Anthony Scicluna, unofficial Gozitan Ambassador to Malta and the World sends us some photos from the World Expo in Shanghai that opened on the 1st of May. Anthony has taken the Jubilee brand to the World Expo and tells us that the show is something out of this world.
LTR: Expo Mascot, Globe, Anthony
Malta-EU Pavilion
Luxembourg Pavilion
France Pavilion
Spain Pavilion
UK Pavilion
This Sunday’s Observer editorial is all about endorsing Nick Clegg as the candidate of change. There’s some interesting extracts that discuss subjects relevant to our local (Maltese) realities too:
First there’s that echo of the argument of the “wasted vote”. Clegg’s rise in popularity has prompted a harsher approach by the Labservative front against the potential LibDem voter. We are familiar with the attack of “irresponsible”, “toying with vote” and other similar slurs thrown at anybody considering a vote outside the PLPN fold. When you are in the thick of it and the onus of the vote is immediate it is probably a bit more difficult to notice how false in democratic terms that kind of accusation is.
For what is voter emancipation all about if not for the right to choose the party that best reflects his or her options. When Labservative or PLPN candidates or pundits arrogantly attack the voter as “irresponsible” they are only demonstrating a lack of respect to the very voters’ principles:
The Conservatives have spent much energy campaigning against that outcome. They have publicised their irritation that voters could deprive David Cameron of a majority much better than they have explained why he deserves one in the first place. Mr Cameron warns portentously that a coalition might lead to instability, economic jeopardy and “more of the old politics”. Perversely, he also rejects the need to change the current voting system, which has, he says, the merit of delivering clear results. Except this time it might not. What then? Mr Cameron’s view is that the system would work fine, if only everyone voted Conservative. This is sophistry draped in hypocrisy. He backs first past the post, while agitating against one of the outcomes that is hard-wired into it. He is campaigning against the voters instead of pitching for their support. He defines change in politics as the old system preserved – but run by the Tories.
That is the crux actually. The establishment politician is so ingrained in the system that he does not notice the arrogant folly of his own assertions. The “insult” to voters considering a third way is probably not seen as such from their point of view. To te PLPN/Labservative person dishing out advice it is more of an “eye-opener” – they are blissfully ignorant of how hopelessly perverse their assertion is.
Then there is the argument that the third parties have led an easy life and would not be so attractive an option when in government:
The Lib Dems have in recent years developed a habit of getting things right. They were first of the big three to embrace environmentalism, first to kick back against the assault on civil liberties, alone in opposing the Iraq war. The conventional riposte to those boasts is that the Lib Dems were free to take idealistic positions because they knew they would never be tested in government. Thus is political courage denigrated as a luxury of eternal opposition.
Which leads us to the Observer’s final declaration of bias (it’s normal, it’s done and it’s nice to see when it is openly declared):
There is a moral imperative to consider in this election, distinct from the old Labour-Tory contest. Opinion polls throughout the campaign suggest that the country wants the Lib Dems to take a place of equal standing alongside the other main parties. A grossly unfair voting system has historically deprived them of that right. It is vital this time that they win a mandate for real change expressed in the overall share of the vote, not just in the discredited distribution of seats in parliament. There is only one party on the ballot paper that, by its record in the old parliament, its manifesto for the new one and its leader’s performance in the campaign, can claim to represent an agenda for radical, positive change in politics. That party is the Liberal Democrats. There is only one way clearly to endorse that message and that is to vote Liberal Democrat.
While we are on the subject of links here are two blogs from the UK Big League that featured J’accuse this week.
Iain Dale – writer, speaker, broadcaster and politician – gave J’accuse a mention on his blog’s feature “the Daley Dozen” on Wednesday. Here is an extract from Dale’s bio:
Iain Dale is one of Britain’s leading political commentators, appearing regularly on TV and radio. Iain is best known for his political blog, Iain Dale’s Diary and football blog, West Ham Till I Die. He is a contributing editor and columnist for GQ Magazine, writes for the Daily Telegraph and a fortnightly diary for the Eastern Daily Press. He was the chief anchor of Britain’s first political internet TV channel, 18 Doughty Street.com and is a presenter on LBC Radio. He appears regularly as a political pundit on Sky News, the BBC News Channel, Newsnight, Radio 4 and Radio 5 Live. He is the publisher of the monthly magazine, Total Politics and the author or editor of more than twenty books. He is managing director of the new book publisher, Biteback Publishing.
Yep a Tory AND a Hammer… still, he did appreciate our critique of his Telegraph article (internet elections) – enough to grant J’accuse a second appearance on the Daley Dozen.
Then there was Charles Crawford, fresh from his latest encounter with the darker side of Maltese blogging. The former FCO diplomatic servant and speechwriter now blogs regularly at charlescrawford.biz and has had a scrape with the Maltese net media thanks to the Conspiracy Theory of the Foreign Consultant. Crawford revised his blog post Malta’s Dramatic Blogosphere to include a reference to both Blogs of Malta and J’accuse.
Not bad for a week of links. Who said netiquette is not useful?
Where we point out DCG’s sudden U-turn on matters of blogging and netiquette. Cheers Charles! Continue reading
The PL’s recently founded think-tank, IDEAT, has just published its first quarterly online journal – Ideat Journal. We might tend to judge a journal by whether or not we agree with its content – which would not be the right way to go about it.
I’ve read through some of the articles and on the whole J’accuse’s verdict is that here is a job well done. This first edition is themed “The Road to Progress” and manages to both critique and expand on the notion of “progressivism” as promoted by Joseph Muscat. Contributors such as Andrew Sciberras do not shy away from criticising the early contradictory signs between message and facts being sent out by the PL:
Incidentally, however,Muscat’s reluctance to go the whole hog on divorce and offer instead a free-vote on the contentious issue has sparked further debate, particularly on a future Labour government’s willingness to adopt this civil right. Whilst one can understand that on moral issues one should not be forced to vote against his or her own personal ethic, it is our firm belief that the current position should be reconsidered, especially in light of the commendable declaration by the Labour leader that the majority must never decide for the minority (although it is highly doubtful whether those in favour of divorce are actually in the minority). After all, Labour did not shy away from decriminalising homosexuality and giving women voting rights even though these measures were highly controversial in their day and age. (Grasping the Progressive Ideal, Sciberras)
What we find throughout IDEAT’s first journal is a willingness to engage and criticise away from the the deceptive spotlight of PR-politics and mud-slinging. It comes as a pleasant surprise that is a far call from the bumbling PL public relations attempts. The PL has so far faltered in the attempt to project a factual impression of being able to shoulder the wave of change that it has hinted in many words but little programmes or facts. This job well done could be a first step to bridging the gap.
In his introduction Aaron Farrugia (IDEAT Chairman) shows that the messages from the blogging world have finally hit home somewhere. We get a first signal of a realisation by a party organ that the new communication tools are not only useful for the marketing propaganda but also to engage in exchanges:
We are now embarking on a new way in how we communicate and reach the general public. Conferences and seminars are a traditional method of maintaining such contact, but new technological tools offer many new options for people to get information and constant updates from our end. (…) Regardless of their gender, educational background and socio-economic status, people, especially the young, don’t bother with newspapers or political periodicals. Sometimes they regard them as part of the political dead wood. It is a fact of life that today, most people get their news off the internet.
As a relatively new political foundation we would like to communicate and engage with You and so we are today launching a new concept in local politics – an online political magazine which will be published quarterly and which can be downloadable for free from our website www.ideat.org.mt
IDEAT are to be commended for this venture into the world of open ideas. J’accuse expects to see an IDEAT online wiki/forum in the near future. In the meantime there might no longer be an excuse for us not to engage on purely political terms.
We expect (yes, we are quite big headed on this count) to see the journal transform itself into (at least) a monthly edition – is one magazine with 5 (local) articles every four months all the progressive movement can come up with? Surely there is space for more debate?
Secondly – a little bad habit I pick up from thesis review days – when quoting liberally from an article it would be good to acknowledge the source – otherwise you risk discrediting the content quite quickly. In Aaron Farrugia’s case there was some “borrowing” from David Miliband’s speech at Demos on the 23rd February of 2010: “Powerful people. why progressive ends need progressive means“. There’s no harm in referring to other movements who have “been there, done that” but acknowledging the source is a definite must.
More frequent, more content but otherwise a job well done. Let’s hope others will follow suit.
JosephMuscatPL is Joseph Muscat’s twitter name. He has just tweeted the following: “Il-PL jaspira ghal separazzjoni bejn Stat u Knisja b’rispett reciproku”. (The Labour party aspires for a separation between State and Church with mutual respect).
Why?
Yes. That is my question. What exactly am I, a voter, supposed to make of this? I mean how binding is it on Joseph Muscat and what exactly is there to be binding about? This is the same party which produced President George Abela – whose statements were indistinguishable from those of men of the cloth when the Pope’s visited the Maltese islands. This is the same party that cannot call a spade a spade and still backs the hypocritical “free vote” in parliament rather than setting it down in black on white that Labour will introduce divorce in Malta.
Since it is “aspirations” we are talking about Joseph does that mean that you will be revising the “principles” on which our nation is founded. Let’s see. Maybe you would like to change the introductory articles of the constitution – you know the bit about our being a Roman Catholic country?
I’m not sure twitter is the place for that kind of statement Joseph. To be quite honest I am not sure that it looks good on the aspirant leader of a progressive movement to be stating the obvious like that. I should hope that severing any Church/state links would be “taken as read” in the preparation of a clear policy direction for the New Progressives.
Less twitter and more substance Joseph… the clock is ticking and you are very very far from even beginning to convince the intelligent part of the electorate that your party is worth considering. Unless of course you are still banking on winning the election solely on the basis of the votes of the disgruntled – I wouldn’t blame you since the system is perfectly geared for that eventuality.
