PLPN

The Barrel’s Bottom

Did you ever wonder where we got the expression “scraping the bottom of the barrel”? Why the barrel? What’s wrong with the bottom? Well it comes from the time when fruit – apples for example – were stored in barrels and the apples that would be left at the bottom of the barrel would be bruised and not the best quality. Hence “scraping the bottom of the barrel” or choosing from what is left. Choosing from among the worst because you have no other choice. Yep, you can see where I am going with this but I cannot help it can I?

Here we are getting ever closer to E-day (that’s election not ecstasy) and the level of political discourse has descended into predictable levels of exchanges of circum tauri (that’s bullshit in the vernacular). Do you remember those early halcyon days when we all yearned for political programmes/manifestos to be published so as to see what the parties have to offer or criticise? Well they came and went in a flurry of billboards, buzzwords and bull. We are now left with the dark side of politics doing the works.

The gullibility gene is not very common in my family and therefore I insist on looking at what  the parties have to offer with a critical eye that is above any partisan impulse – much to either side’s chagrin of course. So, at this point, what do the parties have to offer to the arms-length observer? Nothing. Well, not nothing really but an exchange of accusations and finger-pointing that are meant to point out to us that “the other side” is up to its neck in corruption.

Joseph’s Labour is high on a wave of enthusiasm. It has mastered the “unity” con to perfection. Hi party spent five years spinning the yarn that Malta is the pits and practically in need of salvation with half the country (or more) living in appalling conditions and who cannot afford the slightest bit of distraction let alone luxury. Built on the platform of the expensive utilities, wrought around the eccentricities of Franco Debono’s earthquakes and decorated with the stucco of “the face of change” complete with new logo and the  practical disapparition of the political party, Joseph’s movement spun it’s own fairytale where the inevitable conclusion would be a brighter future under what would supposedly be a government for all.

Underneath all the rhetoric lie a ramshackle set of populist measures and a team that is far from promising for the future. Yet the plan sells. It sells mainly because the build up fed what Maltese know how to do best and that is be generally dissatisfied and grumble. It also sells because the other lot have proceeded down the slippery slope to mediocrity and have become an easier target than ever.

In fact, speaking of the other lot, what were they thinking? The blue and red faces from the latest billboard must win the prize for the worst premeditated electoral gaffe ever. The nationalist don’t only seem to have lost it but they are also forming committees trying hard to find out what “it” is and how to possibly bring “it” back. For one time too many they have fallen in this false trap laid by Joseph’s minions – playing into the role of “evil divisive party”. They don’t even seem to understand the fallout of this “blue or red face” business in real terms. “Look beyond the rhetoric” they tell us. Sure. We’re trying but there’s nothing, nowhere.

The truth is out there but nobody seems to be bothering to look for it. The panem et circenses of the parties’ criminal spin has reached new heights of popularity. Labour are trying their damnedest to link the PN (and particularly Minister Gatt) to the oil scandals. Joseph keeps dropping hints that are supposed to “raise eyebrows” but end up being intellectual demi-farts that can only be fawned upon by a journalistic class that has been trained to ask “How high?” whenever he says “jump”. Truth is there is nothing linking the PN or government to the oil commissions. It is definitely a corrupt web that has been uncovered but a web that could have existed under any government.

Then the PN comes along and brings out its undercover recordings. Sure we have documented evidence of dirty business in party clubs being covered up by high level party members – a deputy leader and now possibly a leader to boot. It’s bad. Very bad. But something tells me that party clubs across the island are not exactly hosting M.U.S.E.U.M. meetings as the nationalist party pole dancing club proved back in 2010. Then again there’s another point to be made here. Why did the PN bring out 2010 recordings now? Was it ok to sit on them for so long?

The tired spin is now going to extremes. We are in what I call a Magritte moment – you are slammed with a pipe right in front of you and then you are told “This is not a pipe”. What I find is that the more time passes the more the enthusiastic carcading voters are willing to believe the words that are being channelled into their head and not the big picture that is being painted so clearly before them.

In a normal world the picture would tell them a very clear message: that not everything (if anything) is right in both the houses. Yes, I will take the arrogant position and judge voters by accusing them of ignoring the possibility of an alternative vote. While both parties scrape the bottom of the barrel we should be dismissing them as an option. At least those of us who refuse to have our intelligence insulted. We should not be carried away by the simple puerile motivation of “they’ve been too long in power” or “they haven’t changed one bit”. Instead of letting the filth cancel each other out and returning to our instinctive partisan bias we should be rejecting the idea of abetting the return of the PLPN hegemony to power one more time.

There are no more excuses not to vote different. No amount of baseless accusations about “wasted vote” or “responsible voting” should stand in the way of a nation that desperately deserves much more than this barrel-bottom politics that it so gullibly accepts every five years or so.

This time round you could really make the difference. It’s either that or more of the usual shit guaranteed.

 

 

Truth be told

The Eagle Party held a mass meeting this morning in Zabbar and it turns out that there were more than a handful of people who were willing to go along with the farce. I wouldn’t worry much about all these people voting for Nazzareno when push comes to shove, they were just there for the fun of the outing and for doing what Maltese do best: make fun of the village idiots. Tomorrow the village idiots will be out in force at the respective mass meetings of the two parties who are currently embroiled in a battle of scandals and finger pointing.

Which is where we left them. The parties I mean. In my last post I complained about the surreal obscenity of the fact that every election campaign will peter out into a series of scandals and counter-scandals. All that promise at the start of this campaign what with saving money on energy bills and tablets for all soon changed into mud-slinging of the highest order. The charade unfolds as I type and it’s like seeing the Emperor’s New Clothes – only this is the whole political establishment prancing around naked and ugly for all to see. Recordings? Ministerial Swiss accounts? Oil? Enough. Really. Enough. And here’s why.

Truth be told I still believe that Austin Gatt did not touch a penny of whatever was  going on in the procurement business. Truth be told I believe that there really is a web of corruption surrounding the oil procurement but I also believe that this was a group of persons taking advantage of a loophole  in supervision that was as wide as a house. Truth be told I believe that the Labour party knows that and does not want to admit it because it is politically convenient to “raise eyebrows” about Gatt’s involvement.

Truth be told I cannot digest Austin Gatt’s excuse that he “forgot” to declare his family accounts in Switzerland since 2005 – inherited or not. Truth be told I find the double standards in this respect to be glaring when contrasted to the treatment of AD’s chairperson in 2008 for having forgotten to pay some VAT dues over a defunct company.

Truth be told I find Joseph Muscat’s ridiculous throwing of “leads” to his former work colleagues with regards to a Minister who supposedly freed someone from a chip or a lock up disgusting. Truth be told I would prefer that if  he had such information he would be the one to bring it out. Truth be told it turns out that the alleged act was never done by a person qua Minister but earlier in his career – which means that Joseph Muscat was lying when he implied that a Minister used his powers to free someone from the lockup (also not necessarily from prison). Truth be told this is not the first time that Muscat has been economical with a lie in order to imply an inexistent truth.

Truth be told I find the nationalist party’s assault on Toni Abela yawn-inducing and so blatantly a diversive tactic from its moment of panic. Truth be told I do agree that Abela should be responsible for his actions, particularly covering up of illicit activity in Labour’s kazini much the same way as I expect those responsible in the nationalist party to take the hit for any illicit activity in their kazini. Truth be told I still ask the most important question with regard to the PN’s recordings: Why now? Truth be told the nationalist party sat on this information for three whole years and only now felt sufficiently indignant to do anything about it.

Truth be told I have had enough of watching valuable pre-electoral debate time wasted in this battle of “your scandal is bigger than mine” or “oil purchasing is more important than drug trafficking” when it is blatantly obvious to anyone strong enough to wash off partisan blinkers that our supposed political elite is one big mess that is long past its sell-by date. Truth be told I have had enough of hearing snide comments about the hard-working folk at AD who can never yell about their presence loud enough so long as the village idiots are busy with their partisan banging and yelling about the inadequacy of the other side.

Truth be told this campaign is now expecting its final “election bomb”. It will be another “scandal” from each side announced close enough to the election date in order to hinder any possibility of throwing light and clarity on what it really is all about. It will be the mother of all messy mudballs slung by the mother of all slingshots. It will be as useful to our informed election of a proportionally representative parliament as a swimsuit in Alaska and yet the village idiots will indulge the parties with their Oohs, their Aahs and their chest beating.

Truth is, truth will never be told.

 

Snapshot # 3: The voters anonymous

The noise from the election campaign is becoming just that. It’s just like listening in to a mass meeting by a storm of locusts – noisy as ever but rarely makes sense. It happens every election. We kick off hoping to discuss issues, plans, projects and directions for the economy and society but more often than not we end up discussing scandals, allegations, ad hominem accusation and more such filth. This time round there is no shortage of finger pointing: amateur sleuths, wannabe lawyers and born-again-doubters are suddenly all into scandals and -gates. I’d pinpoint the genesis of this particularly heavy wave to the moment when the Sliema Local Council began to fall apart.

Now we have Oil Procurement gate replete with presidential pardons and alleged implications at ministerial level. We have Abela-gate with secret recordings allegedly uncovering a politician openly admitting what could amount to influencing the police force. We have the double edged sword of Zarb-gate: on the one hand a union caught trading in influence and on the other hand an alleged collusion between the businessman involved and the nationalist party. Meanwhile serious accusations of suspect funding to both parties have been swept under the carpet conveniently as each party prefers to concentrate on its scandal of choice – leaving questions about how millionaire campaigns are funded suspended in thin air.

This post can easily be misconstrued as being an attempt at minimising the importance of having an efficient system that uncovers any kind of fraudulent activity. It is not my intention to do so. What I intend to point out though is that much of this caravan and circus will eventually peter out come the 10th March. The horror, the shock and the awe that some politicians feign when confronted with proof (as demonstrative a proof as is available) will soon be relegated to the general “forget-me” bin only to be recycled five years down the line. Honestly. Do you remember the fuss and fantasy generated by Mistragate last time round? What of it?

The truth is that such shenanigans and uncovering of modus operandi of politicians and friends of politicians only SEEM to have become nastier. In reality our political system is geared to co-exist with the circles of power that surround it. Whether it is the police, the legal system, the big business or the unions, alliances are made and broken and fool you are if you think that any of the lot is innocent of such tomfoolery. The charade of investigations and holier-than-thou pronouncements (or as Toni Abela would have it… my banana is cleaner than yours) is just that.

My question and next point is how much does that influence the voter. All these theatricals are for the voter’s inconvenience in the end. They are meant to point out the inadequacy of the other side because the other side is Corrupt/Hapless/Undisciplined (take your pick). Does the voter care? Reading Roberto Saviano on La Repubblica I had a chance to confirm what could be a Mediterranean or even a European trait. Oftentimes the voter is just as enmeshed in the power circles that are at work. The difference in the voter’s case is that he falls further down the line of enjoyment but still feels the compulsion to confirm his participation and thus develop a legitimate expectation. It’s all about a job, a sick relative or a parking space.

Yes. Often the voters’ priority (beyond the obvious partisan impulse) is based purely on one particular service (or inversely is the result of one particular disservice). Is it a refused MEPA permit for altering one’s balcony? Is it a refused rebate on a taxed imported car? Is it a refused access into a school? When you hear the opposition complaining about the “power of incumbency” what they are complaining about is the fact that they have less clout in this not so covert black market where promises to fill gaps in voters’ needs are traded. Do not be deceived. The trading is across the board – opposition or government. The promises are there for everyone. Because Malta Taghna Lkoll is really a euphemism for the politician’s position in the system of cogs and wheels that gets this republic going. It’s not just Labour’s slogan. It’s everybody’s.

Voters will not really be impressed by the many -gates. They either had made their mind up before the scandals surfaced or had their ideas confirmed by the plethora of accusations. In some quarters pundits will try to sell the idea of a “responsible” vote one that supposedly is made in the best interests of the country. It’s a load of bull really. Those very pundits are motivated by the cogs and wheels that get this country going. Knowingly or unknowingly their vote is pre-conditioned by this state of affairs.

A responsible vote is one that tries its damn best to change the system. It is one that requires at least 2000 anonymous voters in one district voting on the basis of what the nation needs and not on the idea that they will get some form of personal reward. Sadly the power of incumbency of the old style politicians will probably mean that the responsible voter loses out. Again.

 

 

 

Funding Fundamentals

For my sins and for want of anything better to do in this snowstorm ridden evening I watched tonight’s edition of Bondi+. It’s been harder than usual getting down to write posts at the usual pace . There’s something about this campaign that is mind-numbing and I think that it is a combination of campaign fatigue and the shock of being constantly barraged with quips and propaganda that insult the average man’s intelligence.

I don’t know what Beppe (Fenech Adami) and Chris (Cardona) were supposed to be talking about and I suspect that Lou Bondi more than half hoped that the programme would be juicily concentrated on that new Nationalist protege and star Anglu Farrugia. Poor Anglu cannot help still being a political football and his repartees at Joseph Muscat have provided new fodder to the cliche-ridden PN campaign insofar as jibes at the Labour camp are concerned. What the two (and later three with the arrival of Arnold) did end up talking about was party financing and the links that each party has to big business.

Idiots – that’s you the voters – are supposed to be carefully measuring the different proofs of liaisons that each party has with big business and throwing onto their homemade scales the various calculations as to who spent how much and where the money has come. Idiots (that’s still you) will then be expected to vote for the lesser evil. That, I guess (but I’m no idiot myself), will be the one with less ties to business and less I.O.U.’s hanging around in the pockets of various contractors and other men who can practically foot a blank cheque in times of need.

You do have to be an idiot though not to see past the protestations of both parties. On the one hand you have the ridiculous nationalist party “barter” concept. You see, the PN barters with companies like MFCC and in return for the use of their tents it gives them…. erm… See I’m stuck there. What the hell could the PN be offering to barter? It’s not like air time on its debt-ridden stations is free? Allocating a million euros of air time (in exchange for a tent) would mean perforce that that air time is lost from other who might have actually paid for the service.  Cardona also presented Beppe with a court case – Europrint vs MediaLink. Now that’s sweet. MediaLink owes Europrint half a million. Where will they get that from?

Labour on the other hand also have a hunch that we are all idiots. Their campaign CANNOT have been funded by the telethons. Igloos don’t grow on  trees Chris and you can have many many volunteers with ideas that you think are great but you cannot barter ideas for material in much the same way that Borg Olivier is not bartering ideas for tents. And while we are at it enough with this bullshit about the parties publishing their accounts. First of all Labour walked out of the committee for democratic reform that not only put an end to the hope of electoral reform but also to any issue on party financing.

If you really believe that either the PL or PN will ever actually enact a law that shoots both of them in the foot then you are a prime idiot. Lawrence Gonzi was unable to answer questions about Paul Borg Olivier’s barter methods – it might after all be a trade secret you know. Labour has been known to hide behind sensitive commercial interests too. As for publishing expense accounts – how about we don’t wait till the end of this election and simply ask the PN to publish the expenses of each candidate for the European Parliament elections. They actually swore about that on oath you know…. and some candidates went on record about how ridiculous the whole business was (was it Georg Sapiano? – it’s a genuine query).

Which brings me to the matter that Arnold Cassola brought up. We had been regaled with a crossfire of bull between exponents of the two parties and an impartial show host then Arnold asked a simple question about something they could not really wriggle out of with lies. He asked a question about our money. My money. Your money. Everybody’s money. Taghna Lkoll as some would fart out robotically. He asked how the whole parliament – that’s 67 members from both sides –  unanimously approved a land concession to Nazzareno Vassallo’s MFCC while removing a guarantee clause that amounted to over one million euro. That’s your money. My money. Everybody’s money.

They voted it away. Vanished it. To help a businessman. They are the parties who either barter or spend their way to kingdom come safe in the knowledge that they cannot be caught by the laws they refuse to write. Safe in the knowledge that they will be back whether in government or in opposition.

Why will they be back? Because they count on a bunch of idiots voting them into parliament after having paid their bills to get in there.

Reap. Sow. As the hilarious Times headline went – PL/PN to give the people what they deserve. (I added PN for par condicio).

Jeħduh f’sormhom

Forsi din ma hix espressioni li l-grupp tal-facebook Kelma Kelma se jittratta b’daqstant faċilita. Mhux għax ma ħaqqhiex. Anzi. Naħseb li tikkwalifika sew bħala espressjoni mill-iprem fl-użu kurrenti tal-poplu Malti. In-natura ipokrita tal-Malti (il-bniedem mhux l-ilsien, jaħasra) ma tippermettix pero li titkellem dwar il-kurrenti u l-magħruf jekk il-kurrenti u l-magħruf huwa – kif isejħulu is-soċjologi – taboo. U s-sorm, kif kullħadd jaf, diġa huwa taboo minnu – aħseb u ara l-espressjoni li timplika teħid ta’ oġġetti mhux neċesarjament speċifikati fil-warrani.

F’kampanja elettorali bħal ma hi din is-sorm jispikka b’mod ubikwu mingħajr qatt ma jissemma. Filwaqt li fuq il-mezzi tax-xandir jagħmlu l-għolmu tagħhom biex jagħtu xejra ta’ diċenza u (għaliex le) serjeta professjonali f’kull dibattitu mimli retorika propagandistika, huwa fl-analiżi odjerna li ssir għand tal-grocer (kif xtaq Simon) li joħroġ veru l-ispirtu razzjonali tal-votant Malti u jissemma bil-bosta s-sorm (kif forsi ma xtaqx Simon).

“Smajtu lit-tali ilbieraħ? Ma felaħx jitkellem iktar minn sormu”. Kliem espliċitu, vera, imma indikazzjoni ċara tal-andament tal-affarijiet. L-apprezzament jaf ikun partiġġjan u jaf ikun diżilluż pero is-sorm hemm jibqa’. Tista’ ukoll taqa fir-redikolu venjali – l-isplapstick tas-satira – u tgħid li bilfors dak il-kliem kollu dwar il-gass minn x’imkien kellu joħroġ.

“Kemm se jdumu jeħduħ f’sormhom (bija – suġġettiv, bina – ġeneriku)?” Il-bżar fl-għajnejn, it-tlellix u x-xinxilli, iċ-ċejċa, il-propaganda u l-ispinn. Din l-espressjoni hija l-oażi ta’ rifuġju għal min xebgħa sal-ponta ta’ imnieħru bir-retorika antika, bil-wiegħdiet foloz u bir-riżma insulti għall intelliġenza. L-irkant tal-wiegħdiet forsi jaf jingħata post speċjali fil-mezzi tax-xandir – taf int, għal għajn in-nies – imma fil-privat il-proxxmu jiżżarma minn kull ewfemiżmu inutli u jfaqqa’ verżjoni mundana ta’ “Kemm se jdumu jeħduh f’għajnhom”.

Għax iva. L-għajn hija ewfemiżmu ukoll u tfakkar wisq fl-għajn bħala fonti jew sors li f’dal każ jissarraf biss f’sors ta’ inutilta … l-anti-google. Bħal meta tisma’, biex nagħti eżempju konkret, dik il-gidba dwar “id-dekriminalizzazzjoni tal-omosesswalita“. Ma nafx int imma demmi jibda jbqabaq. Bħal dak li qallhom kien krimini qabel l-1974 li tkun omosesswali. Mhux vera. Qed jieħduh f’sormhom bik meta jgħidulek hekk.

Il-krimini kien li proprja tieħdu f’sormok. Litteralment. U li tagħtih ukoll. L-orjentazzjoni sesswali kienet irrilevanti f’għajnejn il-leġiżlatur. Kien biss l-att – magħruf teknikament bħala sodomija – li kien illegali. Biex niftehmu sas-74 il-pufti (kif kellhom tendenza kerha isejħu lill-omosesswali dak iż-żmien) setgħu ikunu pufti kemm iridu. Li ma setgħux jagħmlu  kien l-att as-sodomoija. U mhux huma biss – għax teknikament jekk kont tinqabad fl-att ma kienx se joqgħod jistaqsi jekk intix pufta jew le. Ftakar li il-fetiċċju li tieħdu f’sormok jaf ma kienx limitat għall-irġiel biss. U le il-ktieb ma jismux “50 Shades of Gay“.

Illum għal grazzja kbira m’għadniex nużaw it-terminu pufta avolja li għal żmien twil wara’ kienu l-istess psewdo-liberali ta’ nofs is-sebgħinijiet li baqgħu jużawha bħala insult – insult li jsib il-benniena tiegħu fil-biża u fl-injuranza. Pero ftakar. Meta jgħidulek li iddekriminalizzaw l-omosesswalita ma jkunu qed jagħmlu xejn ħlief jeħduh f’sormhom. Bik. Għax issa legali hux.

Ħabib tiegħi jirrakkonta storja li taf tkun apokrifa dwar Duminku Mintoff. Meta kien ikun irrabjat b’xi problema kien jgħid “Min se jiġi ineħħili dan iż-ż* minn sormi u jsibli sorm ieħor fejn nitfgħu?” Inkredibbli. Mhux talli l-lingwaġġ huwa popolari u ġenwin iżda huwa anki rikonoxximent tal-irwol importanti tal-warrani fejn jidħlu problemi u soluzzjonijiet. Jispikka ukoll l-altruwiżmu ta’ Dear Dom li ma kienx se jħalli xi ż* jiġri mas-saqajn.

“Naħseb kien b’sormha meta ħareġ biha”. Għax il-kelma għandha mitt użu u l-għodda t-tajba tiswa mitqla deheb f’idejn l-imgħallem. B’sormha… għal darb’ oħra insibu ġustifikazzjoni għan-nuqqas ta’ sens. Għax jekk mhux qed jeħduh f’sormhom bik bi ħsieb allura forsi qed jiżbaljaw għax ħadu grokk żejjed il-każin.

Hemm qiegħdin. Wasalna f’punt fil-kampanja fejn iċ-ċittadin qed jirrikorri għall-espressjonijiet vernakulari iktar u iktar kull ma jmur. Iktar milli xebgħa huwa għajjien. Strafinit. Dak li jiġrilu. Jħalli lil min iħaddmu bi storbju, b’muntanja wiegħdiet u beżgħat. Minkejja li jaf x’qed jagħmlulu iħalli lil min jieħdu f’sormu bih.

U dakinhar tal-vot imur u jagħtihulhom… qisu qatt ma kien xejn. Ħasra. Għax bir-rata li għaddejin biha x’iktarx li naqgħu għal sormna.

Show me the tablet

Our country does not lie on a vast oil deposit. If it does have one then we either haven’t found it or somebody is very good at keeping it well hidden. We do not export massive amounts of goods and notwithstanding all the talk about the gaming industry and tourism there is only so much you can “earn” to justify spending. We are not even a diligent country in the fashion of Norway that invests most of the money it gets from its oil deposits into a fund for future generations. Inevitably when elections come round even though we may be completely drunk with partisan euphoria the crux of the matter will (or should) always be the same: “Show me the money”.

The tablet wars late last week had a strange effect on me. It was one thing having pointed out for a very long time the atrocious “race to the bottom” that the PLPN dichotomy signifies. It was another to see the manner in which this tongue-in-cheek brazen approach to having a go at insulting the voter’s intelligence has been developed. All the elements coincided – you had the auction of promises and the typical partisan reaction from both sides of our Lilliputian gap. Without batting an eyelid both parties had promised millions of euros of electronic equipment to our younger generations and both parties claimed a monopoly on this move being part of some wider education plan.

Wider plan my foot. Suffice it to say that the Malta Union of Teachers was far from impressed by this tomfoolery. How bloody typical. Remember this is the government that followed our decision to get into the EU but that failed to factor a course for translators and interpreters at University in the run up to membership. How is that relevant? It’s relevant because it is one thing to shoot ambitious plans off the cuff and another thing to actually be in a position to implement them. Ask Manuel Delia.

Before you run away with some twisted idea, this is not an amish attack on all things technological. Of course technology is the future but that is not the point. The point is that both parties very evidently treat this tablet business superficially. Rent-a-pundits will link to a single article in a Microsoft Public Network magazine and will tell you that this is proof that the PN’s tablet proposal has concrete background. Sure. With all due respect to the Mark Azzopardi who has been interviewed in the article I have my doubts how much a Miss World style wish at the end of an article in a Microsoft promotional e-zine to boot can be taken as “background to a government policy” costing 25€ million of taxpayers’ money.

Not to mention of course the fact that if this were really the background then I would begin to worry about how the government already is looking into one particular company (Microsoft) and then I would begin to ask more questions – specifically who represents Microsoft in Malta and who would stand to gain from a deal that puts Microsoft’s learning programme in every school?

As for Labour. Don’t get me started. Their approach is even more bungled and transparent when it comes to the lack of planning. We are lumped with another “remedial class”. Do you remember all the bla bla about consultation with social partners? Do you remember how open Labour is even on the social networks? Well, have I got news from you. They were not listening. Had they been listening to the educators of this country they would have known the immense logistical mountain that faces the schools should the tablet in every hand become a reality. What of LSAs and teachers who suddenly have four or five kids in class with some error on their tablet? Does Labour know that there is no logisitical IT support for every school? From what I am told even LSA coordination is bad enough with government schools having one coordinator for ten schools. That’s without the tablets.

This is not a case of a country not being ready for development and progress. This is a case of a country not affording the truckloads of bullshit that are being heaped upon it daily in this election. The worst thing about it all is not that “Everybody lies” but rather that “everybody is eager to swallow the lies” so long as it’s their party feeding them the bull.

J’accuse challenges both parties to admit that their tablet promise is the result of the drunken euphoria and passion that this election has brought about. We challenge both parties to take back their empty promise and instead to promise a planned introduction of a proper IT project – one that takes into account all participants in the equation, all cogs in the wheel – like teachers for example.

Tablets for all? Thanks, but no thanks.