Of prandial indigestion!

I would have imagined that after a 10-week marathon of intense campaigning, the people are totally sick and tired of politics or, better still, politicians. Then I thought again. They are not I concluded or so it would seem. So, rather than take a back seat, as I swore I would, and remain cool and relaxed, I have decided to, once again, enter the media fray and share my most humble thoughts.

Why is it that every time Alfred Sant writes his Wednesday column, I have to search the Webster (dictionary!) for the meaning of the heading he chooses? It is so frustrating.

More so when, having to investigate further to discover any sort of connection between the title and the contents of the article, I remain totally lost at sea! Is it possible I am the only one suffering this weekly predicament?

Last Wednesday, he chose the fantastic title "prandial". For the benefit of those readers who did not bother to look it up, as I am sure there are many, this adjective derives from a Latin word, dating back to 1820, prandium, meaning late breakfast or luncheon (of or relating to a meal). Was I any wiser? No.

So I tried to figure out what he meant with the following statement: "Despite the veneer of pious declarations about democracy, the practice of local democratic politics remains very much anchored in the prandial concerns of partisanship: when, where and how best to get one's lunch or dinner..."

Did I understand the concept or connection? No, I did not. All I thought was that The Times is a reputable family daily and was supposedly an effective means of communication in English. Why, then, does Dr Sant insist on using such airy-fairy language to send a message out to the average citizen?

May I, on a personal level, suggest to this colleague columnist of mine to stretch his imagination, reach down a level or two, remove his blinkers and re-examine his sentences objectively, as if he were a man in the street, albeit an English speaking one! Then he might know what I'm on about.

After reading his columns I always feel the urge to scream out: "Alfred Sant, your articles are, at times, excellent. They are well researched and, occasionally, they even make some sense. But seriously do you have to opt for such high-browed language and far-fetched titles?"

If my opinion could influence him in any way I would, for starters, recommend that he keeps his feet firmly on the ground and write plain and simple English. Furthermore, I would insist he gives me some credit when I claim that the Pr... repeatedly appearing on the top of his weekly piece is seriously prejudicing the substance of the article, which follows. Ever heard of prandial indigestion anyone?

He has spent a career combing dictionaries for words starting with the famous PR abbreviation and perhaps his gimmicks have raised a smile or two over the years. But, I ask, did they win the author or the party he leads any votes?

Dare I suggest to Dr Sant to be more creative, innovative and to, at least, change his literary, if not political, style, once and for all? This uninspired and tedious characteristic of his has now bored us to tears. As for the substance of the piece "Prandial" I will just utter... look who's talking!

Whose professed policies "remain very much anchored" to the past? But that is another story.

Unlike others, I do not have the time, the inclination or, perhaps, the acumen to preach to the Labour Party and its leader what went and is still going very wrong. Neither will I presume to tell them what they should do; there is a whole queue clambering to do just that.

I am, though, tempted to add that politics, at times, is best not left to some politicians!