Library

Perspectives: Vote Mansour

As the chances of falling below the poverty line across Europe increases, the combined value of the Manchester City football squad is currently 419,615,000 €. Until Manchester City won the Premier league title, the owners spent over 700,000,000 €.

That could buy you a BWSC plant, an inter-connector and the hypothetical new Labour party plant.

Next election vote Sheikh Mansour.

***

The UK government is moving ahead with its plan to CUT welfare benefits. David Cameron is coming under increased pressure to CUT pensioner benefits and one idea that has been mooted is the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance while transferring the money saved to the state pension. A 56 member majority voted in a tax that has been described as a “strivers tax”. The new measures curb increases in benefits.

Next election think twice abut the value of your government allowances.

***

The leader of the UKIP youth has been sacked by the party after expressing his support for  gay marriage on a national radio show. The freshly unveiled nationalist party (Malta) manifest confirms the party position against gay marriage. The wording used in the relevant sections does leave room for misinterpretation though a careful reading will clearly show that the PN puts much store in the concept of cohabitation in so far as same-sex couples are concerned.

Next election read between the lines.

Questions of Bias II

The other issue relating to bias presented itself fittingly just as I was being discharged from my one-day stay in hospital. The one and only guest on Where’s Everybody’s TVHEMM was the indefatigable Franco Debono. Franco’s interlocutor on the programme would be the usual presenter – Norman Vella. The programme was presumably supposed to be Franco’s compensation for not having been allowed to appear on Friday’s Xarabank opposite Simon Busuttil – and the subject of yesterday’s programme was supposed to be why Franco Debono voted against the budget.

I had already had a chance to see Norman Vella at work just after the budget vote. Given that I am not regular viewer of national TV I could not compare this performance to previous occasions though I had heard that he ran quite a good show on TVHEMM. His post-budget questioning made me quickly forget any plaudits I may have heard in the grapevine – his was a biased performance throughout, no two ways about it. Norman Vella was at no point interested in compèring the discussion and seemed to be an agent of the nationalist party throughout the show. Heaven forbid that our talk show hosts fade away anonymously in the background as was wont to happen in the eighties during pre-election broadcasts. I’m all for investigative and inquisitive journalism always on the hunt for the scoop or for acting as an additional check on our politicians inconsistencies.

Having said that Norman Vella’s modus operandi has nothing to do with journalism. On the post-budget debate his attitude towards Arnold Cassola was atrocious. It reminded me of the 2008 Pierre Portelli belittling the third party on live television. What is this fixation with coalitions anyway? Is that all that Vella and Co can think of when they face the only party that seems to have concrete progressive counterarguments to the budget? Forget all that, forget what AD might be trying to get across…what counts for Vella and Co is any attempt to put AD in the bad light of “a coalition as they understand it”.

Because after Franco, JPO and Mugliett the Nationalist party apparatus has performed magical summersaults in an attempt to denigrate the idea of a coalition in government. The fallacy is based on the fact that they try to make it sound as though the JPO-PN or Franco-PN arrangement was anything similar to a coalition. Well have I got news for you. It isn’t and it never was. JPO and PN cohabited in parliament after their public split. They were elected on the same ticket with the same agenda. If there was a split it was the PN’s problem – no new entity was created, no new ideals and definitely no coalition. If anything it was a dirty cohabitation.

Franco? A coalition? Franco was a result of ONE FRACTURED PARTY. No coalitions there either. A real coalition is formed by two parties AFTER an election when none of the parties elected to parliament enjoy a majority. That is assuming that we get three parties elected. So when Norman Vella decides to put on his latest idiot face (per modo di dire) and ask “Ma min taghmilha koalizzjoni?” Whether he is addressing Arnold Cassola or Franco Debono, he knows that he is just being facetiously ridiculous. A coalition is created by two parties once their power in parliament is known and is agreed to on the basis of a set of electoral promises that each party brings to the table. Norman Vella (probably) knows that. He is not a journalist though. Like JPO in 2008 he is a nationalist bearing a journalist’s card.

Yesterday, the apex of journalistic integrity decided to introduce a video clip about what Maestro Calleja had said during some University award ceremony. The relevance of the contents of this clip to the budget debate and vote will only remain known to Norman Vella and the Where’s Everybody team. Gurnalizmu fuq Kollox? Sensational journalism they mean. Biased even. The only interest of that clip was to work up Franco Debono into one of his heated states. It is a huge weakness that the man has – unable to notice that the more he huffs and puffs the more he sounds unreasonable. I am sure that WE were banking on that too when they chose to put Franco before the equally loud, mannerless and distasteful compère. Let’s face it. This was a show not a program.

Does our TV need this kind of bias? Isn’t it obvious that the closer we get to the election the more panic-stricken certain sectors of the media are getting. It’s pathetic all round. On the one hand you could already sense the labour “journalistic” crowd partitioning the new pie between them, much before the election is over. On the other hand the last pathetic attempts to grasp onto anything that might win their patrons valuable points leave the incumbents looking like a sorrier bunch than they usually do.

Andrew Borg Cardona likes to tweet that I am obsessed about this matter (maybe not as obsessed as he is about the elfish business). But if you are too blind to see how the PLPN rot of doing things has penetrated every sector of society then there’s a fat chance that this rot has got to you. Still. Makes for some interesting blog posts – think you not?

This honourable judge

Life on the island past the electoral truce has been anything but boring. There are times when the concept of boredom can begin to seem to be an unattainable desirable bereft of the negative connotations that normalcy and monotony might normally carry. These are the kind of times best described as “interesting” in the Chinese curse sort of way. Just as the political parties seemed to be settling into a faux festive period “truce” from the campaign that had never begun we get a wave of news items that keep tongues wagging, the media reporting and above all the parties a-busying.

Top of the list of interesting news items – beyond the extensions of Dalligate and the mafia style executions – is reserved for the judiciary and in particular for two of the members of our judicial bench who are in the eye of the storm. Judge Farrugia Sacco is in the throes of a renewed battle for his seat having had a new attack from the IOC – determined to take steps against those of its members who exposed their institution to the risk of disrepute. Another Judge, Ray Pace, is now in prison awaiting trial with the serious accusation of bribery pending above his head.

It is an ugly period for the legal branch of our separated powers and the two stories have thrust another dagger into the already weak levels of faith that the judiciary enjoyed with the general population. Trust and faith in the law is fundamental within a democracy and this kind of weakness seriously endangers the workings of our constitutional mechanisms. That is also the basic reason why the constitutional checks and balances that should come into play must work with clockwork perfection in order to ensure that the very foundations of the legal system are still intact. Public trust is the one and only priority.

Farrugia Sacco

Which brings me to the role of our political parties. We first had the Farrugia Sacco debate. In this respect the “Ceasar’s Wife” argument that I had touched upon in the Dalligate saga comes back with full force when considering how to proceed with a member of the bench who has become embroiled in such an issue. The key concept in the “Ceasar’s wife” principle is the idea of “having to be above suspicion”. This is not a question of actually being guilty but of having to appear beyond the mere suspicion. In this light, and without even making any further considerations on what actually went down in that hotel room where the Olympic tickets were held, Judge Farrugia Sacco should have long tendered his resignation in order to deal with the ghosts and suspicions peacefully and individually without carrying this baggage around in his role as a judge.

Is it so straightforward? Yes. Did we need the Ombudsman writing to the President? Not really. Even before the Commission for the Administration of Justice was involved Judge Farrugia Sacco should have done the right thing of his own accord. By refusing to do so he should have forced the hand of our politicians in parliament who are the guardians of an important constitutional mechanism with which they have been entrusted: the process of impeachment. Which is where my first beef with Joseph Muscat arises. His position on the Farrugia Sacco issue is that we must wait for the Commission for the Administration of Justice to do its work before actually impeaching the judge. Like hell we do.

Joseph Muscat’s attempt to distinguish between politics and the judiciary is an amateur approach to our constitutional politics and a dangerous situation whereby the leader of the opposition is openly reneging on his DUTY towards citizens to act as ultimate guardian of our constitutional rights. A judge in Farrugia Sacco’s situation loses his legitimacy to sit in open judgement of others in no matter what area of law. If he cannot see that of his own accord then it is up to the politicians to act as guardians of our prerogatives as citizens. Once again Muscat is doing what he does best – acting as Pilate and washing his hands of a decision that he is duty bound constitutionally to guarantee. Weak.

Pace

The Ray Pace matter seems to have brought Muscat to his senses. Suddenly the judiciary is no longer a matter for the Commission for the Administration of Justice. Admittedly the case seems to be more open and shut given the context though there is no reason to distinguish between the two when it comes to the Ceasar’s Wife test. In this case the issue of whether Ray Pace is above suspicion is more glaringly obvious – the arraignment and arrest make a decision in this respect all the more straightforward.

What did impress me was the attempts – as of early morning – by Evarist Bartolo to turn the issue into a political battlefield. He posted a link to a report of the arrest on facebook with the words “Ara f’hiex gabuh pajjiz” (Look what they have brought the country to). Incredible. To begin with it is obvious to any free thinking individual that when appointing a judge you can never foresee his turning to the dark side (to use Star Wars terms). How Ray Pace’s alleged actions are imputable to the current government and its policies beggars belief. Sure enough Evarist deleted any comments I made on the particular status – no worries I have snapshots on my iPad (once bitten, twice shy – right Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando?).

Thankfully the Labour party could not do otherwise than agree to an eventual impeachment of Ray Pace. Muscat did add that a new Labour government would review the methods of appointment of judges. No harm there right? Definitely not. Given that a rebel MP recently made it part of his personal agenda to point out inconsistencies in the field of the judiciary it should not come as too much of a surprise to any of us that sooner or later Labour would jump on that particular part of the wagon. A knee-jerk reaction it remains though and I very much suspect that we are in for a bit of patchwork and tweaks that would still accomodate the PLPN manner of appointments.

And here is another crux. I posted a status on facebook pointing out that given their record Labour would best reform the system by staying out of the appointments system. Of course the world is full of literal minded partisans who would be eager to point out that the same system that gave us Farrugia Sacco (Labour) and Pace (Labour) also gave us Arrigo (Nationalist). Which makes it allright then does it not? My point was meant to be sarcastic – Muscat’s party does not have much of a record to go on when it comes to appointments and the fact that the nationalist party too has had its fair share of nutty appointments is neither here nor there.

Judiciary

Do you remember how recently a government proposal to increase salaries for the judiciary was shot down by a labour party? The Labourites had had a sudden attack of “consistency” by arguing that if the MPs (political) could not get a raise (will we ever forget the 500€ raise?) then neither could the judges and magistrates (judiciary). Because obviously the Muscat idea that politics and judiciary should not be mixed did not apply at the time.

There seems to be a general consensus, even within the practitioners in the field, that our judicial system is due a major overhaul. The criteria for judges and magistrates appointment remain the number of years in practice. When a non-court practitioner was once proposed for the bench, court practitioners were up in arms claiming that his years of practice did not count – an odd reason if there was one. From what I can gather the conventional way to become a magistrate/judge until now has been to manifest your intention in the right circles and hopefully… if you were insistent enough and of the right hue… you would get your turn eventually.

The system has produced many a good magistrate or judge but it has flaws. It is haphazard and based on the wrong criteria. I am also told that in some cases what was needed to get onto the bench was a track record of an attempt at running of parliament. Once you got your brownie points in that field then you would have proven loyalty and a position on the bench would follow. Again. It is not the rule and is not across the board. The problem lies in the lack of clarity and in the lack of modern, clear criteria as to why a person should make it to the bench.

In other nations, like Germany, you actually study to get to the bench – not to become a lawyer first. Interpreting and applying the law requires a different set of skills than pleading before the court. Academic knowledge, logical and linguistic skills as well as good analytical methodology and organisation form part of what could be a key set of indicators in the future. A place on the bench should not be a prize for time served – let alone loyalty.

The kind of reform that is required is the real area where politics and the judiciary should definitely not merge. The legal world in Malta is not in a nice state. The kind of reform that is required is a big learning curve across the board from the courts, to the faculty of law and its product, to the support services to the long arm of the law that are the police. Education is a key factor – education to start with and education in the continuing sense.

Unfortunately I have to end this long post with the usual pinpointing of the heart of the problem. Our legal system has also been affected by the rot that is the PLPN method. Appointments and laws through the years are made with the parties and their survival in mind. It is incredible that in this day and age we can think in terms of “their” or “our” judge. It is mind boggling that judicial appointments have to be thought of in this manner and the legal community has much to feel at fault about in this respect. I am not unaware of the irony that our parliament has a heavy representation of lawyers within it and that this being the case it will be even more difficult to find people prepared to think out of the box.

When Muscat wakes up to the reality of the matter and stops thinking in populist terms, when Gonzi’s PN quit the faffing around and decide to grasp the bull by the horns I should hope that a huge debate will ensue and that within an appropriate forum, with the appropriate experts, the much needed reform of our Judicial & Legal systems is embarked upon with earnest.

Remember. We are all servants of the law, that we may be free.

Oħroġ il-għaġeb

Illejla, f’dawn in-naħat tal-Ewropa it-tfal ġa bdew jaqilgħu ir-rigali. Fil-Lussemburgu, il-Lorena u l-Alsazja għada jasal San Niklaw, akkumpanjat minn Pietru l-iswed. San Niklaw jew Sinterklaas (għalhekk Santa Claus – u QATT KrissmissFader) iqassam ir-rigali u Pietru l-iswed iqassam il-ħelu. Din it-tradizzjoni qatt ma waslet Malta u aħna bqajna bir-regola tal-milied fil-ħamsa u għoxrin u r-rigali lejliet. Għadek tisma lil min jgħid li r-rigali iġibhom “il-bambin” imma anki t-tradizzjoni ta’ Santa Claus qabdet avolja f’pajjiżna jiġi għoxrin jum wara li jiġi hawnhekk u fil-pajjiżi il-baxxi.

Sadattant bħalissa qed jintramaw il-presepji. Tradizzjoni mill-isbaħ li tinvolvi ukoll sengħa. Il-pasturi li bihom jiżżejnu il-presepji huma bosta iżda hemm dawk il-bażiċi li jiffurmaw il-qofol tal-presepju. Ma jistax jonqos li jkollok il-familja ta’ Ġużeppi u Marija imdawrin bil-ħmar u baqra (għas-sħana qalulhom – ifhem id-dawl kien ġa jiswa dak iż-żmien) u ikollok l-imrieħel tan-ngħaġ bir-rgħajja, l-islaten Magi u oħrajn. Malta ikollna ukoll pastur speċjali – l-għaġeb. Is-soltu konna inqiegħduh fuq il-maxtura iħares imbellaħ lejn is-sema. Jistagħġeb bl-egħġubijiet ta’ dak il-lejl u jirrapreżenta ukoll il-faxxinu tal-mistiku u l-mhux magħruf.

Din is-sena f’lejliet San Niklaw ftakart fil-ħruġ ta’ l-għaġeb. Hekk kif il-partiti għadhom kif qablu f’moratorium għal waqt iż-żmien tal-festi se jħalluna b’xi egħġubijiet minn tagħhom qabel ma jinżel is-siparju fuq is-sena u ngawdu il-festi tal-Milied. Il-vici Kap il-ġdid tal-PN kellu xi intervisti. Ma kienx biżżejjed li l-kollegi tiegħu il-Prim Ministru u dak tal-Finanzi għamluha ta’ San Niklaw u Pietru l-iswed xi jiem qabel u qassmu xi rigali qabel il-milied. Kellu jiġi hu ħa jisraq ftit mix-xena u jxandar mal-erbat irjieħ dwar l-egħġubijiet u l-bidla li kienet ser iġġib il-wasla tiegħu.

Suppost kellha tkun priedka ħelwa, b’dak il-wiċċ ta’ l-abbatin jiddeklama minn fuq il-pulptu misluf f-nofsillejl “Aħbar ta’ ferħ jien ser nagħtikom… illum twieled partit ġdid.” Minflok qaluli li l-ewwel impressjoni hija ta’ arroganza imġedda. Arroganza tat-tip li “tagħna kollox tajjeb u tagħhom xejn sew”. Forsi smajt wisq minn dawk li ma jridux jafu bil-bxara it-tajba imma jidher li l-ewwel ħarġa tal-għaġeb ma marritx kif suppost.

Imbagħad għall-par condicio nazzjonali illejla se jintrama pulptu ieħor sabiex egħġubijiet oħra jitwasslulna mill-ogħli tal-għerf ġewwa kamret il-poplu. Hemmhekk il-Kap Laburista se jispjegalna kif ir-rigali li ġabu San Niklaw u Pietru l-iswed tant għoġbuh li se jżommhom u jagħmilhom tiegħu. Se jgħidilna ukoll fl-istess nifs kif minkejja dan se jagħżel li ma jibgħatx Thank You Note u anzi jitfa vot kontra… Oħroġ il-għaġeb imma hawn min jaħseb li din ukoll hija koerenza.

Mhux ta b’xejn li pajjiżna għandu din il-politika li tixraqlu. Inħobbu nistagħġbu bix-xejn qisna erba mitt elf pastur mitluq fuq il-maxtura b’ħalqna miftuħ imbellħin b’dak li l-għajnejn jaraw iżda li s-sensi le jifhmu.

Illejla lejliet San Niklaw se jinħareġ il-għaġeb. Gloria in Excelsis… u għada jisbaħ ukoll.

 

Nota> Ir-ritratt huwa meħud minn presepju li ittella’ din is-sena bix-xogħol siewi ta’ membri tad-Diviżjoni Maltija tat-Traduzzjoni fi ħdan il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja Ewropea bil-għan li tiġi irrappreżentata parti mill-kultura Maltija u li jsir ġbir għall-karita.. Kull xebh għal għoġġieba vera huwa purament każwali.

Forgotten Sons

Nikki Dimech has been condemned to one year in jail. The plight of the damned Nationalist Sliema Councillors seems aeons away now. The Sliema council ills were the first clear external signs that all was not well within the PN structure. We look back to the meetings between Paul Borg Olivier and the ill-fated councillors with a new perspective now. Dimech would be painted as the rotten apple immediately hung dry by the very party that had judged him suitable for the job. Of course with such a wide net of local council elections parties are bound to choose a bad apple or two every now and then but it is the manner in which hands are washed that is impressive.

The party structures are geared to win elections but are much less well equipped when it comes to supporting and monitoring the party representatives on the councils. The PN reaction once the court judgement was announced is puerile to say the least. “We were right”, they thundered in their press release, änd Labour was wrong for criticising how we dealt with Dimech”. That’s all it is really with them. A matter of black and white. Readers will get so easily distracted with this pot and kettle business. They will forget that people like Dimech were backed by the party structures, they were placed on an electoral list to win the votes for the party and to have councillors in place to maintain the party network that is fed on votes – come what may.

Dimech’s prison sentence may be a personal condemnation on a young man who is still in time to recognise his wrongs. It is also an indictment on a party candidate system that is lax and based on the wrong priorities. Dimech and Debono – two by-products of this system have badly backfired in the face of the PN. Are there many more lurking in the background waiting for the dividends of the next election?

The PN would do well to take note.

The charm offensive ?

So Simon Busuttil, il-wiċċ taz-zokkor, is now officially deputy leader of the nationalist party. The last person to really care so much about the post of deputy leader must have been Guido De Marco (bless his soul) and probably that was because the post meant so much to him in terms of the position that he never obtained – that of leader of the party and prime minister of a nation. De Marco was a giant figure in Maltese politics and his political career outshone whatever disappointments he may have felt with regard to the failure to become Prime Minister – if anything Guido gave added value to the post of deputy leader.

Let’s face it. How often have we even taken any notice of the nationalist party’s deputy leader and his role within the party? Before all the hullabaloo of the Busuttil vs Fenech contest can you really honestly say that anybody anywhere gave two hoots about who sat at the right hand of Lawrence Gonzi? Look at Labour, they had a sort of big deal about their triumvirate until the two deputies became too embarrassing to flaunt and they too were relegated to token appearances. But back to the PN. The post of deputy leader was as effective as that of receptionist at Dar Centrali. In the past the PN has been all about Leader, Secretary-General and a distant third would be the President of the Party. But deputy leader? Who?

But now we have Simon. And it behoves the nationalist party’s poll ratings that Simon’s ascendancy to the deputy leadership becomes the greatest deal this Christmas. If necessary, he’s got to be bigger than Santa Claus. Jesus even (with apologies to the Beatles).

Fresh Sweep

The election for the post had been billed, for good reason, as a battle between old and new. Simon banked on the idea of change while  Tonio backed by the old guard and all the cabinet but one was the symbol of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The glossators of the PN school of thought tried to play down this dichotomy but no amount of dampening could hide the fact that this was just that – old guard vs fresh babyface.

Not that Busuttil did anything to hide this aspect of his election. Speaking to the press and at first meetings he has described his election as “renewal” and his mission as “regaining of trust”. There would be nothing to renew if there was not an element of mustiness and passé feeling around the current batch of PN exponents. You would not speak of “regaining trust” without implicitly acknowledging that this has been lost – and we all know where the fingers are being pointed. So yes, Simon’s election included the admission of the problems that the current strand of GonziPN is facing. They had to.

So far so good. Simon Busuttil, the champion of new and change trounced Fenech at the voting counter by garnering two-thirds of the vote of PN’s councillors. A message had been “sent” also to the cabinet old guard. What next though? What is this “charm offensive” all about?

What change?

Let us begin with the obvious. As we stated earlier the post of deputy leader is quite a cameo role. It has been for a long time and the first question to ask is “What clout does Simon Busuttil have as deputy leader?” On the one hand he has to fit in and “work with others”. There’s the party leader who cannot be seen as too weak himself – so Simon will speak about “working in tandem”. He speaks of combining Gonzi’s experience with his. His what exactly? Apart from the smiles and monotone affirmations of his will to change what does Simon bring to the PN? He has already been part of the “listening exercise” – having exalted the “MYChoice” and “MyVoice” experiences as being useful. Is that enough?

Simon has rebuffed Debono, Mugliette and JPO so thankfully his early entreaties to reconciliation have been banished to the bin. What will he do to win the trust of the voters? Will Simon only serve as a dilution of the GONZIPN trademark in order to save the PN from the negative connotations that the GonziPN brand has come to mean? Politically – policy wise – Simon does not seem to think that any form of change is necessary. His emphasis in the message to voters is simply that they cannot abandon a team that works: “if you do not want to put all our achievements in jeopardy – and that includes achievements in jobs, health and education – then please put your trust back in the Nationalist party“.

So what change exactly? Apparently Simon puts his finger on the issue of arrogance. It would seem that the polls within the Dar Centrali are pointing to arrogance as the number one problem within the PN. It goes like this… the policies are ok, the system is working (no matter how much Labour depicts a failing economy and country)… all we need to change are the arrogant bunch of bastards who have been there for too long. Enter Simon, il-wiċċ taz-zokkor, and he will give the machine a new wrapping. Do you think I am hallucinating? Really? How about this gem from the horse’s mouth (speaking at Tarxien PN Club on Sunday):

“People say they want change, but of faces, not of policies or results. People are happy with those. And we’re giving them exactly that,” he said.

Provare per credere – as the Italians would say. Unless Simon was misquoted by Bertrand Borg of the Times we have quite an “admission” on our hands. On the other hand you cannot fault him for thinking that way. Tonio Fenech’s budget was so good that even Labour want to adopt it. The Labour alternative insofar as economic planning is concerned is an absolute mess – just look at the abysmal performance of the Vella-Scicluna-Mangion triumvirate at the press conference. So the people want change because they are bored with the current batch? Let’s give them change – we’ll give them new faces.

Only that Simon is banking on a new army of what he calls “high-calibre” candidates that are the product of the same system of vetting that gave the nationalist party Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliette. You just have to look at the posturing of Austin Gatt’s minion Manuel Delia (last seen speaking about “intelligent transport systems” as though Arriva was a nightmare that happened to others) to see that Simon’s “new faces” are not all that tip-top as he is gearing them up to be.

In buona sostanza

And finally substance. There’s the whole business of the liberal democrat orphans that might need to be addressed. The last in a series of budgets might have been criticised for being too gracious with the haves and too little for the have nots but there is an uncanny consistency in the PN economic model that is far from being negative. Notwithstanding the political rollercoaster caused by the one-seat majority, Gonzi’s PN has managed to steer in a clear direction economic crisis notwithstanding. Budget measures and incentives remain strongly family-centred (as always) and the business model is based on give and take (to qualify for incentives you are expected to invest) which is not all that bad given the scenario. Apart from the energy fiasco you could also find it in yourself to accept a graduated approach to the utility bills.

Having said all that the social rights issues remain GonziPN’s weak point. Their association with the conservative agenda (or opting for it) means that they risk abandoning a part of what hitherto has been an important contribution to bulking up their mass of vote. They may still be lucky that such voters as give priority to their social issues (censorship, gay rights, lay model society, criminal law reform) are unable to put their vote where their mouth is. GonziPN + Simon will still bank on the endgame played out on the eve of an election – It’s either us or them (them being Labour – AD don’t count).

What with all the talk about change and European Values, Simon has failed to hint whether his “change” will also include a rapprochement with the liberal elements that have until now served to beef up that crucial vote. I doubt very much this will happen this time round because Simon probably believes that between changing faces, a bumbling opposition and a few overtures of trust and openness (known colloquially as bżar fl-għajnejn) PN might once again snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Sadly, the charm offensive might prove just right and the PN will have forfeit an opportunity for real change.

Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi.