Categories
Articles

Well Hung

Why Cameron would love to be Maltese

I cannot help wondering how David Cameron must wish that he was a Maltese politician. Rather than sitting at the negotiating table with that pesky Nick Clegg (the tiddler that he is) he’d be sitting firmly, decisively and stably at the head of some carcade on Tower Road, Sliema, celebrating his relative majority victory – the constitutional provisions written for the “Big Two” would have done the rest.

How silly of the Brits not to have thought of the advanced electoral systems that have been refined through the ages by the PLPN. Cameron would not be fretting over conjuring some “big, open and comprehensive” offer to lure Nick into his coalition government. He would be sitting happily at the head of a fictitiously constructed majority of seats – purposely engineered to compensate for any defects resulting from the expression of the will of the people.

Of course, the above scenario would perforce include an electoral system that would preclude any of the Lib Dems obtaining a seat in the first place – and Dave’s your uncle. Poor Dave. He cannot enjoy the automatic coronation for relative majorities proffered to the anointed ones under the Maltese Constitution: instead he will have to sweat it out to build a government that really represents a majority of the elected parties. A coalition between Tories and Lib Dems (18 million votes) just makes it into a decent 59 per cent of the electorate.

Numerologies

Let’s face it: the UK election results were disappointing for the movement of reform that was promised under Cleggmania. The Lib Dems actually obtained five fewer seats than last time around but, and that is a big but, let us look at the numbers that count. Out of 30 million voters, 11 million chose Tory, nine million chose Labour and seven million opted for the Lib Dems. A close call, no?

Let us translate those figures into percentages of the voting population. The Tories had 36 per cent of the votes, Labour 29 per cent and the Lib Dems 23 per cent. No absolute majority. No biggie here. Vote-wise, a Lib-Lab coalition (52 per cent) forms a parliamentary majority as much as a Tory-Lib Dem coalition (59 per cent) would.

The situation goes awry when we see the number of seats that each party won in Parliament expressed as a percentage. The Tories got 47 per cent of the seats (with 36 per cent of the vote), Brown’s Labour got 39 per cent of the seats (with 29 per cent of the vote) and the Liberals? Ah, the Liberals’ nine million votes (23 per cent of the voting population) got… drum roll please…. nine per cent of the seats in Parliament. Nine per cent. You read it right.

So, disappointing as the result may be, it is not for the reasons most people have come to expect. You see the result is NOT disappointing because now, more than ever, it is an eye-opener of the blatant distortive effect that an electoral system plotted out to ensure bipartisan “stability” has on effective parliamentary representation. An electoral law that serves to dumb down representation in order to preserve stability has this twisted effect on democratic rationality: there is none.

Election Night
Image by Patrick Rasenberg via Flickr

Clegg’s Law

It might not be about to replace Sod’s Law, but Clegg’s Law is a firm candidate for the prizes of Phyrric Victory, Lose-lose Situation of the Year and Sacrificial Lamb on the Altar of Democracy rolled into one. Clegg, you see, is in a dilemma. He is exactly at the point where all the naysayers of proportional representation want him to be: the much demonised and warned-against “kingmaker”.

Before the election Clegg made two semi-commitments regarding possible coalition governments. The first was that he believed (erroneously, according to J’accuse) that the party with the relative majority of votes had some sort of moral right to govern. The second was that no matter who he formed a coalition with, Gordon Brown would no longer be Prime Minister (again, with the benefit of hindsight a premature claim). As things stand, these conditions would point to a coalition government with the Bullingdon Babyface.

It’s not so easy though. Following the early results, the Lib Dems put their kingmaker position up to auction. The initial bid had to conform to a number of conditions, but most important of all was the eternally elusive question of voting reform. Because, you see, the Lib Dems had to wear two hats in these elections. First they wore the hat of the normal party, with policies to iron out, programmes to put into effect and plans for government – coalition or otherwise. Secondly though, they also had to wear the hat of pioneers of change – the hat of the only party insisting openly on a clear reform of the rules of the game.

The kingmaker has no crown

It is this dilemma that risks turning Clegg’s brave stand into a schizophrenic disaster. The Lib Dem’s bipolar situation raises their stakes tenfold. They have a duty to the electorate – a mandate obtained both via policy promises (Hat number 1) and reform promises (Hat number 2). Sitting at the coalition table with someone like Cameron means negotiating a compromise plan. Cameron knows that. His “openness” has involved, until now, no offer for electoral reform.

Clegg can stand firm on electoral reform – making it a sine qua non of the negotiations, thus risking being labelled a stirrer of instability. This would not only throw mud on Clegg’s face but also on future possibilities of stronger electoral performances of the Lib Dems as a party. In the eyes of the electorate, Cameron’s refusal to work for a fairer representative system will be eclipsed by Clegg’s breaking down of a possible stronger stable government. The kingmaker shamed – every naysayer’s dream.

Then there is Brown. Rather than bow out gracefully, he has (rightly, again in our opinion) pointed out that, should Cameron fail to entice Clegg with his all or nothing approach, then he is willing to provide the second option for a coalition. Clegg is still bound by his “governing without Brown” promise and Brown knows that. Which is probably why he has dangled the electoral reform carrot in front of him. Brown accepts a fast track for a referendum on electoral reform. With Brown, Clegg would get a fair chance to discuss reform (note, though, that the referendum might not succeed).

Constitutionally, there would be nothing wrong should Clegg opt for a Lib-Lab coalition. Cameron’s questionable moral authority to govern simply because of his relative majority of votes can be put even further into representative perspective when we look at it geographically. Do you know how many seats the Conservatives won in Scotland? One out of 59: Dumfriesshire. They only did slightly better in Wales, wining eight out of 40 seats. The best bet for a strong Tory government would probably be an Independent England. Otherwise, they have about as much moral authority to govern certain parts of the UK as Edward Longshanks.

Democracy in the 21st

So Clegg is in a right fix. Stable and moral government under current rules means playing along with the game and forgetting about electoral reform. A Labour coalition might open a long shot for the referendum, but what does that say for the chances of the referendum actually succeeding after the predictable vilification Clegg will suffer for not having chosen the horse with the highest feelings of legitimacy?

Clegg’s fix is the fix of every other party that will try to break a bipartisan mentality, and I have begun to strongly believe that the solution for change is not to wait for the incumbents (PLPN, Labservatives) to cash in on their feeble promises of reform – but to educate, educate and educate the electorate. It is after all the electorate that needs to understand that the current status quo only results in electing two versions of the same, the same but different politics intent on performing in the inevitable race to mediocrity.

Joseph 2010 tries Eddie 1981

That was the verdict after a tearful (is that true?) Joseph Muscat led his angered troops out of what passes as our temple of representative democracy following a heated vote and ruling by newbie speaker Frendo. Labour stormed out of Parliament in a collective tantrum after Frendo opted to re-listen to votes in order to understand whether allegations by members from the government benches would be substantiated – and whether MP for Gozo Justyne Caruana had also erred in her vote.

’Coz Mario did it first, you know. He was tired, miskin. Exhausting, this government business. He said “yes” instead of “no” and then it was too late. The House of Representatives (of what?) descended into absolute chaos as bullies started a yelling competition while Tonio Borg tried to make a point of order. Our representative relative majority government and relatively incapable Opposition went about representing us as well as they could.

Prior to the voting debacle, grown-up men on the government benches defended the Power Station contract and agreements blindly and ignored the big questions that had been raised in the Auditor General’s report. Then grown-up men from the Opposition benches had a parallel discussion with presumably a different interlocutor. It was evident from the discussion that all sides were intent on speaking and no one was listening. Our young journalist of an Opposition leader rued the opportunity to have the debate screened live on public TV so he could preen and crow in a show paid for by our taxes.

At the bottom of the power station contract issues lie the problems of transparency, of political party funding, of reforming our system of representation in order to create a wider gap between private interests and partisan politics. None of this was discussed, except for when the renegade Franco Debono reminded the House of the need for a law on party funding. His calls were soon drowned by the ruckus and by what has been described farcically as an “attakk fahxi” on Justyne Caruana – Malta’s new version of Burma’s Aun San Suu Kyi.

bert4j_100509

Well Hung

It’s pretty clear that if the UK electorate did not vote strongly enough to force through the necessary electoral reform, it will be a hundred times more difficult to get that kind of message through to this masochistic electorate of ours. Our PLPN farce that has once again descended to incredible levels of mediocrity this week will hang on for another mandate. Whether we have the not so smooth operators of PN or the bungling drama queens of Labour in government after the next election, J’accuse is still of the same opinion as it has been in recent times – the greatest losers are the voters, hung parliament or not.

Malta’s number one political blog and mediawatch still has the same address: www.akkuza.com – blogging so you don’t have to.

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s Malta Independent on Sunday.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Mediawatch

Tips from the Tip (updated)

The Runs has advice for J’accuse (indirectly of course). We’re in a good mood so we dispense some “tips” of our own. Warning: the contents of this blog have been known to confuse intellectually inferior beings – idiots should proceed under adult supervision.

Here’s the original tip from the tip in answer to (an obviously provocative) comment by Kev.

Kev

I think Mr Crawford is hyping it up himself by being overtly touchy over a few nonsensical blog comments. Otherwise, the Maltastar ‘exclusive’ has long been buried and it’s not like the whole island is buzzing with his name.

(Excerpt from my comment on Jacques’ blog – http://www.akkuza.com/2010/04/30/netiquette-no-longer-the-stuff-of-bitching/comment-page-1/#comment-3125 after visiting Mr Crawford’s whinery… or is it whingery? Pity the words don’t exist.)

[Daphne – The strange thing, Kevin Ellul Bonici, is that you and Jacques both like to think of yourselves as intellectually superior beings who condescend to pop in here once in a while, but the reason that you do is because this is where the action is. The alternative is talking to the few people who hang around your own spaces or mixing with the ghastly subliterate nutcases (and I mean nutcases) on sites set up by fixated bunny-boilers for the express purpose of vilifying me (and how obsessed do you have to be to do that?). Jacques just can’t get over the fact that nobody reads his blog because it’s so damned boring and irrelevant, and likes to make out (and kid himself) that the reason people read this is because it’s trashy. I guess it’s too tough to admit that I know how to do my job – communication – and he doesn’t. Here’s a tip, Jacques: try writing things that people want to read. If you haven’t got yourself an audience in five years, I’d say it’s time to give up.]

Well, I’m sure the bait is all there for us to fall for and here is how we would engage if it was worth engaging in the mud slinging game that attracts the flies and dead carcasses:

So to all you nobodies out there: stop reading this boring and irrelevant (or as David’s synonym would be: marginalised) blog. They’ll keep selling you the idea that it is irrelevant. Dive into the trash from the tip instead. I’m sure it’s worth it. I won’t be asking for an apology because (a) I don’t need one and (b) I won’t get one because I’m not Charles Crawford.There’s nothing tough to admit : trash = sensational = popular. I don’t need to admit it. It’s there for all to see. I don’t “write things that people want to read” because I am not into PR and cheap marketing, I am into substance and content. Results driven? Bah. What a load of absolute, PR and marketing drivvel.

And Daphne, I don’t think I am intellectually superior to a PR busybody when it comes to 99% of the subjects under the sun.

I know it.

Now for some serious points that would never come to the mind of someone whose only style of argument is aggressive behaviour:

1. Blogs cost no money to read – their readership is not mutually exclusive. People read more than one blog and that is how it should be. My argument remains that sensational blogs will perforce attract a larger, wider audience than the standard blog reading audience- and unlike Daphne I have no problem with that.

2. A reminder: linking in blogs is normal procedure when quoting huge chunks off someone else. Judging by Daphne’s double-standards in the event of being informed that it it is not done to quote without linking (a marketing person should know that no? – she lives and breathes communications)  it is hard to take tips about blogging from that same person. It’s actually not hard – just plain stupid.

3. If marginalised means that certain interlocutors ignore questions brought up by this blog because they are embarrassing well yes we are irrelevant. Daphne, because I know you are reading this, how come you have not come clean on the simple, very simple question: WHY NOW? Your whole Plategate furore was motivated/triggered off by one factor – revenge. You still have to explain why you chose to raise certain issues that you had known of long before Plategate only after your taste for revenge got triggered. That is NOT journalism. That is not QUALITY reporting. That is plain and simple PR dirt for personal needs. And the people love it. Oh yes they do. Ask Lou – whose fall in ratings has probably justified the rescuscitation of  the ghost of Norman Lowell.

4. Finally, try as you may you will never manage to equate this blog with TYOM. We have expressed our disagreement with the style and method of both that blog and of the blog that provoked it. The only applause they would get is in the choice of name. It is so apt. You may want to see the level of popularity enjoyed by TYOM when revising your theory on cheap content vs quality. There MUST be something behind their rapid rise on the blogging scene – hmm let me see – sensational bullshit? Yep. Same, same but different.

Sad, but true (even though THAT should be hard to admit) but the Manuel Cuschieri of the nationalist elite has found her ugly alter ego.
***

UPDATE: Timesonline has listed 40 bloggers who really count and weirdly enough the Runs does not figure in the list. We did discover that in the UK Magistrates have anonymous blogs of their own – like this one.

***
UPDATE
More intellectual commentary on the Runs. Daphne posts some observation about the police and the letter of the law and her accolytes jump at the opportunity to somehow debate J’accuse:

H.P. Baxxter says:
Tuesday, 4 May at 1505hrs

Pajjiz ta’ Jacques Réné Zammits.

Cannot Resist Anymore! says:
Tuesday, 4 May at 1532hrs

@H.P. Baxxter

He is of Gozitan extraction and what he says must not offend the Opposition because he may need them some day. But he feels very free to attack Daphne because that makes him look good in their eyes.

Daphne once told me that if I can dish it out then surely I can take it. Here is the reply we’d add on the Runs if it was worth commenting on:

Now,now Daphne letting your fans “do the dishing” for you? (Well it’s safe so long as the dishes stay away from your hands I guess).

@Baxxter – there’s only one accent in René as in Descartes you intellectually inferior buffoon.

@cannotresist- “extraction?” have we been watching too much Lowell lately? Can’t blame you – not much more on offer these days is there?

I almost wrote a treatise in my defence (an apologia) but then I remembered I had to write what the daphne-lytes can read. Hope this is simple enough.

Looking forward to the next flurry of smart and witty comments – bring it on Dee Cee Gee.

We resisted the temptation… an act of mercy. But you just have to love these people. Personal grudges and “min mhux maghna kontra taghna” mentality – 80s labour revisited indeed.

Categories
Articles

Daphne says Give Up

I got some advice from fellow blogger/columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia this week. “Here’s a tip, Jacques,” she said, “try writing things that people want to read. If you haven’t got yourself an audience in five years I’d say it’s time to give up.” Now it’s probably good to know that other people take such a level of interest in your welfare and blogging, and it’s probably even greater that a seasoned old-time columnist has some tips to dispense to a newbie like myself, but there’s much more to be read in that tip than appears at first.

The clue is to be found in one tiny phrase that DCG let slip in her prescription: “things that people want to read”. I know you wouldn’t guess it but you see DCG is a public relations (PR) person – a self-made marketing/communications product of the nineties and noughties. Finding out what people want to read is her bread and butter. It’s not just that though. As a dabbler in the arts of PR and marketing, she is in the business of packaging anything to make it sellable. An expert PR specialist can package something normal and make it seem to be the most desirable item in the world. Expert PR people work at Apple, Google and the like.

A dabbler in the arts of PR will not reach those dizzy levels of success – they will not become the new Steve Jobs. Instead he or she will be sufficiently well versed to understand the tricks of the trade among which is one very basic tenet: feed on the buyers’ curiosity. Being able to get as wide an audience as possible means being able to provide what that wide audience wants as effectively as possible. What could possibly attract large audiences in today’s world? Sensationalism, trash and tabloid style voyeurism that’s what. In his appreciation of DCG in MaltaToday, columnist David Friggieri described her adopted style as “trash and destroy” – aptly so.

The Romans had “panem et circenses”, the Victorians had “PT Barnum and circus freaks”, the 21st century Malta blogging scene has TYOM and Running Commentary – and boy do they have an audience. If you want to set up a blog and get “an audience” before five years then all you have to do is follow Daphne’s advice: write what the people want to read… or give up.

Thanks. But no thanks.

You see marketing people invaded the political scene in the early nineties. Look at the UK – they constructed the Blair persona and are in the process of constructing Clegg and Cameron. Now Brown is a different kettle of fish. The man has a volatile temper, is very much a down-to-earth old style politician who has little time for the marketing shenanigans of pandering for the photo-op. The poor man tries but just look what happens when he drops his guard for a moment – Bigotgate: the ultimate blunder for a politician occurred.

After having been cross-examined by a voter in a rival constituency, Brown forgot that he had his microphone still on and proceeded to describe her as a “bigoted woman”. It’s probably what most politicians think of even the most fawning of voters (just look at DCG’s appreciation of John Attard Montalto in the Indy to see what I mean,) but you don’t need a marketing expert to tell a politician that it’s just not done to be frank about these things. Don’t get me wrong – PR management and marketing definitely have a role to play in today’s communication driven political struggle but the danger is in letting them take over completely.

When I started J’accuse five years back my intention was to openly discuss ideas – not just political – with anyone interested in listening. The blog grew into a regular platform where ideas are exchanged (and yes, sometimes – thankfully rarely – insults are traded). Someone ingrained in PR cannot conceive of a different form of result than “audience” in the vulgar term of audience. J’accuse is not in the business of “selling” but is simply an expression of opinion using a (not so) new medium.

The surprise is that around 800 people log onto J’accuse on a daily basis to read what DCG describes as “boring and irrelevant” content. Others log in on a less regular basis. Frankly, we’d be happy with 50 or 10 regulars because ours is not the business of numbers. We’ve proved time and again that the moment we dabble with sensational or “what people want to read” our figures explode into the thousands – just see what happened in the recent case of The Times spoof. You need not look far for that phenomenon – the instant success that the despicable and sensational TYOM formula enjoys is proof enough.


Frankie says ‘Relax’ – DCG says ‘Give Up’

The measure of success in the PR world is audience. We’ve taken to measure the success of our arguments by the deafening wall of silence that surrounds our more inquisitive of arguments. Particularly when we know for a fact that our questions are read and that it is easier not to answer them. The advice they give us is “give up”. The hope is that the irritating presence of those asking the relevant questions will fade away if ignored. We are the elephant in the room of communications experts – those who can only write or present “what people want to read” (or what they want people to read).

This column (and blog) has asked questions of Daphne (Why now? in Plategate), Lou Bondi (the death of journalism) and (Fr) Joe Borg (more deafening silences). The questions were not complicated – they were not difficult to comprehend and they were there for all to see. It’s true – if they are ignored they will fade away and Lou Bondi will trump up another highly relevant programme like resuscitating the ghost of Norman Lowell in order to give the people what they want (rather than what would be a service to what they need). Daphne will yell until she is blue in the face that nobody reads our complicated articles while simultaneously ignoring the very pertinent questions posed therein.

It’s happened before. A year ago we asked Daphne to follow proper netiquette and provide links to J’accuse whenever she quoted huge chunks from the “boring and irrelevant content” on the blog that nobody reads. We were told that we were “bitching” and that we should be grateful for the “free publicity”. Once again DCG laboured under the impression that we should somehow feel sufficiently rewarded by gaining notoriety with the masses. Furthermore, even though we never asked for an apology, DCG told us “I am not going to apologise and backtrack”.

A year later UK blogger Charles Crawford, who had a brush with Maltese politics thanks to some conspiracy theory linking him to Gonzi’s choices for Cabinet, told Daphne off for having “quoted great chunks from my blog but without the usual blogging courtesy of giving her readers the link to my original work” (his words not mine). DCG apologised without batting an eyelid. Weights and measures? Who would have thought?

Obsessions

Yes, we do have an obsession. It’s called blogging. We love it. We love the tool as a free form of expression and quite frankly we will not be told what the measure of success of a blog is from someone who cannot even grasp the basic concept of netiquette. The reason J’accuse is also a column in The Independent is because someone somewhere saw what was written in the blog and decided it was interesting for some people. We are more than happy with the fact that the sensational content (and sporadically excellent articles – such as this week’s Pigeonhole business) are what keeps DCG’s columns in The Independent – there’s all kinds of readers for every kind of stuff.

Daphne was not the only fellow columnist this week dispensing the kind of advice to “give up”. Stephen Calleja’s column last week was called “Too weak to be called a force”. In it he invited Alternattiva Demokratika to “give up” in so many words. AD and any other respectable third party has a mountain to climb. It has to sell political ideas to voters who are trained to interact with politicians in a certain way. The Pierre Portellis and Georg Sapianos of this world will be back come next election telling people what they want to read: that a vote for the third party is a wasted vote. That these irritants should have called it a day ages ago and leave the political business to the experts – to those who have mastered the combination of marketing and politics to a T.

AD and their likes are the “tiddlers”, the small fry who will not count because their message is not packaged in proper marketing material and they do not tell the people what they want to hear. They do not “twitter” frivolous messages on Church/State separation (viz Joseph Muscat) while espousing contradictory policies. They do not pitch a marketing campaign that is good for the hunter AND for the environmentalist (gonziPN’s rainbow candidates). They are “boringly irrelevant” because of their frank and direct messages on the environment and on divorce. They might not be what people want to hear – which when combined with the obstacles of electoral law and voting traditions might be just the right formula for “giving up” and calling it a day. Or not.

Twenty years in politics and five years in blogging and what do AD and J’accuse have in common? Consistency and dedication to the truth. Frankly, I’d rather be on that side of the fence than “trashing and destroying” any day.

Breaking the rules

Well, that’s another column dedicated to confusing people with the J’accuse “boring and irrelevant” message. I’ve had to break my self-imposed limit again but I still have a few more things to add.

First of all do take a look at www.ideat.org.mt. Labour’s fledgling think-tank has published the first edition of what will be an online quarterly. The J’accuse verdict is “a job well done” – full review on the blog. Finally, there’s an attempt at engaging in politics and not marketing – let’s see if it gets viral or is destined to be marginalised like most things truly political.

It’s the first of May as I type so I should be wishing all workers a good day of rest (not too sure about shopkeepers resting though). Worker’s Day brings back memories of the stress of preparing for exams when – admit it or not – even in the later stages of university you were always thankful for a motherly figure refilling the coffee cup and keeping you going physically and morally till exam day. Ten years ago I was in Bruges, delivering my Master’s thesis and though there was no mother around to pamper and encourage, I was always grateful for the supporting phone call.

So it’s thanks again mum 10 years on, and happy 60th birthday. It’s not just the kids at Stella Maris College and the La Sallian Freres who are lucky to have that great headmistress around. It’s also this hard-headed son of yours who does “cause trouble” as you would say – but always in a constant and well-meaning way.

www.akkuza.com promises to be as boringly irrelevant as always this week. Be there or be square (or tabloid).

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Categories
Mediawatch

The Strongest Link

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?

Categories
Mediawatch

Netiquette – no longer the stuff of bitching

Where we point out DCG’s sudden U-turn on matters of blogging and netiquette. Cheers Charles!