Alfred Sant is right of course when he says that the media are slanted against the Labour Party.

He has every right, and reason too, to say so.

And the media have every right to be slanted as they see fit. Their loyalty is to their readers, or listeners, not to the politicians, the political parties, or anyone else.

If The Times, for one, is pro-Europe, it could not honestly subscribe to Dr Sant's anti-EU membership policies. The Times never made any secret of where its sympathies lay. And stood up for them. Just as Dr Sant stood up for his.

Dr Sant is also very right to say that there are reporters, and commentators, who do not treat the Labour Party fairly. There are good journalists, together with sycophants, some inflated egos, those who do not know any better, and independent spirits, who pay for their independent thinking.

But that is the sum total of how far Dr Sant is right about the media. In most everything else regarding the media, he is wrong.

He was wrong to treat the media the way he did, no matter the provocation. He should have known better. And he was wrong to apply the boycott weapon.

He was wrong to claim that because of the media's bias Labour's message did not get through in the referendum and electoral campaigns.

The fact is that it was the message that was flawed. And everyone saw it as such. That is how far the message got through. Everyone saw its glaring flaws. Dr Sant was comparing "partnership", which had yet to be negotiated - if that were possible - with "membership", negotiations on which had been concluded, and which was there, for everyone's dissection, in all its gore and glory.

His was a pig in a poke offer, if ever there was one. And quite clearly seen widely as such. But though in Malta pork sells well, no one loves to see the pig sties, or smell them.

The worst smell comes from the political establishment. It is overpowering. Look at the overwhelming power the party leaders enjoy, and wield. If there are sycophants and egos in the media corps, there are proportionately more of them among the politicians in the House of Representatives.

Was there no Labour MP who disagreed with his leadership's interpretation of the referendum result? Or with the way the party was dealing with the EU issue? Was the Nationalist Party parliamentary group unanimously for the EU? Didn't anyone have any doubts at all? No qualms whatsoever, about the leap into the infinite?

Would it have been so bad for the doubters on either side to have expressed their views, in public? But there was no whimper, from either side, against party policy. Their bacon was too precious to risk. Anyone who rocked the boat knew one would be thrown overboard. So they remained silent.

I don't want to be misunderstood. Our MPs are worthy people. I do not doubt their probity. They are no worse than the best of us in most things. But the limit of their worthiness is so short when it comes to this sort of thing - when it comes to standing up to be counted, putting their electoral chances on the line.

At least in the media there are a few who think independently. If there are any in the political class who do so, they have yet to make themselves known. Go on, think. Do you know of one?

And yet, the politicians often want to teach journalists about fairness and uprightness. And use their inordinate power, subtly perhaps, to influence them against being totally fair and totally upright.

This state of affairs is undoubtedly the fault also of the parties' supporters, not just the politicians'. If electors will not vote for independent-minded candidates, they will elect sycophants, and those who ingratiate themselves with others.

If MPs who find themselves in conflict with their party do not find the support of electors against the party - when they deserve it, of course - they are likely to eschew that kind of difficulty. And the country gets what it deserves.

Only one MP that I know of, as I write, fought his party. For all the wrong reasons. Dom Mintoff deserves the Labour Party's ostracism he is getting.

Politicians just do not know, or seem not to know, how to go about making a public stand, of any sort, against their own party, or leader - there just is no expertise, because the happening is such a rarity. They are so inept at standing up to their leader, for instance, that I am willing to write off John Attard Montalto as a leadership contender. I never saw anyone so consummately botch his leadership aspirations.

If it is true that Dr Attard Montalto has Mr Mintoff's backing, I would think that the lawyer jumped the gun when he made his intentions known. He cannot have thought out the strategy - he should have consulted Mr Mintoff for that. The old croc would have told him right.

There should have been waves, of tidal proportions, in the wake of Dr Attard Montalto's announcement, following the electoral humiliation. Instead, the mild rumpus his inept bid created has died down completely, and instead of trying to guess who will be Dr Sant's successor, people are wondering if Dr Sant will stay on.

I do not think he will.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.