The way the aftermath of the Labour defeat in the general election and the resulting prelude to the election of a new Labour leader are turning out, is quite remarkable. Where there was unexplained darkness, many are seeing the light. Where there is fairly clear light, a lot of darkness is being shed amid a repetition of a cynical game of spin.

With the by-elections still to be held so that Parliament can be convened, various Labour personalities are showing unmistakably that they had long been aware where the party was going wrong. It was not appealing enough to the middle classes. Easy grinning was no substitute for the politics of penetration. The overall line was too aggressive, at times frightening. It misread the signals the electorate was transmitting. Assistance from those prepared to give a hand at personal sacrifice was scorned.

Even the repeated emphasis on zero tolerance to corruption is being questioned.

More than where it will end, one should ask why did it begin now. What was the level and state of internal strategic discussion within the Malta Labour Party like? Were the faults so obvious in the aftermath of defeat pointed out before the votes were cast? Were they brushed aside? Or was there god-like reluctance to listen to and heed sound warnings from mere mortals? Or - more remarkably still - was there near-total silence, complete acquiescence to the line decided upon and shot by the few who held the sceptre of power in their hands?

Perhaps there was a mix of all of that. Whatever happened, it transmits one clear lesson - it had better not happen again, or Labour will be setting itself up for yet another defeat at the next general election, and hang what the local and euro elections may say in the meanwhile.

More than looking back in anger, or walk about blindfolded to reality, one should learn from experience with humility and resolve to take on board all the lessons of 2003 - lost referendum, lost election, and of 2008 - doing the near-impossible by losing that election too.

Going by the revelations made so far, the MLP needs sound penetrating policies, not grins switched on and off as if in some starlet revue.

It needs to reach out also to people who are not part of the hard core grass roots.

It needs to have all available hands on deck, sailing a boat which feels comfortable in euro waters, though it will always put Malta's interests first; which also feels comfortable having different, and at times differing, passengers on board, though without losing its soul and what ought to be its distinguishing marks. And flair. To be reaching such obvious conclusions now, rather than yesterday, is more remarkable than unbelievable. But, there it is - better late than never.

The MLP is lucky to have a remarkable number of people ready to pick up the chalice of the leadership. It contains not a little poison in it.

For one thing, a hard, hard core is still not showing thorough understanding of why the party lost when it should have won, even had it been led by the man on the other side of the moon.

The new leader, whoever he or she may be, and whether elected by the narrow constituency of the delegates, or by the democratically wider base of the membership, will have to shake up any of those around him who have not woken up to grim reality to realise why Labour lost, and so why it needs to adopt progressive, penetrating politics if it is to broaden its support base and stand a fighting chance at the next election.

He/she will have to deal with the financial state of the party, re which the word parlous is said to be too complimentary.

He/she will have to signal unmistakably that it would be of no use to move forward with millstones round the neck, with dead albatross on the shoulders, however broad they might be. Bluntly, the signal will have to state the old machine and its crude machinations will have to be dismantled. A new machine will have to be structured, one built across allegiances, yes, to reach out for unity, but staffed with people selected because they think, speak and make sense, rather than because of their allegiances.

None of that contains the glimmer of an original thought. It is so obvious it should not need to be said at all. It has to be said because the obvious is never as obvious as it ought to be. And also because there are clear signs that embedded powers within the party structure are already trying to close it up, to stifle a free exchange by the would-be leaders with the broad wide world outside the caucus which is part of the old, creaking machinery.

It needs to be said because the Labour press are not saying it. Those from within the national executive and the Parliamentary group who have belatedly spoken out about what they know was wrong with and missing from the election campaign all did so in the non-Labour media. If that is not remarkable as well as incredible, even dogs as long in the political tooth as yours truly must wonder what is.