a moment thought he found a short cut through the exam. Once you try to delve further he comes up with a million and one shenanigans from the “Shame on you Mr Minister” to the “Don’t Panic” (what’s with the panic fixation on both sides anyway?). His face twitches like a cross between Gollum and Wally and his last resort is again populist rabble rousing.
Not that the nationalists inspire much confidence either. They are experts at rubbishing plans and character assassinations (hence Joseph’s “Let’s be nice to each other ” ploy which when coupled with his constant historical revisionism makes one want to retch violently all over a billboard) but have obviously got too many skeletons in their cupboard when it comes to energy. Thank God for a holistic European Energy programme that perchance requires a pipeline connection to Malta (to increase access) otherwise if it were for them we’d be moving with the painful slow conservative pace to which they have accustomed us in other fields (Cirkewwa terminal? Mater Dei? Social Rights? Electoral Reform?). no amount of arrogant scaremongering should be able to deviate the attention from the fact that the only party that has consistently and constantly had clear policies and objectives on energy and Malta’s plans for the future is the one that is given eight minutes per programme on PBS.
I say SHOULD though. Because from what I am noticing viewers are wired otherwise. The Energy plan by Labour has been greeted by the disgruntled with enthusiasm that just falls short of the flag waving jews who greeted the donkey riding Messiah on his way into Jerusalem. Even those who eventually smelt that this could be a rat waved the suspicion away with a worrying nonchalance. Their reasoning? Even if Labour’s plan is flawed it is better than the status quo. Donkey riding Messiahs wept.
I don’t give two hoots about the Nationalist criticism of Mizzi’s plan. I was ready to listen. I did my research and reading online trying to understand what he was on. Glossaries of terms became my bedside reading for a night or two. Then he looms onto a Xarabank podium and when questioned he comes up with “google it” or “fittex fil-pagna ta’ Puillicino” or worse still he quotes a comment by a retired professor on a blog on an online newspaper. So much for “intom sibtuh fil-Yellow pages”, this one does most of his research in social media. In the end the impression I got over a couple of programmes was that Mizzi had a script that was short and unprepared and that when he noticed there would be other questions he panicked. His failure to delve deeper reminded me of a forgotten politician.
But there are many who are convinced by his show. So I have a question… mainly for these people… would they vote for Spiridione Sant? Who? Spiridione. The great Spiridione Sant. Independent candidate of past elections who passed away recently. Spiridione, the one who loved to speak about Malta Taghna Lkoll (ta’ Malta u ta’ Ghawdex) is probably busy singing the Innu Malti in heaven. Have a look at this clip (particularly from 3 minuites onward and more particularly from 4 minutes onward) and see the poor man shooting number and concepts in an evident attempt at impressing (he probably found “average” quite a managerial word). After watching think… would you have voted for Spiridione Sant? Then think. Why don’t I ask the same question about Konrad Mizzi and his plan? Am I entitled to ask for more proof?
Don’t worry though. If you really want the nationalists out of the way (or the status quo to be bettered with a faulty plan) then go ahead… Vote Spiru!
Illejla għaddej skambju ħelu bejn iż-żewġ partiti. Il-kelma ġġib hekk. jien nibqa konvint li kampanja elettorali bħal din tiswa mitqla deheb għal min janalizza il-filosofija tal-kelma u l-komunikazzjoni – altro che Abelard. Fil-bidu tad-disgħijnijiet l-intellettwali tal-PN (jew dawk li kienu jaqbdu ktieb b’idejhom) kienu jittfantsu b’Karl Popper. Dak kien iwissi ħafna dwar il-perikli tat-televiżjoni u l-użu ħażin tal-midja. Għadda żmienu u m’għadux moda. Ma kellhomx ħin jiskopru lil filosfi a-la-mode bħal Zizek u intilfu fil-mijażma tal-pluri-komunikazzjoni.
Din l-elezzjoni se tibqa imfakkra għall-tsunami ta’ informazzjoni f’direzzjoni waħda. Insewh l-ismigħ u d-djalogu. Ħallikom mid-demokrazija parteċipattiva. Din hija battalja ta’ propaganda bħal ma qatt rajna qabel. Il-partit Laburista għandu sezzjoni fil-paġna tal-kampanja online, jisimha “The Truth”. Iva. Il-Verita’ Tagħhom Ukoll. Carmen Sammut – Kap tal-Magna tal-Ħsieb tal-Labour (Ideat) – illi tagħmel analiżi fuq MT tal-kampanja m’ilux qamet għall-fatt li l-partiti jużaw lingwaġġ diviżiv : proġett TAGĦNA, bomba TAGĦHOM. Mid-dehra l-Labour qisu qed jagħmel sforz li ma jidhirx daqshekk diviżiv… mhux li qed jirnexxilu… pero dak mhux il-punt.
L-ewwelnett il-lingwaġġ tribali u partiġġjan dejjem hemm kien u huwa parti intrinsika mis-sistema li se tibqa hemm kemm iddum is-sitwazzjoni tar-rebbieħ jieħu kollox (winner takes all). Jista Muscat jagħmel sforz u jipprova joħloq immaġini differenti pero dak li hu – immaġini. Din hija l-elezzjoni tal-effetti speċjali. Rajtuh lil Toni Abela fuq Bondi+ jipprova jispjega għalfejn ma joħorġux rapporti? Qallhom li il-PN ma jikkritikawx iżda jdawru l-kliem. U kif qed insemmu dik il-farsa ta’ Bondi+ u TVHEMM, issa għandna ġurnalisti li jaġevolaw partit fuq ieħor billi jpoġġu domandi mhux pertinenti.
Il-partiti jinstabu konvinti li jistgħu jirrepetu li jridu. Jekk tirrepeti gidba għal biżżejjed drabi n-nies jibdew jaħsbu li hi verita. Xi jiem ilu Muscat ħabbar li gvern laburista idaħħal skema fejn tista iġġib espert id-dar u dan jagħtik parir fuq kif qed tikkonsma l-enerġija u kif tista ssir iktar effiċenti. Smajt in-news clip u konvint li qal li din se tkun skema volontarja u b’xejn. Filgħaxija beda jdur klipp nazzjonalist li kien jgħid li gvern laburist kien ser iġiegħlek tirċevi esperti d-dar u li dawn ser jiġu biex il-gvern ikun jaf kemm qed tikkonsma. Speċi ta’ big brother. Gidba. U tal-minimum wage? Tiftakruha? Ħadd ma jaf eżatt min qed jgħid xiex basta ma jaqblux.
Meta Cacopardo dar fuq Simon u Toni u qalilhom li qatt ma se tissolva il-problema għax għalihom din hi “logħba politika” kien jaf sew x’inhu jgħid. Żmien l-elezzjoni qatt ma kien ser ikun mument tajjeb biex wieħed janalizza pjan għall-enerġija. Dan jafu il-partit Laburista li jaf li waqt elezzjoni tinqeda b’nofs veritajiet u mingħajr ma tikxef idejk (iva, se nsemmi l-VAT għax hekk kien ukoll) u jafu l-PN li jaf li biex tgiddeb idea lanqas għandek bżonn argumenti daqshekk sodi (staqsu lil JPO u l-kampanja sostnuta favurih). min ibati? Tbati int. Tbati għax temminhom u tbati għax itik li taqbeż għal wieħed jew l-ieħor.
U issa għandna l-isbaħ waħda. Bdieha l-Prim Ministru. Staqsa lill-Labour min fejn ġejjin il-miljuni li qed jintefqu fil-kampanja elettorali. Ma ridtx nemmen dak li smajt b’widnejja. Dan Kap ta’ Partit li bla mistħija ta’ xejn jinvesti hu ukoll f’kampanja elettorali li jista’ jkun tiġih b’xejn imma xorta tiswa l-flus. Għax iva sinjuri Gonzi u Muscat, mhux kullħadd beċċun. Lil Debono ippruvajtu tgħadduh ta’ miġnun imma xeba jwissi dwar il-liġi tal-iffinanzjar tal-partiti. Tal-Labour ħarġu l-barra mill-kumitat li suppost iddiskuta dat-tibdiliet (bl-iskuża ta’ Justyne Caruana) u baqgħu mhux parteċipi għall-ikbar glorja tal-avvanz demokratiku. U tal-PN jinħbew wara tal-Labour meta qatt ma refgħu sebgħa.
Issa allajbierek jakkużaw lil xulxin dwar spejjeż. D-dejn ma hux fi flus imma fi pjaċiri li se jkollhom jintraddu għax bejn billboards, materjal elettroniku, swali għal laqgħat u xeba affarijiet oħra inutli tinħeba wara l-idea ta’ volontarjat. Din sieħeb tal-voti barra. Għaddew ħames snin oħra u l-PN issa, lejliet elezzjoni meta ma jista jsir xejn, jgħidilna li hu favur. Nilgħab ġidi li l-għada tal-elezzjoni ma jsir xejn. Għax il-kliem fieragħ ta’ qabel elezzjoni ma tridx tqisu. Anzi iktar ma jinsultaw l-intelligenza tiegħek iktar trid tqis li ikun aħjar tivvota għal partit ieħor – biex ma jibqgħux jittrattawk ta’ beċċun li jemmen li flushom jikbru fis-siġar.
U fl-aħħar ma nistax ma nsemmix il-midja. L-alternattiva spiċċaw b’allokazjoni miżera fuq l-iskrin. Sewwa qalulhom ta’ Bis-Serjeta … il-qaħba tal-partiti. Għaliex din id-diskrepanza. Fl-Ingilterra per eżempju din kienet l-ewwel elezzjoni fejn il-LibDems ingħataw l-istess ħin bħall-hekk imsejħa partiti kbar. Ara fejn waslu. Ma hemm l-ebda raġuni għalfejn QABEL l-elezzjoni l-ad ikollha kwota inqas ta’ ħin mill-partiti l-oħra. Naċċettawha bħala stat ta fatt imma fil-fatt l-ebda partit ma għadu kiseb vot wieħed fl-elezzjoni 2013 u allura li naċċettaw li ad huwa partit inqas mill-oħrajn ifisser biss li naċċettaw diskriminazzjoni inġusta ibbażata fuq il-bżonn li ż-żewġ parititi bit-televiżjonijiet fallimentari tagħhom jistgħu jibqgħu ibellgħulna r-ross bil-labra.
U nemmnu li l-flus jikbru fis-siġar…. għax hekk qalulna.
in un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle.
It’s a good thing that the parties have gone ballistic with colours in their campaign – the obsession is second only to their quasi-fanatic devotion to the newfound toys in the social media sphere. You’d have a hard time catching up with the goings on all over the place between twitter, facebook, party websites, press releases, press reports, tv discussion programs, and more (more?) even if you were not a one man blog. The first few days of the campaign have given us a very interesting point to observe and that is the ongoing crisis between medium and message. I’ll elaborate after a little video break…
The Political Campaigns Hit Home (or just a Sony Bravia ad)
Like the Sony Bravia ad above, the two campaigns (only PLPN have the clout for massive haemorrhage of funds) are conceived as a colourful blitzkrieg on the senses. The main effect is intended to be obtained by a shock and awe interplay that would make Stormin’ Norman proud (may the Good Lord bless his soul and forgive him his failed incursion into Irak). Noise, colour, drama and catchwords form the core of the campaign and themes take a very secondary place in the whole affair. From Labour’s midnight launch to PN’s unsubtle appropriation of the MSNBC colours-of-the-rainbow variety label the main thrust is one that is meant to sweep you off your feet and leave your logical, questioning apparatus numbed for the first few days.
Once you do begin to dig beneath the catchphrases and the cloning of other campaigns you will discover a profound sort of emptiness that is capable of making very loud noises. The anaesthetised message projected by Muscat across the bastions is intentionally issue-neutral: Malta Taghna Lkoll (Malta is everybody’s – not Where’s Everybody). It is a tautology that is as big and as high as the magnificent restored bastions – an affirmation that you would always have hoped to be a given in ANY political party’s repertoire – bar Norman Lowell’s who had quite a clear idea about who owned Malta and who should not be here.
What does all this “Malta Taghna Lkoll” business really say? I for one cannot understand why the party that has spent the last four years treating every occurrence under the sun as a problem and blaming it on “GonziPN” (have you noticed how that too vanished from the vocab?) suddenly woke up and noticed that this is “divisive”. They’re deliberately confusing matters too – being divisive is not the same as disagreeing very much like having an opinion is not equivalent to being right. Labour has packaged relativism and is using it as a blunt force weapon to beat your brain into numb acquiescence. As things stand you cannot criticise anything Labour because you are immediately “divisive” and suddenly “part of a clique”. Trust me I have had my fair share of laughable accusations…
Par Condicio
Then you have the nationalist leaning readers of this blog who seem to find that I “make an effort” to include the PN in my criticism as a some sort of obligatory nod to “par condicio” (equal conditions). This twisted sort of reasoning is the same reasoning that underlines Labour’s Malta Taghna Lkoll reasoning. If you still cannot get what I mean just friend Musumeci on facebook and see how value-free relativism has been perfected as an art of the slimy buonisti – last I checked he was advocating for specialised technocrats to be in government, I suspect he has architects who are specialised in MEPA and “reading” a law degree in mind – but it’s only a suspicion.
Back to the PN. Simon Busuttil’s grocer taunt will return to haunt him throughout the campaign as he soldiers on with that cross between a smile that says “I’m nice” and that heavy frown that says “But I still mean business”. The sea of propaganda from the PN side is nauseatingly overdone with its hipstamatic/instagram effects that make Gonzi & Co look like some 70’s afterthought. Like the PL, the PN has thought of giving us a list of people who are intending to vote for their party – and why. As I pointed out in an earlier post this list is replete with what in other times would have been called “hbieb tal-hbieb” or “hbieb tal-klikka”. Both PL and PN have included what you could best describe as “minorities” in their visuals and lists – part of the ongoing all-inclusive effort. I am sure that if “gayness” was something visible we’d have the token gay or two in the list too… Unfortunately, since the revamp of the josephmuscat site, the woman with the hijab who was only visible if you (really) zoomed out is no longer visible.
Ahmad Aziz – the Nationalist party’s token “minority” icon.
Manifestly Rushed
Sometimes satire says it best and Satiristan couldn’t have put it better when earlier today they posted this facebook update:
Illum f’xi ħin li jidhrilna, ser inħabbru l-karta tal-valuri ta’ Satiristan. Warajha imbagħad ser inħabbru l-manifest ta’ Satiristan; u terġa’ u tgħid f’xi ħin ieħor ser nippubblikaw il-programm elettorali ta’ Satiristan; u jekk jifdal ħin anke a la Carte menu ta’ Satiristan. Biex nagħmluha ċara, l-erba’ dokumenti ser ikunu l-istess ħaġa b’heading differenti u konferenza stampa għal kull waħda. Imma għallinqas forsi jiġu tal-gazzetti għall-fingerfood. (Satiristan)
Often in the run up to the campaign we were forced to do a double take. The parties engaged in meeting upon meeting supposedly getting “closer to the people” and “listening” in order to formulate their positions. We got pre-guidelines (remember that famous list by Labour of 51 proposals?), proposals and groundwork ideas. Embedded in catchwords that would only impress a struggling FEMA (Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy for the infidels) undergrad were reams of emptiness or tautologies. Proposal 45: Importanza misthoqqa lill-biedja u s-sajd. As the other satirical page goes… Mulej Hudni.
The Nationalist party has published a manifesto that is about as detailed as Ryanair’s ticketing system. Like Ryanair’s ticketing system you have to read it very very carefully because in this campaign of colours and impressions you have to struggle with parties who say one thing but mean another. I started off by looking at how the parts regarding same-sex relationships are worded. You can easily evince that the PN has not budged on the issue and that “marriage” remains a no-no. They do leave space for doubt though by tiptoeing around the issue and dropping half promises about regulating relationships differently. You cannot blame them though.
What I do find weird is how given the record over the last two years the PN’s Manifesto fails to even refer to the field of Law & Justice. The word “justice” appears only twice in the manifesto and it refers to “social justice” and not to the courts and the law. No mention of the evident need of reform in the judiciary, no mention of the evident need to reform the police and their application of the law, no mention of the promised reforms in certain fields such as the “censorship” issues. The manifesto is poor in that respect and maybe the ghost of Franco still looms heavily on the PN team.
Labour’s courageous step into the dark when it came to concrete proposals was perforce related to the utility bills. Again, either I am slow, stupid or out of touch or the issue continues to morph out of our grasp. Maybe Anglu was not so wrong after all when he tried to differentiate between a cut in electricity tariffs and water tariffs. After seeing the proposals it is evident that Anglu had not studied the brief well and had almost let the cat out of the bag. Now we know that Labour’s promise for a up to a 100,000 families is to reduce the electricity bill and as a consequence the price of water will also go down.
Aside from the choice of healthier fuel though the question of whose plan works best is still up for grabs. There are a lot of equivocal statements by Labour that can only be acceptable if you’ve already decided in their favour come what may. The questions dig straight into the question of “deliverability” especially since the actual time frame of Labour’s plan spans into the legislature after the next – unless of course they plan to ditch all the rules on tendering, planning etc. That Mizzi fellow tries to come across as an amiable fellow who can solve Malta’s energy problems and has sold the “clean energy” pitch to his party who are tweeting about it to their hearts’ content but somehow there seems to be a missing link in the economic puzzle that involves factoring, hedging and promising.
That chapter has not closed yet but I fear that the “distraction” on the energy issue will dominate much of the campaign to the detriment of a multiplicity of other issues that deserve attention and a commitment from either of the parties. The irony is that the social media weapon is not really being used to listen but rather to clobber and bang propaganda straight to the nearest mobile phone.
While, like chameleons, the parties will continue to change colour depending on what they think is “in” on a particular day, the voter needs to become more proactive and probe with questions that are relevant and difficult. The voter (and media like this one) should not allow the parties to dictate the agenda and the pace of how they reveal what they plan to do with the nation. They already dictate that to the Broadcasting Authority. The free media should remain so… and voters can only do that if they manage to throw away the shackles of dependency and the instinct to defend the gaffes of the parties who have pulled their strings for so long.
J’accuse is determined to become one of these open, questioning platforms. We are committed to uncover what lies beneath every shade of political propaganda… are you?
This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to provide a more personalized experience and to track your whereabouts around our website in compliance with the European General Data Protection Regulation. If you decide to to opt-out of any future tracking, a cookie will be setup in your browser to remember this choice for one year.
