The ways of the parties

The Labour Party is to hold a nine-day marathon conference with the aim of drawing the floating or non-voter closer to him. This is basically a meritable initiative. It is well known that some 20,000 voters today are floaters. They have decided the outcome of general elections for the last 18 years or so. They are, in fact, the kingpin of Maltese politics.

The Labour leader has recognised this and will be addressing the issue early in the day. His youth and enthusiasm is certainly a plus for such an exercise. But will it work? Will he draw the numbers he requires (not many required on the basis of the last election, by the way)?

For the PL - I would say more than the Nationalist Party - about which we will talk later - Joseph Muscat is a one-man band or, shall we say, an orchestra conductor, since he has many instruments around him. He is basically running the PL show alone, now even abolishing the post of general secretary.

As for the PN, both at government and party level, there is somewhat of a quandary at the moment. Difficult times. Who didn't know that? What with the water and electricity tariffs. Is it another mess up? Time will tell? Should the government intervene? There is no doubt that we, as citizens, will be hard hit. Should the government subsidise to ease the burden?

Should the government reciprocate what we donate to charity from our private pockets? What is the truth about the provenance of oil supplies and the famous hedging agreements?

And, then, within the government or the PN itself. John Dalli is now almost definitely off to Brussels. A Cabinet reshuffle of sorts is inevitable. The Prime Minister, adopting Dr Muscat's slogan, says that there will be no earthquakes. Will the "backbench revolution" go on? Should the Prime Minister enlarge his Cabinet and say: "Mea culpa, I made a mistake in shrinking it? Is it the time, proposed by many now, to move towards a semi-technocratic government since the resources for new Cabinet members seems to be somewhat scarce? This would require an amendment to the Constitution. Would it be moved? As the Prime Minister himself declared, it is "time for reflection".

I would now like to dwell on a couple of issues related to individual politicians rather than political parties. The first is censorship. My good friend Owen Bonnici has quite rightly proposed a private member's' Bill to abolish censorship or, rather, the "stuck in age-old mud" censorship board. I will give Dr Bonnici full marks for that. Luckily, or perhaps fortuitously, our Minister of Education, Dolores Cristina, has announced that our censorship laws are to be revised.

The Leader of the Opposition has also made a call for the abolition of censorship. I am in full agreement with him. Long gone are the "medieval" days where some big brother in the shape of a censorship board decided what you and me could watch, or see for that matter.

I remember when, in our next-door stationery in Balluta Bay us young rascals would slip into an unseen corner to read for free Dandy, Beezer, Topper and whatever comics. Now and again, our eyes would fall onto some "exotic" magazine - what we would call later as teenagers "tal-Mickey Mouse", only to find that certain parts of the published anatomy were coarsely blotted out by a black gem marker of sorts.

Times have changed today. Porn (if one wants to see it) is available via satellite and on the internet in one's home. We do not need anyone to tell us what to see and what not to see. TV stations are constantly warning when parental guidance is required for children watching their programmes. What more?

And this brings us to the University epic, where a young history student, editor of a student publication known as Realtà is to be prosecuted on the basis of an article published. This is a publication normally - at least to my knowledge - distributed to students only. That means, say, 17 years upwards. Do we need to police these mature individuals as to what they read and don't read? There are various ways of literary expression. Some are orthodox and others not. I just hope that the unfortunate editor will lead us forward towards a less intolerant and mouldy society.

Finally, we have read about the planned expansion of Church schools to cater for some 20,000 extra students. Also, the abolishing of the "lotteries" that our priests and nuns hold to admit children to these schools. These "extra" pupils will eat into the success and viability of our independent private schools. Better a free school than paying substantial fees to the other private schools (and I know the feeling). I think this is sheer discrimination. Any industrious, public-spirited lawyer available prepared to take up the case?