The Local Council elections, held at the same time as the MEP poll, have given the same overall result as the latter: the Nationalists got well and truly bashed, battered and be-smashed (couldn't think of another b-word to signify being pulverized) I'm no number cruncher, as I believe I have pointed out on a number of occasions without anyone leaping to my defence to say that I am, in fact, one of the best there are (presumably because I'm not, and that not by a long chalk) but it seems that the same thing happened in the LC contest as did in the MEP, there were less Labour voters moved to stay at home than there were PN ones.
The thing is, though, that while there was a definite "I'm not going to vote and I don't care who knows it" ground-swell, there was a bit of a converse effect because of the MEP election, which meant that though the turn-out was low, it was actually a bit higher. This didn't change the bottom-line for the Nationalists, who got thrashed to within an inch of their political lives, but it did mean that in what looks like a peculiar phenomenon, a number of councils changed colour.
Precisely what this means in national terms is, of course, the grand total of not a heck of a lot at all, but in microcosmic terms, there is a definite indication that when voters take a look at what people have done for them and their immediate surroundings, there's not much to stop them from dumping the incumbents and choosing someone else to have a go at local governance. The fact that from what I can see this took place where Labour was running the Council is indicative of plenty, though there's not much comfort in that on a national scale for the Nationalists.
On the contrary, just as at the local level, voters are prepared to oust the people who haven't done much at all, it would not take a great leap of the imagination to think that the same could happen at the national level. Conversely, the ousted guv'nors, who were presumably ousted because they weren't up to the mark, were Labour, which might suggest that if Labour gets to govern nationally, the same level of performance might be expected.
It's difficult to predict, of course. In the first place, there's four years to go and, as Gordon Brown is finding out, four minutes is a long time in politics, let alone four years. In the second place, we haven't yet been told what Labour intend to do when and if they get elected, other than pleasing everyone all the time about everything possible, so not much can be foreseen in that regard. We can only wait and see.
As always after a bad result, fingers start getting pointed all over the place and the tectonic plates of blame start shifting around. The commenting classes (it used to be class, in the singular, but nowadays, everyone with access to a computer can be a commentator) just love this, of course, and delight in regaling us with stories about how this group of politicians had a barney and how that group of politicians turned on one or two of their own and started to eat their young or whatever it is that politicians do when they don't love each other anymore.
This is happening within the PN ranks, of course, since it was they that got their behinds kicked into touch and beyond. If the Labour Party has any sense, and contrary to popular perception, it has (when it gags certain of its exponents, anyway) it will conduct its own post-mortems quietly and with dignity. There's plenty for them to be worried about, to be sure, because you don't lose control in local councils and you don't lose voters on the national level without having to take a reality check pretty dawn quickly, but compared to what the Nats have to concern them, this is as nothing.
In the meantime, at least according to certain sectors of the press, said Nats are about to have a lynching or something like that.
First in line, apparently, for a hemp collar is Austin Gatt, because he seems to have irritated people all over the place, mainly because he's actually done stuff.
I hold no brief for Dr Gatt, who is more than capable of defending himself if he needs to (and I don't think he does need to) but to the people who seem to be sniping at him from the tall grass, I will say just one thing: do you have the balls to do his job and do you have the guts to make mistakes? It's easy to hide in the system and let that amorphous blob "the Government" take the blame, secure in the knowledge that modern Maltese politics being what it is, you - the backbencher who has ignored his constituents - and you, the Minister who has let his functionaries do what they like (more precisely, fail to do what you would like) can let the PM and the party take the flak.
Sure, I know there are good backbenchers who work their districts like there's no tomorrow and there are good Ministers who do their job and kick ass to make others do theirs. I also know that Austin Gatt could probably do with a few lessons in humility and diplomacy.
But if what certain sectors of the media are reporting is true, all I can say is that it wouldn't be amiss if his many critics, perhaps in the privacy of their own homes, were to ask themselves if their own efficiency, loyalty and motivations would stand up to scrutiny.