Lino Spiteri says comparing 1981 with current political situation 'does not hold'
Lino Spiteri, a minister in Dom Mintoff's 1981 administration, says in an opinion piece in The Times today that Joseph Muscat's comparison between the political situation in 1981 and the current situation, 'does not hold'.
Dr Muscat said recently that Labour was “morally and politically incorrect” to govern in 1981, when it earned the majority of parliamentary seats but not the votes.
Mr Spiteri defended the circumstances leading to the 1981 government being formed in the wake of the controversial election result.
In his piece, Mr Spiteri wrote:
The past rarely can and never should be forgotten. It remains there to learn from, especially not to repeat mistakes. Remembering, though, should be done in context. Otherwise recalls carried forward will be warped. The Labour leader gave an example of that when he compared the present situation in Parliament, where the government could not muster enough elected MPs to defeat an opposition no-confidence motion, to the perverse result of the 1981 general election, and its aftermath.
The comparison does not hold. On several counts. This government was elected with a relative majority, if a very slim one exceeded by the combined votes of the Labour Party and Alternattiva Demokratika. In 1981 the Nationalist Party received an absolute majority of votes, but a minority of parliamentary seats.
Fact was, though, that could happen. It happened notwithstanding that earlier Prime Minister Dom Mintoff had reduced the margin by which electoral districts could vary from each other by 15 per cent to five per cent. After the perverse 1981 result, Mr Mintoff formed a government, as he was constitutionally obliged to do. But he also set in motion a committee from both sides of the House to seek a more correct way forward.
It failed to reach agreement. In due course, though, it was the Labour Cabinet, even if after much internal conflict, as I have touched upon in my book of political memories, which came up with amendments to the Constitution to introduce a corrective mechanism to ensure that if a party received an absolute majority of votes, but a minority of seats, it was allocated extra seats to enable it to govern, with a majority of one.
Nationalist claims that the 1987 result was due to gerrymandering, playing about with electoral boundaries, were blown apart in 1996 when it was the Labour Party which, after nine years of Nationalist government, received a majority of votes but a minority of seats. Such a result remains possible to this day because the parties have not agreed on further amendments to ensure proportionality. We have a sensible system to cover local elections, where the whole of the localities contested form one constituency, but not for general elections.
Context, however, goes back a decade before 1981. The Nationalist government then in office played about with the electoral districts for the general election of 1971. That still did not prevent the MLP from getting an absolute majority of votes and a majority of seats. Nevertheless the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party, in-Nazzjon, immediately declared editorially that the PN had a majority of seats in the majority of electoral districts and was entitled to govern, and that was what it intended to do. It was only the solidity of the Labour government that prevented the implication from becoming reality.
Labour increased its electoral majority in 1976. Still, between 1976 and 1981 the Nationalists offered the most negative form of opposition ever seen in Malta. In due course, a bombing campaign began, targeting government buildings and individuals who helped the MLP to govern.
That context is sad to recall. But recall it one must. As one should also recall that, between 1981 and 1987, when Labour again did not muster a majority, a number of Labour thugs and police officials disgraced all that Labour stood for with their unchecked behaviour. I still believe that small band included individual mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements. But it was up to the government leadership to keep that minority in check. They did not.
That fuller context of the 1970s and 1980s should not be forgotten as we now look forward and move on. Looking forward means experiencing the clash and contrast of opposing ideas without recourse to physical or moral violence and personal attacks, with focus on true democracy, not just the bits of it that suit us.
In the current circumstances it also means getting out of the prevailing uncertainty, through either a clear restoration of the Nationalist government’s elected majority in the House of Representatives, or an early general election to end the debilitating uncertainty, and return to stability.
Looking forward also means playing out the democratic game seriously, and not in a manner that puts the Don Camillo goings on to shame.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
53 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Pierre Galea
Feb 7th, 20:02
"and a number of Labour thugs and police officials disgraced all that Labour stood for with their unchecked behaviour. I still believe that small band included individual mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements.
To me it looked more like a horde of hand picked savage thugs that ransacked the Courts, The Curia, The Times, Tal-Barrani, etc etc - rather than a small band. Yes, sure, they must have been handpicked by the PN.
Oh you are so right!! - "The past rarely can and never should be forgotten. It remains there to learn from" especially when some of your very colleauges of those dark days have resurfaced again in the PL.
Emanuel Curmi
Feb 7th, 12:29
Just reading thru this article and the comments made, I cannot help but feel that our way of doing politics has hardly changed at all, over the last century. Maybe the extremism have become less militant but the attitude of our politicians has basically remained the same. The PL/PN apologists, after trading insults, go to extremes to justify their way of doing politics as being legal and fully in line with our constitution. The fact that the constitution has repeatedly been given only a token show-window dressing is serving to highlight a sad reality. Our political parties have been ( and still are ) treating our constitution as a harlot, all made up, serving only to lend a semblance of legality in a political power play. In reality our constitution and electoral system are still fundamentally flawed and geared to serve the 2 party system by hindering the inclusion of a 3rd and 4th party while the party financing system is comparable to an uncontrolled racket, which would be the envy of the mob. Although constitution reform has become a favourite theme lately the cosmetic amendments proposed by this administration are raising eyebrows in Brussels. On the other side, the PL has proposed and is ’prepared’ to discuss giving the party in power a min.3 seat majority irrespective of the electorate vote. Such manipulations have become the order of the day and yet this is all coming from those who continue to shift the goal posts of legality and then vow to uphold the constitution of our land.
Henry S Pace
Feb 6th, 18:46
Peter Bonnici
Today, 18:19
I had been tempted to get Lino Spiteri's book.
This a very good book written by Lino Spiteri. I do have it and it is also signed by the author.
You may agree or dis agree with him while reading it.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Feb 6th, 18:44
In my opinion the supposedly principle of vote majority as entrenched in our Constitution is hardly worth the paper it is written on, and I explain why I think so.
Our electoral system, after the two Constitutional amendments, had become an amalgam of the STV and something else. Although the system to elect is still referred to as the General Elections in real terms it has became a General Election because,at that point,it recognizes one majority out of the political parties’ total votes. The leader of that vote majority and his party’s elected MPs are then eligible to form the government ipso facto.
After the swearing in ceremony and when the first sitting is convened any MP can switch sides and if a situation presents itself in that the Leader of the Opposition garners the support of at least one MP than the sworn in PM, the opposition takes over and it’s Leader becomes the PM. And you can kiss good bye to the two constitutional amendments.
Peter Bonnici
Feb 6th, 18:19
I had been tempted to get Lino Spiteri's book but never got round to it. Think I might run down to the bookshop - got just the right place for it in the loo. You never know when you might need it.
Mr Henry A. Grima
Feb 6th, 17:52
After reading Mr Spiteri's comments today he came down a lot of notches in my opinion poll status. I used to look forward to his blogs but in future I won't even bother to even look for them.
So according to him it was not MLP encouraged and abetted thugs who made Malta unsafe to live in.
He must have been, and still is maybe, of the opinion that it was Busuttil who shot at Raymond Caruana.
How many had to leave Malta because of unhealthy and dangerous conditions at work, just because they were not condoning violence?: because they did not go to work on Imnarja? I remenber; I was one of them at the Dockyard, when I was not even given any overtime period.
I expected better from Lino. But then what can one expect from one who was a Minister in those days of the unelected Govt. tal-minoranza? who had the unequalled audacity to remain there for five years PLUS five months!
It was not only chocolate bars, and colour TV sets that were scarce then; democracy and civility were non existent.
You really have something to boast about what happened 1971- 87!
Joseph Borg
Feb 6th, 16:58
From these listed comments I conclude as always happening in our country that the bluish say blue and the reddish say red. Only one knows alway the truth. When are we going to learn.
Joseph Scicluna
Feb 6th, 16:55
L-anqas taf tisthi Spiteri?
Twanny Scerri
Feb 6th, 17:23
M'Ghandhux dritt jesprimi l-opinjoni tieghu kif esprimejta int?
Joseph Scicluna
Feb 6th, 17:38
@ TS.
Lopinjoni ghand tkun il-verita u mhux tghawwig tal fatti.
Twanny Scerri
Feb 6th, 17:55
Sincerament naqbel mieghek fuq daqshekk. Jien mhiniex ha nidhol fil mertu pero nara naqra difficli li kien hemm nies ta twemmin politiku differenti li kienu involuti f'dik il-vjolenza flimkien.
Tony Busuttil
Feb 6th, 16:35
What everyone think if it wasn't for consititutional ammendments in 1996 we could have ended with same result of 1981. I ask Mr Spiteri , do you think that Eddie would have governed without a a mandate from the public?
Edward Mallia
Feb 6th, 16:12
That the Joseph Muscat 1981-2012 equation is incorrect could well be a fact, even if one difficult to grasp by commentators of a less acute intelligence than that of Lino Spiteri. But that "a small band of ..Labour thugs and police officials" which "included individual mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements" "disgraced all that Labour stood for" sounds like a lame and unconvincing "apologia pro vita sua" from Lino Spiteri. Those "Labour thugs" included at least one Minister; the Labour party as a whole, taking an obvious cue from the Leader, often adopted the Henry II approach, publicly asking who will rid them of various "turbulent priests", and certainly doing nothing to bring to book those who did. Was there even a semblance of an investigation of the police officials undoubtedly involved in the P.P. Busuttil frame up? Any action taken against that pistol-waving soldier who burst into Parliament, or serious scrutiny of the conduct of those who killed Nardu Debono? Was there ever any protest against violent language, well known to have a connection with violent action? In any case, Nationalists use other methods in these situations. Look at the Justine Caruana frame-up in parliament; and the police "action" in the Harry Vassallo case: a frame-up by ommission not by commission. The one atypical case may have been the horrific killing of Karen Grech. And there, lamentably, no one has been brought to book.
Mary Ann Borg
Feb 6th, 15:52
Mr Lino Spiteri thinks he can take people for a ride. In 1981 the people of Malta voted for PN to govern it and instead got a Labour government. That is what free elections are all about. For the people to decide who wants to govern them, full stop. No amount of text and excuses, including legal ones, will ever change that simple, very simple fact. And for Lino Spiteri to continue repeating his 'doubts' that amongst the Labour thugs were Nationalists implanted to stir trouble is painful for all those people who suffered when he was a minister in that regime. No Lino, you have to live with the fact that you resigned during Alfred Sant's legislative when with all his weird politics he certainly got rid of the Labour thugs while you stayed on for the whole 5 1/2 years in that violent period of Malta's history that culminated in the murder of a fellow Maltese who was quietly having a drink in a PN club one winter evening. You ruled with that Party that brought Malta's democratic credentials to be doubted by all. You also ruled in a Party that as finance minister you orchestrated one budget after the other as if you had a right to rule which, if you expect people to believe your seemingly moderate stance, included your Rainbow Budget promising jobs when in fact it was the worst-ever year for employment. No amount of legal wrangling and Lino Spiteri's excuses will ever change history. If a person steals something but is not found guilty in court it will not change the fact that steal he did and must live with the fact that he's a robber. And that's what Lino's Labour Party did in 1981.
In 1981 PN got the highest number of votes. Same as it has just done in 2008, and the other four elections in between. PN never governed against the expressed wishes of the majority of the Maltese. The present circumstance, if anything, show just how Labour simply doesnt want or even know how to play fairly and yes, Lino Spiteri belongs to the old guard Labour and that's why he resigned from Alfred Sant's Labour but stayed on in Mintoff's and KMB's Labour.
George Azzopardi
Feb 6th, 15:34
Certain PN Bloggers find it very convenient to quote Mr.L.Spiteri when he is not critisizing the GonziPN and so most of the times they stay mum to most of his comments.
Angus Black
Feb 6th, 15:24
Thank you Mr Spiteri for giving us a refresher course on how things developed during the Socialist era and your suspicion that a 'small band of Nationalists were planted by the NP joining the Labour thugs, etc,'
It is most unbelievable when one recollects that the Socialists, with the absolute help of the Police, who looked the other way when violence erupted, who looked on while The Times burned, who fired on Nationalist supporters while trying to hold a public meeting with the police 'approval' in hand, who abetted the killers of Raymond Caruana, could not bring to justice "a small band of Nationalists, planted by the NP".
Please don't tell us that the Police must have conveniently protected Nationalists.
If the governments of the day could not get their own police force to identify and prosecute the Nationalist thugs, then everything points to incompetent and corrupt governments. If you, as a former member and minister of a Labour government have solid evidence of what you wrote about, why not go to the Commissioner? It is not too late to do so.
W Azzopardi
Feb 6th, 15:08
Where is the uncertainty today? Even if government is stable or unstable why should the entrepreneur worry? With the PN in government he knows where he is. With the LP he should be better, at least that what Joseph Muscat says. So whether there is an early election or not it should't bother the investors.
Mark Cams
Feb 6th, 14:48
has it ever been considered that we do away with the electeral districts and everyone votes for one list? Obviously one would probably need to trim down on the list of candiadtes so as not to end up with an never ending list. The political parties would probably need to reduce their candiadte lists..
After all if I want to vote for another candidate from another district becuiase I really belive that he or she can do a good job why shouldn't I be able to do so?
Do the electoral districts really make sense on such a samll island?
Just a thought.
GEORGE CUTAJAR
Feb 6th, 14:07
As always Mr. Spiteri's pieces are very objective. However claiming that the amendments in virtue of which a corrective mechanism was put in place were the work of the Labour Cabinet is not completely correct. These amendments were achieved through the lengthy discussions held between the late Prof. de Marco ( obviously working hand in hand with Dr. Fenech Adami and the higher echelons of the Nationalist Opposition ) and Mr. Mintoff and were conceived after the horrendous murder of Raymond Caruana.
As regards the other assertion that 'In due course, a bombing campaign began, targeting government buildings and individuals who helped the MLP to govern. Mr. Spiteri seems to imply that this bombing campaign was instigated by the Nationalist opposition of the time. Nothing is further from the truth and this is borne out by the fact that in all cases Nationalist supporters who were accused of planting bombs were acquitted by our courts as it was proved that they were victims of political frame-ups.
My firm belief was and still remains that during the eighties certain elements within the Labour Party were hell bent on keeping power and were ready to go the extra mile to ensure that this is done. It is to the credit of the Nationalist Leadership of the eighties that the situation did not degenerate into full blown civil strife and this in the face of daily physical violence, abuse of human rights, political discrimination etc.
Charles J. Buttigieg
Feb 6th, 14:01
In 1998 the result of the rules of our amended Constitution was as cruel to us as it was to the PN in 1981.Cruel but not illegitimate or immoral for the two occasions. The PL then pulled 132497 (50.7%) votes with 31 seats while with 124864 votes (47.8%) the PN elected 34 seats. And the PN still has the audacity to accuse the PL with gerrymandering the 1981 elections.
The Constitutional amendment of 1987 allowed the system to credit the PL with an additional 4 seats to give Labour a seat majority of one. In spite of 7633 more votes we ended up with a 35 PL\34 PN administration. A similar result now, after the second amendment would see 37 PL 34 PN.
In short the PL would have continued its full term in spite of Mintoff’s negative voting.
I agree with Lino Spiteri’s conclusions
Mark Lombardo
Feb 6th, 15:29
Please note that in 1987, the PN polled 119, 721 votes (50.91%) which percentage wise is greater than the 50.7% polled by MLP in 1996, which was equivalent to one extra chair. You are forgetting the fact, that in 1996 the election was contested also by AD which polled 3820 votes (1.47%). When counting the PN votes and AD votes together, MLP had a majority of 3813 votes, which proportionally guarantees it only 1 more chair than the Opposition parties.
Moreover, the proposal for only one extra chair was imposed by the labour government together with other constitutional amendments on the eve of the 1987 election. Another important fact is only one week before the Tal-Barrani incidents, the select committee had reported to Parlaiment that no constitutional changes were agreed, and the labour government had proposed that changes will be effected after the general election of 1987,only if the result repeats itself.
carmel callus
Feb 6th, 13:58
Lino Spiteri, tibqax tipprova tilghabha aktar tal-haruf!
Victor Vella
Feb 6th, 15:07
Oqghod attent ghax tal-PN kollha hrejjef. Raggiera jonqoskhom. Lino zgur li qatt ma kien jifforma minn xi klikka ta` nies bla qalb bhal ma hemm fi hdan il-partit nazzjonalista.Nies tal-mishijja .
Peter Azzopardi
Feb 6th, 19:14
Imqar ghandkom wiehed bhal LINO SPITERI, Lino hu ragel ta Veru hu mghandhux bzonn il politika u hadd.
E Gatt
Feb 6th, 13:57
Mr Spiteri raises same valid points, however the fact remains that MLP could have called an election immediately after the perverse result of December 1981. We are now accustomed to MPs criticising their own party in and outside parliament, but that was unthinkable in Mintoff’s days. Could this intense intimidation be the reason why moderates within the MLP parliamentary group, including Mr Spiteri, could not form a rebel group to insist on respect for the basic rules of democracy?
Mr Spiteri states “Still, between 1976 and 1981 the Nationalists offered the most negative form of opposition ever seen in Malta. In due course, a bombing campaign began, targeting government buildings and individuals who helped the MLP to govern.
That context is sad to recall. But recall it one must. As one should also recall that, between 1981 and 1987, when Labour again did not muster a majority, a number of Labour thugs and police officials disgraced all that Labour stood for with their unchecked behaviour. I still believe that small band included individual mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements.”
Those of us who lived in 1976-1981, remember the violence, and it is not right that Mr Spiteri attempts to re-write history. Example. A number of political clubs were attacked several times – was the Floriana club that was burnt/attacked/bombed around twenty times, wave the Torca flag? Was the family that was attacked, and had their house ransacked in Triq il-Kbira, that of the leader of the MLP? Did the shops and offices in Valletta that used to close down when ‘spontaneous demonstrations’ were held terrorised by truckloads leaving the dockyards full of ‘Nationalist elements’?
True, Dr Eddie Fenech Adami formed an effective and formidable resistance to the daily intimidation of Mintoff’s regime, however Dr Fenech Adami never allowed or encouraged violence.
m. borg (slm)
Feb 6th, 16:18
"..........however Dr Fenech Adami never allowed or encouraged violence."
.
Who was it who walked down Republic Street after coming out of court shouting "Fejn Huma l-Laburisti?"
.
Please do explain.
m. borg (slm)
Feb 6th, 16:19
I almost forgot and who during a mass meeting in Sliema smiled and let the crowd shout:
"Salbu Salbu" meaning Mintoff?
pat muscat
Feb 6th, 17:09
You argue that the MLP should have called an election in 1981, when the constitution clearly said that seats were more important than overall votes- provided the 5% threshold was not broken. So, why did the PN agree to form a government once in 1962 and again in 1966, when there was a very clear breach of constitutional and democratic rights,against the Labour Party? With your line of logic and fairness, the PN should not have agreed to govern; but it did....and twice! The truth is that the PN played the same electoral game as the MLP, with one basic difference; if the election was skewed in its favour-no matter what human rights were broken, PN played on till the end- but as soon as the MLP did the same , the PN whistled foul, and the rebus of 1981 is the hypocritical result of these double standards.
E Gatt
Feb 6th, 18:19
@Pat Muscat
PN won a relative majority of votes in 1962 and 1966, and therefore formed a legitimate government. You’re probably using the same bizarre reasoning that Labour wins elections/referenda/votes of no confidence, even when Labour loses.
Mintoff/KMB/and the MLP MPs did not have the dignity to accept defeat in December 1981, and call elections in early 1982. This is history – learn to live with the shame.
VINCENT WILLIAMS
Feb 6th, 18:57
The most undemocratic elections held in Malta where those of 1932, 1962 and 1966 were it was a sin to vote to the Parties that were adversaries to the PN. There was no free vote, it was a mortal sin to read the newspapers of the Parties and be a member of the same Parties that were contesting the elections with the PN. In these various atmosphere the PN did many immoral propaganda and make use of the Catholic religion to his utmost advantage. Although such elections were immoral, undemocratic and unfair the PN governed for 12 years. What did happened during these elections campaign are part of the dark history of the PN.
pat muscat
Feb 6th, 19:13
Mr Gatt, do you really believe that the 1962 and 1966 were free and democratic elections?
Anthony Castillo
Feb 6th, 13:51
All you was doing is to try to put the blame of whats happened in the years between 1981 to 1987to both parties which I think that you're not saying the truth because everybody who lives those years knows exactly how well organied the police force and the labour thugs operates against all the activities that tha PN the university sudents, the teachers, the unions except one and all those who organise any kind of protest against the government of that day how they've been treated and at the same time you was one of the ministers that you know whats happening and you looks like you did nothing to stop of what was happenig and also if you know of any mercenaries planted by nationalist elements ,why you never says anything or report the case to the autority?.Its no use of admitingof whats happened in those years while you had the chance of at least trying to STOP what was happening and you did nothing because the bombs and all the other things kept going till the end of the MLP ADMINISTRATION.
m. borg (slm)
Feb 6th, 16:15
"....the bombs and all the other things kept going till the end of the MLP ADMINISTRATION." Exactly but you left out an important point in the sentence "...and the satrt of PN administration".
.
Don't forget. like Lino said , there were those who were planted in this gangs,especially police constables and offoicers who as soon as PN took over government were promoted and those from the SMU were integrated with those of tal-gakketta blu aka SAG.
Policemen who had lied in court (Pulicino's case) were promoted, as SMU officer who ordered the gassing of PN supporters in Rabat was promotedc.
We can keep going on this all day but it serves no one any good except it is like trying to sow corn in a mud patch. Everyone has sweat under his arm pit Mr Castillo, stop living in yesterday and start living today otherwise you'll be dead and you'll not even know it.
m. borg (slm)
Feb 6th, 13:51
I have to agree with Albert Farrugia, Joseph's comparison in no way is to interpreted as to shame MLP of 1981.
.
It would have been immoral if Mintoff did not govern through the constitutional right and not try to ammend the constitution so that the majority of votres would be reflected in a majority of seats.
Let's not forget the time wasted by P.N. in walking out of parliament with a boycott and spent months of wasting people's sundays with mass meetings and days at the beach.
.
If there was any delay regarding the constitutional reforms it is all on EFA's shoulder, he came up with the boycott and it was he who finally ended it .
.
Political morality is shady area that is interpreted with one's own yard stick. Bikinis were immoral in the 60's and prohibeted, they are still immoral (according to some's yardstick) but they are allowed.
.
It is immoral(for some) to vote in favour of divorce but politicaly moral to vote oneself a €500 weekly wage rise.
VINCENT WILLIAMS
Feb 6th, 13:43
The day after the election result of 1981 was known the Nationalist daily newspaper editorially stated that
" for the third consecutive elections the PN lost the General Elections."
During the 1980's the Labour administration engaged Judge Cremona as head of one of the public entities. The negative criticism which consisted of editorials and articles from the media of the PN and from the Natiionalsits were so harsh, undemocratic and personnal that Judge Cremona had to resign from his post.
The country lost but the Nationalist did not care a damn thing.
One of the bright, capable and moderate MP that the PN had at that time was Dr Mario Felice. He was elected from two Electoral Districts. When Dr. Mario Felice was visiting the USA the then PM Dom Mintoff gave a letter to Dr Mario Felice to forward it to the USA government. For doing that the criticism and propaganda against Dr Mario Felice from the Nationalists were so harsh and personnal. That at the next General Elections he was not elected from both districts.
The country lost but the Nationalists did not care at all.
PN Governments did many things that our country benefitted from as other political parties did. But the mentioned above facts are part of the dark story of the PN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Nationalists are no angels at all.
Victor Vella
Feb 6th, 13:41
Well said Lino. The Gonzi PN is trying to give the impression that the MLP was ruling against the constitution. Mintoff changed the constitution so that what happened in 1981 did not happen any more. In fact today Gonzi is putting the clock way back to the 80s. His party is ruling without garner the 50%plus1. In the 80s the MLP was legitimate government while today according to the constitution that the PN themselves voted for in the 80s Gonzi is ruling illegitimately. Punto e basta.
Nicholas Borg
Feb 6th, 13:36
Is Lino Spiteri trying to convince us that the electroral districts in 1981 were drawn up coincidentally to deliver the result they did? Pull the other one! Has he conveniently forgotten that when the report of the electoral districts was drawn up four electoral commissioners voted against it? Yet Mintoff pushed it through. It was all deliberate, as one look at the electoral districts map of 1981 shows, We have also not forgotten the deliberate allocation of government flats in PN areas to Labour party diehards so that dluite the Nationalist vote in those districts. Not only did they carried on governing Malta with the excuse that the Constitution allowed it, they clung on to power until the last day they legally could. In the last weeks they employed thousands with the civil service in spite of the fact there were no jobs for them in a desperate attempt to buy votes. No we will never forget what the Labour Party did in those years, and now that some of the exponents of the time have made a prominent reappearance we all know what we can expect from the "new" PL.
John Zammit
Feb 6th, 13:56
Mr. Borg what about the result of 1996 and that of 1971
Ġ. Agius
Feb 6th, 13:31
Of course they cannot be compared!
Labour in the 80s was corrupt, had a thug mindset towards everything, completely undemocratic, and violent
Compare that with the clean and virtually flawless PN government! In the 80s if you were caught with a Mars bar you'd get beaten up! Nowadays you can buy all your chocolates without running the risk of being imprisoned! Of course they're not the same dear Spiteri, you of all people should know that!
Joe Vella
Feb 6th, 13:44
The sad thing is that Alfred Sant had got rid of those thugs, for only Joseph Muscat to bring them back to the PL with all the fanfare. Shame on you Joseph Muscat.
J. Scicluna
Feb 6th, 14:37
Int bis-serjeta'?
Get a life!
Quote:
Still, between 1976 and 1981 the Nationalists offered the most negative form of opposition ever seen in Malta. In due course, a bombing campaign began, targeting government buildings and individuals who helped the MLP to govern.
Unquote:
THAT is what your beloved "clean and virtually flawless PN" carries as a legacy!
Ġ. Agius
Feb 6th, 14:56
There is no accent on the a in serjeta
Mr Ernest Vella
Feb 6th, 13:28
din tas-siggijiet ma taghmilx sens...ghax kif partit jista jkun jaf x'ha tivvota triq partikolari...lanqas li nghixu f'ghetto!
Joe Vella
Feb 6th, 13:42
Sur Ernest Vella. Mela insejthom il kumittati tal- Girien? X'tahseb li kien xoghlhomm dawn il Kumittati? Biex joghqodu jilghabu b'subbajhom.
Albert Farrugia
Feb 6th, 13:27
Well, Mr Spiteri, you talk of context. Even Dr Muscat's comparison of today's situation with 1981's needs to be put in context. Dr Muscat was talking of a situation which is by all means legal and constitutional, but politically immoral. In 1981 the Labour government was right in claiming legality and constititionality, but political morality had demanded that talks be held so that an obviously unfair situation be remedied. Likewise, today's situation in which the government surivies by the Speaker's vote is totally legal and constitutional. But surely it cannot be permanent. It requires a solution. That is the comparison between 1981 and today.
S Portelli
Feb 6th, 13:37
Mr Farrugia,
The comparison is the many faces stlll part of this new movement that were there in 1981 and who took decisions during the 80's that threatened democracy. The PN always, always and always respected democracy. And now that the PL leader realised that he should have never mentioned 1981 you are accusing the PN of looking back to the past. The PL leader always justified the 80's (till yesterday speech of deficit bil-ghaqal) and now to win votes he is saying otherwise. Come on make an apology and mean it!
David Buttigieg
Feb 6th, 13:48
Repeating rubbish a thousand times does not make it fact!
The government DID NOT survive just because of the Speaker's vote. The Speaker did not even have to vote and the motion WOULD STILL not have passed. For a motion to pass there has to be a majority in favour. Before the speaker voted, the votes were 34 in favour and 34 against. Therefore there was no majority in favour of the motion. It had already failed before the speaker, for some reason, voted.
Of course, this is because the vote was one of "no confidence" and not one of confidence. That is a crucial difference.
Had the vote been one of confidence, and the result been 34-34 then parliament would need a casting vote, or the result would be that parliament indeed had no confidence in the government. Had Muscat not been so eager to grab power at any cost, that may have happened, but yet again Labour don't have a damn clue!
Compare and contrast with the situation in 1998. Sant foolhardily called for a vote OF CONFIDENCE, and this was defeated 35-34 (I think but anyway, by 1 seat).
Hence Parliament had no confidence in the government in 1998.
Alfred E. Zahra
Feb 6th, 14:40
The 1981 labour Government gerrymandered the election to retain power. It was therefore an illegitmate government period.
Mr Mario Mifsud
Feb 6th, 13:18
The question of representation is a thorny problem since it involves the individual vote, the electoral districts and the parliamentarians elected.
These are three separate factors which should not be confused or juxtaposed one with the others as has been done for decades by the political parties to gain political advantage.
Since 1987 the question has been decided by the " absolute majority principle" of votes cast by the electors , - which was further amended by the relative majority principle when only 2 political parties elect members to the house of representatives.
For elections previous to 1987, such an argument is not applicable since the results of these elections are to be interpreted in accordance with theconstitutional provisions applicable at the time and not as the constitution is today. Consequently the Nationalist campaign of 1981-7 can only be viewed as a political campaign since the result of 1981 was in accordance with the constitution at the time the election was held.
Alfred E. Zahra
Feb 6th, 14:36
The 1981 result was obtained thanks to gerrymandered electoral boundries. As we say in Maltese it was a stolen election. To the everlasting shame of the MLP and Dom Mintoff personally it was stolen not from the PN but from you and me.
Mr Mario Mifsud
Feb 6th, 16:06
Mr Zahra needs to distinguish between :
1. The majority principle - as we understand it today - which was a political issue raised by the Nationalist Party after 1981, over and above the constitutional provisions in place at the time, which after all was the solution to :
2. Gerrymandering of electoral boundaries , which according to the Penguin English dictionary is named after Elbridge Gerry d 1814, U.S. statesman + salamander.
joseph saliba
Feb 6th, 13:14
Political history according to Lino Spiteri. With more than a pinch.
Mr Mario Mifsud
Feb 6th, 13:04
The question of representation is a thorny problem since it involves the individual vote, the electoral districts and the parliamentarians elected.
These are three separate factors and should not be confused or juxtaposed as has been done for decades by the political parties to gain political advantage.
Since 1987 the question has been decided by the " absolute majority principle" - which has recently been further amended by the relative majority principle when only 2 political parties elect members to the house of representatives.
For elections previous to 1987, such an argument does not hold and consequently the Nationalist campaign of 1981-7 can only be viewed as a political campaign since the result of 1981 was in accordance with the constitution.