PLPN

J'accuse : Tunnel vision indeed

Much as I respect Chris Said and his work, I cannot help thinking that the whole “let’s build a tunnel from Malta to Gozo” is the latest in a series of red herrings commissioned specifically by Gonzi’s PN. Ever since the hullabaloo about the Coupé Convertible Opera House subsided, there has been a desperate scramble for another controversy of the pointlessly popular kind. I was worried for a second that the Nationalists would resort to streaking MPs in Parliament just for the sake of not having to get down to the nitty-gritty of resolving the Gordian knot of divorce (Gordian from a conservative point of view). Instead we get “an immediate, in-depth technical and financial assessment of the tunnel idea”.

It sounds so Yes, Minister, doesn’t it? Actually “in-depth” studies are step five of the 12-step delaying tactics as described by Sir Humphrey (the full list being: informal discussions, draft proposal, preliminary study, discussion document, in-depth study, revised proposal, policy statement, strategy proposal, discussion of strategy, implementation plan circulated, revised implementation plans, and cabinet agreement). Needless to say, most ideas drown somewhere along the way, never to resurface – the mere supporting of the idea having won the relevant minister the necessary brownie points in his constituency.

I may have mixed feelings about the tunnel myself, but I will not be drawn into discussing the usefulness of a €150 million project right now. This is not to say that the project might merit discussion at some point in time in future and wealthier days (‘future’ being the key word here). The feeling I get is that, notwithstanding His Master’s Voice’s efforts to prod its readers into discussing this project, it has been given as much serious consideration as the fact that Malawi’s government is about to outlaw farting in public.

In the dark

I don’t know why they bothered with this tunnel business, really. I mean, the rules of the game perforce mean that we are constantly given the choice of bulk buying plus one (that makes it two products and only two) when it comes to election options. Right now, all Gonzi’s PN have to worry about, come election time, is that they are seen to be a better solution for government than the PL. Easy-peasy really, since Joseph Muscat has been all over the place trying to dispel any leftover worries that he could actually be the chosen one.

We have already assessed his sensibility on the international scene, thanks to his brainwave regarding tourism theft from the ailing Maghreb and Mashrek. This week we also learnt that the brand new Labour’s election manifesto will be drawn up by an old hat of the tried and tested variety. It’s not a question of character assassination, as the victims of criticism are so ready to point out these days, it’s a question of a running curriculum vitae and, frankly, Karmenu Vella’s doesn’t quite fit the bill, does it?

For all their talk of grass root openness and discussion, both parties are really milking the constitutional advantage of a virtual numerus clausus on parliamentary representation. The Nationalist Party discusses basic issues and projects behind closed doors, leaving the Academy for the Development of a Democratic Environment (AZAD) floundering as a token think tank, while Labour commissions the one-man authorship of an election manifesto, completely ignoring the fact that it is supposed to have a fledgling think tank of its own that should supposedly be the prime contributor at this stage (Fondazzjoni IDEAT).

Double insularity?

The tunnel project would end Gozo’s supposed affliction (personally, I think of it as benediction) of double-insularity but, unfortunately for the Gozitans, they will only be linked to Malta and I doubt whether there is any truth in the idea that this would limit the “sister island’s” insularity. Certain mentalities are hard to ditch and a tunnel to the land of partisan crassness loses much of its charm, doesn’t it? That hundreds of Labour’s partisans stood by Joseph Muscat’s rant about Egypt and Tunisia says much about how far the core voter base will stick to their party, come hell or high water. They were not being asked to vote against him, mind you, just disagree. Yet the only answer I came across was “even the Nationalists took advantage of Greece by making a profit on the loans”.

Really? Which part of “all of Europe lent money to the Greeks” did these Labourites miss? Did they not notice that Joseph’s position sticks out as madly as a Mintoff position in his heyday and makes us look like complete jerks? Or they probably did, and the similarity brought out misty-eyed feelings of nostalgia that further compounded the sad truth that we are really two realities living on one island and that there is no way out – no, not even with a tunnel to Pozzallo.

Underwater

The divorce position has forced hitherto unseen cracks in the modus operandi of both parties. For the first time we are seeing the possibility of parties “taking a position” on an issue without, however, binding their members to vote one way or another in Parliament. Cake and eating it comes to mind. Although Malta’s myriad experts and thinkers have rushed to the Pavlovian reflex of drawing up the pro and anti tribes in a jiffy, the divorce question has, more than any other issue, exposed the limits of ‘umbrella politics’ within both parties. It was the ‘anything goes’ policy of the Nationalist Party candidate selection before the election (not to mention the Mistra Crusade and JPO’s crocodile tears with the whole party behind him) that led them into this unprincipled corner.

Needless to say, progressive Joseph is as progressive as Karl Marx in his coffin for the very same reason. Too many contradictory strands of politics (if they may be called politics) are harboured within his party. The magic number of 50 per cent plus one haunts the PLPN in every step of their operation. They are constantly too fixated with garnering votes to be able to concentrate on the politics. Sure, the Daphnes of this world can croon that better a haphazard government of the relative majority than a throwback to Mintoff’s Club once again, but the truth remains that both parties are spineless when it comes to being principled representatives (bar anything short of miraculous happening next Thursday in the PN camp).

Yes, Austin is right. A party should take a position based on its principles and that should be a condition for membership of the party and for contesting elections within the ranks of the party. If JPO leaves the PN ranks and keeps his seat in Parliament, the PN cannot cry foul: they backed him ferociously (and unfairly) to get into Parliament and, lest they misread the Constitution, it is his seat, not theirs.

bert4j_110205
Building bridges?

For reasons completely unrelated to J’accuse’s bias towards a multi-party environment, I strongly believe that AD’s strength this time around is its consistency on yet another social issue. AD has been pro-divorce and has no qualms about declaring it. Notwithstanding the dearth of manpower and the unfortunate lack of plucky charisma that constantly plagues the party, AD has proven to be the only party in Malta that is able never to compromise its principles for votes. I argued this week on the blog that, given the dearth of principled parties in our politics, this might be the time for AD to aspire higher than simply being a third party. It is the time for AD to aspire to become a main party in its own right – to the detriment of one of the other two, of course. Unfortunately, the voting public has proved to be as discerning a public as a gathering of Inter supporters, which means that we are heading straight down the tunnel of unprincipled representation, come 2013.

Outside, in the real world, Jordan seems to be next in line in the wave of revolutions in the Arab world. The Egyptian movement has given us a new twist. For the first time, social networking on the Internet reacted to the revolutions and not vice versa. With the Internet down, Google collaborated with Twitter in order to allow Egyptians to tweet via phone lines. An interesting development – it is these times of revolution that could provoke a speedier change than we are already witnessing.

That’s all this week from gloomy Luxembourg.

www.akkuza.com – daily blogging for free public consumption.

ADDENDUM:

And his Master’s Voice is fast at work, eager to dispel the idea that this is just an exercise in mental entertainment. The Times carried an article yesterday entitled “Gozitans welcome tunnel idea”. Well J’accuse welcomes the idea too but does not believe the timing. On the other hand you really have to ask what made the Times dish out the superlatives such as:

“Massive support for the proposal was shown this morning but it was pointed out that Gozitans should have a very big say in the decision. They proposed a referendum in Gozo to see where Gozitans stood on the issue.”

Really? So what exactly is the “massive support” if a referendum is needed? then the GRTU came out strongly in favour of the tunnel. If you consider Vince Farrugia a strong unbiased voice that is. On the other hand, if you remember that Vince was part of the umbrella coalition for MEP votes then you might think again. The Times’ eagerness to shower plaudits was unbridled:

Some of the organisations in Gozo had already appointed sub-committees to work on the proposal, while a survey held by the GTA found had 90 per cent support of members of the Gozo Tourism Authority.

I bet the Xewkija Tigers social committee got an early head start on that one. And you’ve got to love the survey by the GTA (Gozo Tourism Authority) that obtained 90% support of the … wait for it… Gozo Tourism Authority.

As for copying Nordic countries, the last time we experimented with their ideas in the Fliegu we ended up with flat bottomed boats that were ideal for fjords but that rocked like crazy whenever the Libeccio was here to stay.

Could do better.

Humpty Dumpty Politics

What makes or breaks a modern political party? Can we still talk of the terms “christian-democrat” and “socialist” (or the masacara “progressive”) when it comes to the nitty-gritty of politics in Malta? Is it just Malta that has entered a Bermuda Triangle of party values?

The nationalist party might hold the “Fehmiet Bazici” (Basic Beliefs) document to its heart but how is it to reconcile that with the calculated vote grabbing net that is elaborated every five years? Joseph Muscat may have declared a new era of progressive liberals but his party is having a hard time trying to appease the weird animal that is the “conservative proletariat”.

The “socialists” were never socialist to begin with. Even at the worst of the church-Labour battles their worry over the fact of being buried in non-consecrated ground or their sacristy marriages betrayed their Peppone like interior. Beneath the wannabe socialist revolutionaries were Catholics who were really stung by the fundamentalist church moves. Had they really been convinced of their socialist, lay battles they wouldn’t have given two hoots about being interdicted from a church that was supposedly not theirs.

The nationalist party lost its moral compass right after 1987. It was on a life-saving machine all through the EU campaign having placed its bets on the right horse but once the fog of the EU War subsided (thank you very much Waste-Our-Bloody-Time-Sant) it fell apart like Humpty Dumpty – unable to string together a coherent plan of action and a victim of the Young Battlers of the EU Campaign clamouring for a piece of the victorious pie of government. The worldwide economic crisis did the rest of the trick.

So when an issue like divorce hits the parties when they least expect it, they are unable to react as political parties. Or at least it seems so. James Debono has done a(nother) wonderful job of assessing the different scenarios with regards to divorce and the two main parties: “Divorce: When principles and convenience collide“. Even if we were to set aside the issue itself (divorce) and focus on the party reactions to what is basically a “principle” or “value” changer in society the results are rather bleak.

The stand taken by Austin Gatt might be old hat but it is after all what you’d expect from a party MP. Austin’s stand is about the PN stand not about what Malta thinks. He is spot on when he says that if he (Austin) disagrees with divorce legislation then he cannot fit in within a party that actively promotes divorce legislation. J’accuse would go one further. Resign from the PN in case it decides to back divorce legislation but do not resign from parliament.

Paul Borg Olivier’s recent interview on Dissett points to a possible development for the PN. It is the possibility of acknowledging that the party itself is in favour/against divorce but leaving its members free to vote. The question J’accuse would like to ask is: Does this count as a party position on values? Is the acknowledgement that a discussion such as divorce is one that has both pro- and con- partisans within the same party sufficient to say that party values are safe?

Even Labour, with what is supposed to be a less confessional set of values (actually it claims to be progressive) has difficulties taking a stand on divorce. Granted that there is no denying that Joseph Muscat’s Labour has a proven track record of opportunistic bandwagon politics this particular nut will be a tough one to crack. Muscat has his own Gatt on his side of parliament (Adrian Vassallo) and surely other conservative proletarians will follow suit.

Which leaves us with Alternattiva Demokratika. What started off as a party with a strong green agenda at the time of its affiliation with the Verdi/Greens can now boast of a wealth of political positions in the social sphere – from property rights to gender issues to divorce. The party position is unequivocal and clear: they want divorce legislation.

The D’Hondt relative majority has done much to whittle away the party backbone for the party in government. It lives each day nervously wondering which backbencher (or government member) might step out of line and threaten the fragile structure that is at wits end. It has gone from “Par Idejn Sodi” (a pair of strong hands) to “Kuljum bir-Roghda” (everyday shaking). The PL is at sea trying to desperately loop in any possible voter and trying not to tread on anyone’s toes in case their vote is needed come d-day. Which leaves us with a gaggle of spineless politicians unable to take a clear stand on matters that count. Or does it?

J’accuse believes that for the first time Alternattiva Demokratika has a chance to assert itself as something more than a party aspiring for the third place. The l vacuum opened up by the PLPN (ironically as a direct result of their tweaking of the D’Hondt Relative Majority) opens up the same possibilities as those seen by the UK Liberal Democrats before the last elections. AD should no longer aspire to be a third party. On paper, it has every right and chance to aspire to be a major role player in the next elections and technically it should be the most spineless of the PLPN duo that suffers.

That of course does not take into account the partisan vote base. Which will stick to its PLPN guns come hell or highwater… or come divorce.

The Ignorant Masses

James Debono penned a brilliant blog post that you can read here : There’s something about Labour. J’accuse agrees 100% with his assessment (see earlier post today “Sphinxes”) but we are not here for some general agree-fest.

By browsing through the comments appended at the end of the article you get to understand what will hold this country back for ever. Given a clear, well-explained article about how Joseph Muscat is effectively betraying Labour by making it a risible, spine-less alternative unable to get the real political pulse of the moment, your average flag-waving supporter will ignore the message and instead scorn the messenger:

  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:20.You know what is the cherry on the cake James, that now you have really showed that you are another puppet of the PN. This will be the last time I bought MALTA_TODAY, because with articles like yours its becoming worst then the TOM, not independent anymore.
    gscerri
  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:14.You know James – I think there is something about you and your clear biased against Labour. Not only you are unfair but clearly seem to be pushing some agenda. Moreover, you have a disgusting condescending way to refer to the people living in the South and to Labour supporters, which I find it akin to Nats who always look down to 50% of the population like it is an inferior tribe or race of people. So why don’t you come out and say it: You want the Nats to remain in power! I have had it with you and your patronizing views – I’m stopping buying Maltatoday, which I was gladly doing until a Sunday ago.
    RJ
  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:11.Maybe if you took your head out you and remove the blinkers you would understand more. PL is not perfect but I have yet to hear you say one decent word about the party. It seems you want the PL to be exactly as you wish it was which you know can never happen with any party in the world.
    But then again, why should I waste my breathe with you, we all know who you support while trying to portray yourself as a left-leaning liberal. I enjoy reading MaltaToday very much but your own articles leave much to be desired.

    zeit

It’s about “support” or “puppets” to them. James Debono is much more of a labourite than anything Joseph Muscat can aspire to be when it comes to principles yet the “supporters” only see him as a traitor to the cause. Not for one moment will they question the contradictions inherent in the flimsy marketing (for it is not politics) in which Joseph Muscat engages. Muscat knows that this is his audience and he only has to hope that more are enticed into the anti-PN fold in order to be a beaming PM with no clue about principles, politics or diplomacy.

Meanwhile valid minds full of valid ideas are left to “wallow” writing blogs in some newspaper. I wonder what it is that keeps James going.

Honour Among Thieves

There’s nothing better than giving a Times report the “Lorna” treatment in order to really get an impartial picture of the partisan positions in the honorarium saga. Farrugia’s meeting with the PM was swell. The Cabinet took a day off to find a way out of shit creek without a paddle and an announcement is expected shortly. Meanwhile Inhobbkom J is preparing his position on the honorarium saga without wanting to wait for the new government position. Which only makes sense in a cuckoo world where Inhobbkom J can be seen as a potential saviour from that mess that is the PN government in such cases.

So here goes. For the uninitiated the “Lorna” treatment is what J’accuse used to reserve to articles penned by the much missed Lorna Vassallo when her contributions to the Times of Malta’s opinion columns provided us with occasions of mirth punctuated with goggle-eyed bafflement. Just search TGIL on the old J’accuse site and you’ll get the gist.

Labour Party to announce position on ministers’ salaries, honoraria

The Labour Party is expected to issue a formal position on ministerial salaries and the honoraria given to MPs, informed sources said this afternoon. [cue Michael Jackson: Can you feel it? – the tension is palpable… what will they come up with this time?]

The Labour parliamentary group this afternoon held an unexpected meeting [as in they all serendipitally surfaced in Hamrun by pure chance. FBI despatched a unit from Quantico to examine this supernatural occurrence] , at the same time as the issue was also being discussed down the road by the Nationalist parliamentary group at PN headquarters [It was so supernatural that they were discussing an as yet undisclosed subject referred to by the codename “the issue”… informed sources told J’accuse that this might refer to a mucuous substance exuded rabidly by the coincidental congregation].

The issue [there they go again with the mysterious “issue”] was also discussed by the Cabinet this morning. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi did not give details of the outcomes [they don’t know what was discussed, how it was discussed or what was said but they do know … with what seems to be absolute certainty…. that it’s plural] and said a decision would be announced later. However informed sources said ministers would refund part of the honoraria which they have been paid since 2008 [there go the deep throats… so the issue having been settled they moved on to tell us that there will be a form of ministerial refund of the honoraria they have been receiving since 2008].

Meanwhile, sources in the Labour Party said the party would announce its position, independently of what the government decided [since when is that news? Would they even bother with the government decision anyway?] The position would be announced by Labour leader Joseph Muscat [in the presence of white suited minions of course].

The PL had criticised ministers for having given themselves a double pay – their ministerial salary and their honoraria as MPs. As recently as last Sunday, Dr Muscat said one could discuss reviewing ministerial salaries, but he was against having a double pay [is that a general statement? would he apply this principle to the private sector? is there a double pay for discussing ministerial salaries? who writes these articles?].

Dr Muscat, who was also offered the honoraria along with the Opposition leader’s salary, had also declared that he would donate the honoraria (of €26,000 per year) to charity [still perpetuating the myth that he has refused the honorarium but ALSO AND AT THE SAME TIME donated it to charity… syou wish he could decide on that one].

Opposition MPs had been left at liberty to decide whether to accept a €7,000 annual increase to their honoraria. However a fund was set up for those who opted to donate the money. [See what we mean Joe? It’s confusing. You either ACCEPT the honoraria AND donate it to charity OR you DON’T ACCEPT the honorarium  AND it’s not yours to give.]

There you have it. We await with trepidation for Gonzi’s declaration. Will they give the money back? Will they hang on to some of it? What will this tell us about Gonzi’s control over his one-man majority party? Remember what J’accuse told you on the day after the election? Well you should. Coz you know what we hate to have to remind you that we were right.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Divorce a distraction?

I get the nagging feeling that the whole divorce debate is a welcome distraction for the party in government. Whichever way you look at it, even with the possibility of a watered down divorce law on the horizon in the near future, the PN government is set to gain from what is after all a delayed distraction. By some twenty years. If we could adduce some form of strategy from the single-seat government way of thinking it would be that the divorce debate that was clumsily shifted onto its plate has the main bonus of providing the occasional distraction from the pressing issue of COL (cost of living) in its various guises.

The spice that are priests like Daniel Cordina in Zebbug or politicians like the various JPOs, Bartolos and Musumeci only serves to give the affair the varied colouring of an indian spice stand. At the end of the day there is a sense of inevitability that is wired into the divorce issue itself. It is not a question of “If”, more a question of “when” and a bit of “how”. You can read that sense of urgency into Mike Briguglio’s press conference statement today. It almost sounds like an exercise in tautology: “Decision on divorce needs to be taken“.

You can almost hear the Simpsons‘ Homer yelling :”Duh”. But this is the country where Musumeci can claim to be an “opinionist” and not a “journalist” on his little platform on Smash. Where the same Musumeci can proselytise while trying to be the new “good boy” of the PN clan. Where Muscat can shoot at the government for “playing with the people” without actually offering an alternative solution to the problems at hand. Where politicians like Zammit Lewis can quote their leader on facebook and echo the worry about the poor without budging one inch about the new ideas from the new generation.

Thank God for divorce then (or maybe don’t thank Him, since He does not like it). We’d rather the distraction that exposes the pogguti, the sinful and the pagan. It’s more familiar territory for the Kinnie & Twistees generation brought up in the shadow of Mintoffianism and Eddie’s salvationism. Discuss a program for the economic relaunching of the nation? What the hell? I’d rather discuss the sinful qualities of divorce.

And the PLPN are heading towards the 10th legislature since Independence. In this country thinking different is the norm, and the norm is being divorced from reality.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Via Salaria

In ancient Rome the Via Salaria linked the Eternal City to the port of Castrum Truentinum, now known as the Port of Ascoli. It was called Salaria because it was the road used by the Sabines to retrieve the precious salt from the mouth of the Tiber. Salt was one of the primary units of payment in ancient Rome – hence the term “salary” from “salarium”.

In modern Malta our parliamentarians do not arrogate themselves a new salary but rather opt to increase their “honorarium”. I doubt whether we have a Via Honoraria running from the new parliament square to the respective centres of the PLPN MPs. In the meantime MPs from both sides perpetuate the pathetic fallacy of “not accepting” the honorarium while insisting on distributing its proceeds according to their wills (if something is not accepted then it is not yours to distribute).

The PN government is now under siege and has resorted to the equivalent of hunting for the mice in the sewers in order to survive. The sudden hike price of commodities from fuel to gas to milk can only serve to exacerbate the unpopularity of a government that seems to have lost the feel of the people’s pulse. Joseph’s Labour might be poised to take advantage of the situation by promising the usual progressive package that protects the weak. The problem lies in the fact that the current economic conditions will not discriminate between conservative intervention or socialist laxity.

Just look at what happened in the UK yesterday. The LibDems and the Tories were both vociferously against any VAT hike while they laboured in opposition. They completed their U-turn yesterday with the announced increase of VAT to 20%. The only saving grace was the fact that essential products (the most cited were bread and nappies) are zero-rated and hence not affected.

So are we to grin and bear the hikes while our salaries plateau over the next few years or are we all to run for parliament in the hope to get a piece of the very special pie that seems to be reserved at the top?