Norman Lowell to stand for election

Charles Sammut

Feb 12th 2008, 22:37

The way that comments here have degenerated into an MLP vs PN tirade clearly demonstrates the sorry state of local politics. The PN seems to have all but given up and have been reduced to resorting to "Don't vote AN/AD/Lowell because you'll get MLP."

However, the point I had made earlier and which was accidentally deleted was that illegal immigration is one of the main issues on people's minds and The Times seems to have overlooked including it in its poll. Whether this was simply an oversight or by design it amounts to a disservice to its readers and to politicians alike.

Some of the other 'issues' like the EU, lower taxation, accountability and education are not really issues at all. In fact at this moment 'change' is enjoying a 42.7% support. If this is anything to go by then the PN is looking at a humiliating defeat.

That will be the price of not respecting people's intelligence.

E Gatt

Feb 12th 2008, 21:20

No I did not mention Ninu Zammit and Tony Abela and Louis Galea and I'm sure there are others but I did not either mention Leo Brincat, Louis Buhagiar, Charles Buhagiar, Joe Mizzi and others and I am sure I would prefer the former than the latter.

Victor Laiviera

Feb 12th 2008, 15:02

I see that Mr Gatt did not care to mention Ninu (Zammit) or Tony (Abela).

I don't really blame him - do you?

E Gatt

Feb 12th 2008, 14:28

To Mr Laiviera again

Well, to say it again, I prefer even George, Francis, Austin, Michael and all of them than Alfred (Sant), Charles (Mangion), Michael (Falzon), Joe (Debono Grech), Anglu (Farrugia), Goerge (Vella), Joe (Brincat), Marie Louise (Coleiro), Helena (Dalli) etc. After all they were all part of the failed government of 1996 - 1998 and some of them were even part of the disastrous government of 1981 - 1987.

James Cauchi

Feb 12th 2008, 14:23

A couple of points:

1.) I consider it extremely short-sighted to vote for persons on the basis of the likelihood of election rather than upon the merit of their thoughts and/ or actions as individuals.

It is the partisan mentality that has kept the Maltese Islands a decade backwards in certain respects, and I frankly think that we could do worse than to act to break this deadlock.

Also note that by this reasoning, if one were to look back upon history (as has been suggested), one would note that both PN and MLP once upon a time were minority entities just as AD, ALDM, ALPHA, AN, IE and individual candidates (such as myself) are today.

The people have the weapon of change at their fingertips and it comes every five years. Their vote! If persons feel that the performance these past couple of decades has been less than acceptable then it is clearly irrational to place one's vote with the parties representative of the present and the past. They did do some good but in this scenario it becomes desirable for other entities to step in where they have not succeeded. In this regard the natural choice is to vote for minority entities (as listed above and then some) while shunning the majority parties.

'This' is the most effective collective strategy promotive of change in the Maltese Islands. The two parties are too comfortable with each other at this point in time and it would be in the people's interest to have individuals voted in that are representative of neither.

Then, perhaps incidents such as ratification of the the Lisbon treaty or the funding of parties from taxpayers' monies would stand a better chance of being democratically decided rather than pushed through gung ho by those too comfortable with each others' company.

2.) As a critical thinker I reject the notion that there are only two solutions to illegal immigration. Such is limiting and even within both of the supposed positions there exists a spectrum of possibilities upon either side of the supposed only choices 'and' there exist substantial areas of overlap. For example, who says that one cannot 'take them in' and then 'kick them out'?

However it needs to be acknowledged as a problem, and the PN government has thus-far swept it under the carpet, or would were it not for individuals with more gumption preventing such from transpiring in a total blackout on information on the matter.

I'd suggest that these entities are at least providing a long-term solution that shows some sensitivity to the Maltese people (are we not entitled to fair treatment also?).

David Mangion

Feb 12th 2008, 08:38

Mr. Joseph Aquilina, you are not correct on what you are stating. If AD or any other 3rd party, manages to elect a seat in parliament all the bi-party agreements will not apply. Verify what I'm stating and you'll see that I'm correct. So let us not be gullible and believe all that the 2 dinosaur parties are throwing at our intelligence.
Mr. Andrew Hili,-adjectives such as "our belived Gonzi" just shows how objective you can be in your reasoning. But let me just tell you that the manipulations of the PBS, go against what we, old 1980's PN supporters have always fought against. Freedom comes first and foremost, and Dr. Gonzi's team are manipulating it. Reason enough to think about change. With AD it will be a real one.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 12th 2008, 08:24

Mr Miceli, my reply was to your first sentence. Read it again.

As for the "improbability" of AD electing a candidate, well, if the scare tactics are successful, it would be a self-fulfilled prophecy. But that's democracy...the freedom to vote according to one's conscience and/or preference.

Does this mean that a vote for someone out of the traditional two parties means that Lowell (or anyone else) gets elected? Not necessarily - not unless enough people vote for Lowell.

People who give their number 1 or number 2 to AD do not do so simply because they want to elect another party (though that may be a consideration). They would do so because they agree with their policies.

Think about it...would a rational person equally vote for Lowell and AD, when they have very conflicting policies? I certainly think not. Would not giving the No.1 preference vote to the PN or MLP necessarily elect Lowell? Again, not necessarily - not unless enough people give their no.1 to Lowell. It's not as if AD's votes can be transferred to Lowell or vice-versa.

So no, a multi-party system would not guarantee anyone's place in parliament. Only sufficient votes would.

Andrew Hili

Feb 12th 2008, 00:50

This election is simply a battle of wits and name calling, which though part of the norm for us, is somewhat tedious! So I for one will be definitely forgetting all about AD, AN, Lowell, and whoever and just concentrate on the two main ones....namely PN and MLP. So putting everything aside I would simply suggest that eligible voters go back in time and do some research on what both parties had to offer to us and to Malta. This incidentally would more often than not show you that MLP always wanted to keep us in the dark ages with no progress whatsoever, and living our lives in pure terror. (I very well remember the days when one wouldn't dare say what colour he supported unless it was red!!!) Then there is PN, who lterally got us immediately out of MLP's dark ages, gave us all the progress we wanted, invested in us and our country and simply got us and will keep on getting us forward. PN, and especially our beloved Gonzi believe in us and our capacities and so made Malta creditable and put it on the map with all the others....NOW WE ARE SOMEBODY..., WE ARE KNOWN..., WE ARE PART OF A SECURE AND SAFE COMMUNITY!!! So after saying all this, all I ask is this: to whom are you really ready to give your treasured vote, is it to PN with a lifelong of success or to MLP with at least a 20 year history of pure and complete failure??? Choose wisely and with your future in mind.....I know...I did!!!!

Victor Laiviera

Feb 11th 2008, 22:25

Mr Gatt, you will only get Jesmond if you are lucky. If you are unlucky, you may get George - or even Francis!

E Gatt

Feb 11th 2008, 21:38

To Victor Laviera - I would rather vote Lawrence and I get Jesmond than vote Alfred Sant to get Alfred Sant!!!

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 11th 2008, 20:01

David, here in Malta it is nearly impossible to have a coalition government because of how the electoral system works. If there are 200 votes available and MLP gets 95 votes, PN 94 and AD gets the remaining 11 votes, then MLP will take the government of Malta even if PN and AD votes together make more than the votes taken by MLP! So AD is not talking sense when it says that if it gets a seat in parliament it will forge a coalition government with anyone who wins – because whoever wins does not need their seat, the Constitution will give the winner enough seats to rule Malta on their own! The same applies for Norman and AN. So before going to vote think – Who is the best to lead Malta between Dr. Gonzi and Dr. Sant? That is the true option you have in this election the way the rules are at this moment!

David Mangion

Feb 11th 2008, 16:56

Let us not be misled. If people are eager to change, they WILL change.
Local council election results are real proof that wherever there was no AD or any other variable, voters still voted for change by going to Labour. Do PN supporters want a 180 degree change or 90 degree one. Or are they so arrogant that they believe than no PN voter will ever opt to vote Labour? I'd rather have a coalition of AD/PN or AD/MLP than having to live through a 5 year(or more )MLP empire, or a PN arrogant government for all that matters.

Kris Scicluna

Feb 11th 2008, 15:40

I perfectly agree with Mauro. It is pretty evident that AD, AN and Norman Lowell all target PN voters, and the chances for any of these 3 to elect a candidate are very remote. What they might do (and what we should be aware of) is that together they might gather a number of votes that might be just enough for the PN to lose its majority. If the people want change, the PN is also giving the people the chance to vote for change as there is a good number of candidates contesting for the very first time. So those who want change can still get it by voting for the same party which has a vision for our country till 2015 even though it is presently in government!

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 11th 2008, 15:37

What do you want to do about illegal immigration? Because whether you like it or not there are only two options; Get them in or leave them out. The first one means giving them a chance to live, the second one means leaving them to drown! Which one of those options do you prefer?
Also; do you think the policy on illegal immigration varies between the two big parties? I think not, and the reason is that regardless of what Norman or Josie say, there are international agreements that have to be respected.

Charles Sammut

Feb 11th 2008, 12:57

All that Norman Lowell has to say is "I told you so."

Why are the 2 big parties keeping mum on illegal immigration?

Fleur Hili

Feb 11th 2008, 12:08

It seams that MLP see only what they want to see and hear only what they want to hear!!!
If I recall I saw all the PN candidates behind Prime Minister Gonzi yesterday.
Are you not capable of making a good argument ?

Mauro Miceli

Feb 11th 2008, 11:58

Mr. Cassar, I just stated what a multi-party system could lead to. In no way did I mention that policies of small parties are similar.

It is extremely clear, through their campaign, that AD that are only campaigning for PN votes but it is highly improbable that AD would elect a candidate to parliament.
Let's therefore use our vote correctly and vote for a party that will continue on the excellent work done. A party that has a vision, a party who has a mix of candidates bearing experience and the enthusiasm of fresh ideas

Victor Laiviera

Feb 11th 2008, 11:47

Whether the 'faces in the MLP are old or new, the fact remains that the MLP is showing them up front. With Labour, what you see is what you get.

The PN, on the other hand, is trying to keep all its ministers out of sight, hoping the electorate will forget they are there. All we get is Lawrence Gonzi surrounded by chidren.

But beware, for they are all still there, desperate to cling to their seats.

Vote Lawrence, get Jesmond.

James Cauchi

Feb 11th 2008, 11:20

I must strongly disagree with your sentiments Mr. Briffa. Leaving aside the fact that I'm contesting the 9th and 10th districts as an independent, the truth is that allowing fear to influence our votes is precisely part of the reason why Malta has remained backwards. Can anybody make a reasoned judgement when one is afraid of "the other party"?

Of course not.

Another problem, of course, is that many misinformed persons choose to spoil their vote or not vote at all under the false impression that it is a valid means of protest. The truth is that even if 33% of the population write "Peppi Azzopardi" on the ballot, not only will a government still be elected but Peppi Azzopardi would not be voted in - instead earning the voters nothing more than a brief reference to "33% of the votes which were invalid".

I'd suggest that the time for fear is over and an opportunity for change has come. The people yearn for change and the country needs it.

You can bring about change - easiest from outside the two-party system - just vote for the minorities, no matter who they may be, while neglecting the mainstream.

You can also bring about change within the two party system - just vote for the candidate rather than the colour of the party - votes for good quality candidates 'might' eventually subdue the 'party line'.

But in any case - Vote for change - Vote minority!

Good luck to Norman Lowell btw.

Joseph Briffa

Feb 11th 2008, 11:02

Well said Mario!!.... let's not waste our votes on AD, AN or whoever. If we do, we'll ensure a Labour victory with its attendant consequences. We all had more than a taste of these consequences in 1970s, 1980s and 1996/98 and we all know what socialist bliss is all about. How can a new beginning be born from the same old faces with the same ideas? It's absurd ...

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 11th 2008, 10:36

Mr Miceli is assuming that those who would wish for a multi-party system would go for anyone, as long as it is multi-party.

This makes as much sense as saying that those who want a two-party parliament would have anyone in government, just as long as it's a two-party parliament.

Ben Grech

Feb 11th 2008, 09:35

You're right Mauro,

Mauro Miceli

Feb 11th 2008, 08:32

All those who believe that we should have a multi-party system in Parliament, are now saying that it would be healthy to have this man in parliament? Let's use our vote wisely and elect a party that has a vision for our country till 2015, a party that has obtained a record number of investments for this country and can proudly say that we have the highest ever number of people in employment.

Christian Peregin

Feb 11th 2008, 00:04

Oh goodie! All we needed was another right-winger in this election. This election is turning out to be very promising.... Wake me up when 2012 comes....