Conflicting messages

Few changes have been apparent in the Labour media following the election that led to a 'new reality' that Labour must live with. Forget the notable exception of Manwel Cuschieri no longer telling Labour supporters what is good for them to know. Follow the news services being dished out on Super One Radio and TV, and you will conclude that the Labour 'news agency' is still at the same old game.

Two recent glaring examples come to mind - the way One News reported the news of the second La Salle contract awarded to Malta Drydocks and the way they reported a recent speech made by Finance Minister John Dalli during a conference on pension reforms.

One News' report of the La Salle contract alleged that this was in shameless breach of the Constitution (bi ksur sfaccat tal-Kostituzzjoni), a report that was in striking contrast with the comments on the contract made by the newly-elected MLP Deputy Leader for Parliamentary Affairs, Charles Mangion.

In his comments, Dr Mangion referred to the issue cautiously, saying that the MLP had its reservations as to whether the La Salle job at the Drydocks was acceptable from a Constitutional point of view. While Dr Mangion was pouring oil over troubled waters, One News was setting the oil alight!

In the case of Mr Dalli's speech, One News reported the minister's point that the pensions issue was not one that can be solved by compromises, as if the minister had said that this was not a matter on which consultations should be made! Incidentally Dr Mangion also spoke during this conference but One News preferred to highlight Tony Zarb's speech in the same conference and presenting it as if it was the antithesis of Mr Dalli's speech - which it was not - while Dr Mangion's speech was relegated to the tailpiece of the news service on the conference.

What is there behind this evident contrast between the MLP's media and the new attitude that, theoretically, the MLP was to adopt after the general election fracas and the appointment of two new deputy leaders?

Why is the MLP sending these mixed and conflicting messages? Did no one give new instructions to One News? Do the people at One News know how to get out of the mould in which they were set for over ten years? Has Alfred Sant's media machine turned into a monster that cannot be controlled, just as in the past the MLP could not control its violent element?

In his more recent confessions, MLP general secretary Jimmy Magro has been explaining that the MLP has different structures involved in its decision making process. One of these, he rightly pointed out, was the 'leadership'. Before the elections no conflicting messages where coming from MLP headquarters, whatever decision-making structure prevailed.

The situation now is different. Consider the Labour MPs who spoke and what they said in Parliament during the second reading debate on the bill ratifying Malta's EU accession treaty.

Dr Sant's speech was hyped by the MLP and the GWU media. Maltastar.com called it a 'historic' speech, apparently forgetting that every time he speaks about Europe, the MLP media dub it a 'historic' speech. He made a 'historic' speech in Parliament during the debate on the motion enabling the Maltese Parliament to send its representatives at the Convention on the European Constitution, and another 'historic' speech during the debate on the motion calling for the holding of the referendum on EU accession.

Dr Sant's speech on Monday was nothing of the sort. It was practically 'back to square one', except for his admission that the election result meant that a definite decision was taken by the Maltese on EU accession, while he again insisted that 'partnership' had won the referendum!

The speeches made by Anglu Farrugia and Marie Louise Coleiro were mostly negative while the speeches made by Leo Brincat and Evarist Bartolo were more conciliatory, both in tone and in essence.

Mr Brincat is shadowing foreign affairs and Mr Bartolo is shadowing European affairs and it was obvious that they should be among the Opposition's speakers in the debate. But why were Dr Farrugia and Ms Coleiro chosen to be two of five speakers on the bill? Was this move simply a sop to assuage their disappointment at not convincing the rest of the MLP Parliamentary Group to ask for a division?

The fact that neither Dr Mangion nor his predecessor as deputy leader for Parliamentary Affairs, George Vella, spoke during this debate while Dr Farrugia and Ms Coleiro did, is indeed intriguing.

Dr Mangion's important position as Dr Sant's deputy in Parliament surely warranted his participation in such an important debate. Dr Vella was not only the MLP's spokesman on foreign affairs during the last ten years. He is now a 'special consultant' to Dr Sant and the 'senior' member of the MLP's delegation to the European Parliament.

I understand that Dr Vella left the House when Dr Sant was quibbling over technicalities before the actual debate started on Monday and his presence there during the three-session debate was hardly noticeable.

The problem is that the MLP has frittered away its chance to make a fresh start. Instead it has taken a half-baked measure, retaining its leader with all his baggage and having him 'work' with two new deputies who have no past mistakes haunting them.

This conflicting situation is the reason why Labour is sending so many conflicting messages.