PLPN

Your politics are ruining my country (and its future)

“Futur fis-sod” they say, or “Malta taghna lkoll”. Slogans, they’re strong and they’re loud. They get repeated like some mantra gone wrong and woe betide anybody who dare criticise any of their darlings because you are immediately tagged as an undercover agent for “the other side”. Malta’s very own version of McCarthyism has now polluted the airwaves and the ether. We’re only a few days in the campaign and quite frankly the debate between dumb and dumber has only made us numb and number.

I dared praise Ranier Fsadni’s article in the Times only to find my status host to a mass of foam mouthed angry mob stirrers – angry because apparently Ranier has not been equally magnanimous in his criticism of the way things are done. Quite frankly I do not believe that I need to defend Ranier but I rather like the point he made – which remains a good point independently of Ranier. His point was simply that the media should be more demanding of our politicians. The sly fox did not come down in favour of one party or another – he simply put it to the reader that “trust” is not enough in these matters.

Raphael Vassallo plastered line after line of research that he came across in his line of investigation. Which is fine. What I cannot understand is how some of the flaws that people like Raphael point out suddenly become ok because, you know what, even the nationalists have been guilty of committing them. So that’s all right isn’t it? Fast tracking EIA plans? Can be done because MEPA does it already. Oh goody goody.

I don’t know where to start any more. The parties have even got a monopoly on how they roll out their plans and projects. I criticised Labour for being too shallow on Gozo – and praised the PN for having concrete proposals. Apparently Labour’s proposals on Gozo are pleasures yet to come. Who cares if the plan for the elections means that you will only know what Joseph Muscat will do to create jobs on the sister island come the last week of campaigning? Which is a load of bollocks. AD are supposed to roll out their FULL ELECTION PROPOSALS tomorrow. Do we really have to wait for the PLPN to drip their electoral proposals slowly like some form of chinese torture?

And one final thing. There are way too many sudden declarations in favour of this policy or that for my liking. The parties have to make their mind up on that one too. Either their policies are a well thought of step by step process built within a holistic framework or they are just being invented as the campaign unfurls.

Which also leads me to this sudden discovery by other pundits of our greatest sickness. I saw that Daphne Caruana Galizia the other day was complaining about the Maltese mentality that “having an opinion automatically means that it’s right”. Well thank Jupiter that the message that we have been drilling from these columns for aeons is finally coming through. Maltese relativism combined with this dumbing down of the nation is a direct by product of the PLPN vision of politics. Joseph Muscat has put this development on a fast track with his “m’hemmx ilwien u kuluri” , and “il-Malti jahdem u jistinka allura bilfors il-progetti jirnexxu”. It’s a project, it’s Maltese and it will create work because he says so. No questions asked.

This is the Brave New Political world for which various rent-a-pundits and sudden activists are suddenly foaming at the mouth. There are those who will take whatever their party says like it’s the bible truth. Others are just rabidly egging on the team that has to get into power if only because twenty-five years have hurt and you cannot trust the conniggling bastards in blue. The world begins and ends at the feet of Norman Vella and Peppi Azzopardi and the ridiculously sterile BA guidelines. And if the leader bows out of a Xarabank appointment then let’s make a fuss of it… because Xarabank taghna lkoll.

Their politics is ruining the prospects of this country and its future.

Resigned to reason

The “Christmas Truce” has gone up in ashes with a Ho! Ho! Ho! and without so much as a by your leave. It was obvious from the start (as we had predicted) that the two parties would be unable to contain the inertia of the electoral swing. The 9th of March has a gravitational pull of its own that knows no truces and acknowledges no pauses. Even before the big Anglu Farrugia bomb had fallen into the atmosphere like a big party pooper, the two parties were still heavily active on the promotional front but nothing really changes there.

Anglu’s resignation promises to be much more than a blip on the “truce” agenda. Labour have been forced to hold an extraordinary council meeting between Christmas and New Year. No time to unwrap the presents and no time for Luciano to regale us with the latest news from under the Christmas tree at Casa Busuttil (Labour). Instead Labour will be cooped up voting for their new Deputy Leader for Parliamentary Affairs. Which is quite a bitch really. In the first instance, Parliament is all but wrapped up now and Labour could have provided an interim leader without having to go through the pains of an expedited deputy leadership campaign. The post itself – as was the case with the PN – is not an issue really. Labour’s deputies have been useless props all along – causing more harm than damage (and you cannot say we didn’t tell you so before this happened) – so this is nothing to do with the post per se.

So what IS happening? Why has Labour so evidently gone for this step? Let us see what we can read in them while the facts are still fresh:

1) The Truce

The run up to the truce was an all round victory to the nationalists. Poll gaps were softened and thanks to the shenanigans of Anglu Farrugia (and the complicity of TVM) , the last memory before Christmas would definitely be the bumbling deputy’s antics on Xarabank. Not good, Labour would say. What Labour needed was not a truce but a “casus belli” – an excuse to reset its train on tracks. Ironically Anglu’s perceived moment of triumph over Simon – the very appeal case of which Simon was absolutely ignorant – turned out to be his cup of hemlock. Comments made by Anglu later in the week would become the excuse for Labour to dump excess baggage and to keep the momentum going. Forget Santa… this Christmas the people will have “a new deputy leader”. It was a bit like wishing for an electric car racing track and getting a woolly jumper instead. (Ghax dak ghandek bzonn).

2) The Resignation

I’m quite sure that whoever is supposed to be planning Labour’s campaign must be believing that they have carried out the smartest of moves. In one fell swoop Labour rids itself of an inconvenient bungler, keeps the electoral momentum going and has paved the way for the election of a deputy leader who is capable of returning the swings from that supposed Goliath called Simon. Wrong. We do not need to wait for the election of the new deputy to find out why. First of all Labour has shown once again that it is reactive and never proactive. They allow the Nationalist Party to dictate the rules of the game once the election is in full swing. No matter how much Joseph twists and turns about a “culture of resignation” he will never sell it through. The real reason is that Labour needed a replacement and they needed it fast. In falling for this trap they have allowed the discussion to shift into the barren (and relatively irrelevant) land of Deputy Leaderships. Again J’accuse asks: Since when do Deputy Leaders or Vici Kapi run the country?

3) The Culture of Resignation

Yes. Labour do have a point to win here, albeit a very minor one. Nobody is kidding anyone – this was not an automatic resignation by Anglu Farrugia. He was asked to resign and as we have seen from his reaction and letter, he was not exactly pleased with the result and showed so clearly. He DID resign though – which is the point I mentioned earlier. Muscat still CAN move his people around with relative ease something that Lawrence Gonzi plainly could not do throughout this legislature. It’s a damp victory of course since I am quite sure that the mechanics of this system depends very much on whether you are in government or still desperately aspiring to get there. Farrugia was not in the same position as a Pullicino Orlando or a Debono to mention the obvious two.

It is also about a culture and approach to resignations. I still cannot understand Labour’s fully. On the one hand they are rather cynical and are prepared to break up Christmas in order to realign their electoral plans. On the other hand this resignation turns out to be weakened and diluted by Joseph Muscat’s offer to Farrugia that “the door is still open” for him. How exactly Joseph? What does that mean to us idiots who still believe that a party candidate is accepted when it is clear that his opinions and ideas conform with that of the party ticket? It’s the “anything goes” mentality really – and it also goes to show why the resignation was more about replacing Anglu than about removing him.

4) Teamwork

A small word about teamwork. Joseph got to kick out Anglu without too much squealing and protesting. Labour is taking a risk (whether it is calculated though is another thing) here. An internal election in this period is either going to be a doctored affair – with the anointed one already chosen and pushed – which will make it look fake. It could also be an acrimonious affair that exposes certain faults in the party. The PN media have already started pushing on the weak link of Jason Micallef (as though electoral district rivalries were non existent in the PN camp). Joseph Muscat has been forced to declaim one of his usual tautologies: after a break from promising the eradication of poverty (St. Francis will not be proud) he came back with the assertion that “anything that the PN says is a lie”. If I were the PN Communications office I would issue a quick festive press release in the light of this statement: “Joseph Muscat ragel tal-ostra“.

5) The Nationalists

They’ve definitely been thrown by this sudden earthquake. They might smile while gritting their teeth at any mention of the culture of resignation that so plagued them during the last legislature but that will be a small price to pay. What they have to hope is that the new deputy leader from Labour HQ is not a clone of Simon – which he can very well be. Bar the fact that such a deputy will inevitably have militated against membership of the European Union (or protested mildly) we can expect another person with experience in the EU – an MEP. They’d be surprised at how fast the Labour supporters and the ditherers might warm up to a Louis Grech or Edward Scicluna di turno. Simon’s call until now has been “to bring something new” to Maltese politics since he always worked in Brussels (although he DID write the last electoral manifesto for the PN). Well, Labour might just be about to clone Gonzi’s new toy and in the local world of zero sum assessments it might not be too long before the “Simon move”  will have been replicated.

So the nationalists are right about the Simon effect. Anglu Farrugia did end up resigning after that ill-fated debate on Xarabank. It was not because of any kind of outstanding performance by Simon though. This was a delayed reaction by Labour who has realised very late in the day how badly one of its deputy leaders was effecting its points at the polls. The truth is that Anglu should never have been on the team – or at least he should have been hidden smartly in the same manner the PN hides its more embarrassing (but vote promising) candidates.

Conclusions

There’s much more to be read and seen in this but these are the first impressions. The main certainty we have is that this Christmas will be tinged in red with a couple of PN sideshots every now and then just to keep us in the spirit. The early impression I get is that Labour was pushed to immediate action because of the results that it was seeing the polls – which can only mean that the great divide is no longer so great. It also means that the next campaign promises to be much much more than a simple walkover.

 

That inexistent opposition

Anglu Farrugia’s smile should haunt Labour diehards for years to come. I say should because I am convinced that they are probably in the throes of jubilation and singing his praises at how his performance far outshone that of Simon Busuttil. Unfortunately it is only those blinded by the wrong kind of passion for politics who will have seen anything of value in Labour’s bumbling deputy leader. His performance was catastrophic and whoever coached him must have been tearing out his or her hair from the first minute.

It has nothing to do with Simon Busuttil and whatever performance he put on. As I said in yesterday’s post, Anglu Farrugia would be capable of losing a debate with himself. He is completely at loss in 99% of the subjects brought up and it is evident that he can only sound convincing to ‘kerchief waving constituents gathered at a coffee morning. How many more times must he be forced to face the agony of prime time television only to squirm and faffle the moment anything technical or specific is brought up.

The Living Wage? More like living hell. The moment Anglu attempts to describe the economic reality of the living wage and what it is about he makes it sound like a cross between viagra and self-raising flour. He had absolutely nothing to go on – and were it not for the PN bungle with regards to taxing the minimum wage I have a strong suspicion that Labour candidates would have absolutely no other example of taxes that would be changed to alleviate what they call the burdens on the less wealthy.

Which is where I have to speak about the man who sat on the sofa and who had approximately a quarter of an hour to have his say compared to the interminable 45 minutes in which Anglu Farrugia gave us his little bit of circus. Carmel Cacopardo’s interventions were not only incisive and clear but they were relevant. No theatrics, no faux rhetoric or time wasted on personal arguments – straight to the point. Cacopardo spoke of policy. He had questions, he had criticisms and above all he had solutions.

It is such a pity that Carmel Cacopardo and his party will once again be a victim of the winner-takes-all politics that is so useful to the PLPN. You’ll see how on the eve of the election Simon’s nationalist party will be busy unearthing the ghost of Franco and instability in order to scare votes away from electing the third party. It will be too late then to explain that this third party has concrete ideas and would stick to a coalition on terms of principle not for the sake of power. A coalition government would be the stuff that dreams are made of – with a serious AD keeping the arrogant arms of PN in check.

What would be more realistic in a world where voters vote with their minds and not with their hearts would be AD winning over the cape of opposition party from a Labour party that is devoid of ideas and that has become a veritable farce of a party – all slogans and no substance. In a real world the 62,000 persons living below the poverty line would be voting AD into parliament and making sure that they get a strong say in the opposition. In a real world that is…

but this is the world of Anglu Farrugia, the Where’s Everybody aquarium and endless spin that will do its utmost to make a very serious party as AD seem as irrelevant as Franco Debono.

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle.

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.

Swing!

A long weekend away from the hustle and bustle of politics is not going to stop “everything” from happening. Try as you may to minimise access to wifi you still get whispers of the goings-on beyond the breakwater at Sète or the Place de la Comedie in Montpellier. Comedic much of it turned out to be – particularly the extension of the simulated obsession with All Things Franco. I get the nagging feeling that the obsession is “simulated” and forms part of the general distraction that has fortuitously blown in the PN government’s direction since Dalligate exploded. It’s a bit like a circus with a multiplicity of acts (if Silvio Zammit will pardon the reference) uncannily well placed to become a modern day “panem et circenses” for the easily distracted multitude.

Where to begin? The Debono-Calleja spat might have hogged the limelight of the absurdly surreal to such an extent as to rudely eclipse Malta’s feeble attempt at approximating the Obama – Romney debates. Somehow the gossip circle and the politically amateur auras that pervade Maltese savoir-faire manage to keep the likes of Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (and in other circles Emmy Bezzina) floating at the centre of attention in much the same manner as  undesirable pieces of excrement suddenly turn up floating close to a beach and draw the attention away from all other forms of beach-side frolic. Lest you forget J’accuse has long pronounced a verdict of “irrelevant” on the side-shows that are the backbench relics – dedicating columns of opinion space to their antics and “ideas” is just a waste of time.

Back to the “main parties” then. Yes the ones who happily insist on ignoring the blatant need for an electoral law reform and engage in Punch and Judy tactics on such issues as “voters abroad” or “balance of information in public media” while gainfully exploiting every nook and loophole designed for their greater comfort. It turns out that the Gonzi – Muscat debate was anything but a blast. The feeling I get was that the experienced PM got one better than Muscat but that this victory was achieved in much the same way as Mourinho’s stellar team would win matches – entrenched in defence in the hope that one long ball to a speedy long-legged attacker could do the trick. Apparently the long ball came early with some exchange about a Brasilian company that did or did not set up quarter in Malta.

First things first. What emerged clearly from the reporting of the debate is that both parties insist on keeping the level of discussion strictly away from presenting ideas and plans for the future and to confine the chitchat to “You are ugly” and “Your family stinks” sort of behaviour as best manifested by the billboards. James Debono expressed my exact sentiments when he described Joseph Muscat’s attitude to electoral plans as an “I show you mine you show me yours” approach. Drawing parallels to kindergarten banter is fast becoming a cliché in itself but this is what our political intelligentia have to offer us in 2012 ladies and gentlemen.

In a way it should have been obvious. If we want everything to change then everything must remain the same. It’s as old as the hills in the Mediterranean. I read about Alaric, a Goth or Wisigoth, who had decided to take on the Roman regions of Narbonne and had grand plans to obliterate the memory of Rome and replace it with some Goth equivalent (at the time not exclusively linked to black make up). When he noticed it would be a tad difficult he opted for the Med option – he took the place of the Romans and acted as though nothing ever changed. That was in the 7th century AD. It still works today. The battleground for a symbol of change has never been so wide – and so confusing. On the one hand you have Prince Simon the anointed one (in yet another pointless distraction) exclaiming how yes – change is necessary and he is the one to bring it about. On the other you have Joseph who is trying hard to explain that we need to rid ourselves of the nationalist scourge but at the same time he is at pains to point out that the switchover to his party will be painless : almost as though no change has really happened.

Contradictions? You’ll get plenty of them. We still have not spoken about Tonio Borg but we’ll leave that for another time. Today is the day we should be focusing on the US where Republicans are hoping to swing the vote from the agent of change himself. Reporting from across the pond has it that this has been very much of a déja-vu campaign. Both the GOP and the Democrats are recycling old speeches. I strongly suspect that this has much to do with an increasingly unfathomable and volatile electorate. The post-crisis world has shaken liberal democracy at its very foundations – it is not in trouble but some major tweaking might be in order to re-establish the age old Hobbesian covenant upon new terms and criteria.

Representation is not what it used to be and the represented are beginning to take note… (finally I would add). Last night we had a vivid exchange between two MPs. One ended up asking the other (sarcastically, we hope) whether he had inherited parliament from his aunt. Ironically we should be asking the question to both our main parties – or at least reminding them that parliament is not theirs to own but ours to entrust.

In the end… all that matters might be the swing.

 

This order of the house

Random thoughts on parliamentary democracy.

1. October 9th. Luxembourg’s parliament reopens after the summer recess as does Belgium’s senate. L’essentiel reports that 30% of the members have sat in parliament for over 15 years. A commentary on Belgian radio remarked that it will be a slow period of work for the Belgian lawmakers marked by a series of long delays that will hamper any new progress on important legislation. Local elections are expected to give more bargaining clout to the nationalistic Flemish movements.

2. Yesterday’s session in the Maltese parliament was overshadowed by the need for Speaker Michael Frendo to consult the Standing Orders in order to rule about a motion of adjournment related to the Opposition’s pressing need to discuss a shelved plan for the privatisation of the management of public car parks. The Hon. Franco Debono also seemed rather concerned that his motion of no confidence in Minister Austin Gatt should be given the priority that he believes it deserves.

3. Much high talk was wasted on the ether as a few political aficionados spoke of a crumbling democracy, a government addicted to power or an opposition that busied itself with causing trouble. A road of bollocks, I hasten to add because, to corrupt the words of Trapattoni “bad democracy it is when the will of the majority as expressed in parliament is not respected”. The day of the showdown has not come yet. The car park excuse is not working wonders for either government or opposition. Government loses points for the image being portrayed of a decision maker that does not involve the parts (councils) and ignores issues of subsidiarity (Mosta Council, Rabat Council and more would rightly expect more involvement). The opposition has had its eagerness for power come what may unmasked by insisting on discussing plans that have been shelved.

4. Some signs of a revision of Opposition strategy in today’s papers. Joseph Muscat distanced himself from the Debono No Confidence motion. A sly move. It could go some way in abating the growing perception that Muscat is just as power hungry as the man who is supposedly clutching desperately to the seat of power. We’re in no hurry to present such a motion – said Muscat. What he did not obviously commit to is whether his party would vote in line with Franco should such a motion see the light of day before the budget. Given that the motion is based on the spurious car park issue then the holier than thou approach could be hoist by Franco’s petard.

5. Petards and fireworks is what the current government is specialising in. J’accuse remains of the opinion that government on life support will be ultimately perceived as a weak government. The summer plans should have culminated in a Sturm und Drang announcement of an election around the time of the reconvening of parliament. The key here was initiative. By taking the initiative and redrawing the battle ground (including the erasing of Franco, JPO and any dithering backbencher such as Mugliett) the PN would have regained precious ground in the eyes of public perception. Instead by hanging on to the power and leaving gaping questions as to the fabric and workings of democratic representation among Joe Public the PN is fast losing the perception game.

6. New issues such as the lease/sale of St. Philip’s (well documented by Carmel Cacopardo on his blog) or the retaining of the title of ambassador by Richard Cachia Caruana (what the hell were they thinking? noblesse obligée?) will not help settle this dust cloud of confusion. The failure to take the initative and the misplaced trust in the magic effect of such things as the 5+5 conference might be rued later on when the campaign really hots up (will it ever?). Furthermore the PN tantrums with regard to the Broadcasting Authority decisions regarding Public Broadcasting programmes will not help sweeten their image either. Meanwhile AD continues to be consistently ignored by the paladins of the future of journalism on PBS’ main programmes.

“Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.” – P.J. O’ Rourke