Rock, twitter and roll
I didn’t watch the debate last Wednesday, being as I had work to do (believe it or not) and the few minutes I had available during the live transmission were messed up by the feed drying up.
That said, I heard a little of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and you may call me biased if you like (and anything else you like) but the little I heard gave me the impression that here we were watching a boy among men, and I’m not talking about relative ages, either.
This impression was strengthened by the number of messages I got from friends telling me that this column was pretty much written and hadn’t I seen how Joseph Muscat kept evading the question and failing to answer?
The thing is, no I hadn’t, so I can’t put my hand on my heart and say that this is based on the Leaders’ Debate.
In truth, the debate seems to have added little to the sum total of human knowledge when it comes to Labour’s policies and credentials to govern. Telling me, as my friends were, that Dr Muscat kept evading the questions tells me absolutely nothing new: we’ve had policy by sound-bite and proposed governance by Facebook status for so long, at least from the Labour end of the spectrum, that it seems to have become the norm.
From what I can see, Labour seems to have taken social media to heart and we’re going to see the next election fought on Twitter and Facebook. This is not to say that they’ve actually got it because no-one seems to have cottoned on to the fact that, on Twitter, the whole point is to put across your message in 140 characters or less and simply pasting in a URL or a link to YouTube isn’t going to carry the day.
There are those who are approaching getting it and while I’m not about to give them the oxygen (oxygen in this context is the number of followers they get or the number of views or likes they garner), I am going to yank the carpet a tad from under their feet.
Facebook statuses and tweets are all very well for showing you’re down with the kids, respect and all that, but when it comes to setting out your policy and credentials for governing the country as and when the whistle is blown, they leave something to be desired and then some.
So Labour’s high-flyers really do have to take a good look at their strategy and, perhaps, take a step back from futile attempts at humour (this they really, really don’t get) and two or more steps back from earnest, almost breathless moralising that tends towards the stomach-churning rather than the admirable.
A small part of what I heard of the Leaders’ Debate adds fire to my belly on this subject. I had thought, reckoning without Dr Muscat’s quasi-obsessive fondness for the quick quip and the boy-reporter’s come-back, that Citizen John’s notion that his dear friends Sargas were the be-all and end-all of affordable energy had been all but blown out of the water, given that so very few of us gave it any credence whatsoever after the way the company was defended.
Verily, with friends like those, who needs enemies?
But no, back came the idea that this company’s ideas were worth taking further, from the lips of none other than the Leader of the Opposition, the one who hopes, one assumes (for “hopes” read “is gagging for”) to be given the chance to lead the country, rather than just that motley crew.
He harped on and on about energy prices and how, when he’s the Boss, they will come down but how this would be achieved, apart from a reference to Sargas, was left unsaid.
He didn’t tell us whether VAT would go up or how the revenue that would raise could even be passed on to Enemalta without falling foul of EU regulations. He didn’t tell us how he would be circumventing these regulations, in the same vein as it was said by Labour, a few days ago, that when they were in government, Acta (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) would be vetoed, again without telling us how, or even why, in this case.
You can take the lad out of journalism, it seems, but you can’t take journalism out of the lad.
It’s going to be interesting, assuming that the electorate gives Dr Muscat that for which he is palpably gasping, to see how Labour is going to deal with two things: those pesky promises tweeted, headlined, sound-bit and generally pumped out 24 to the dozen are going to be lived up to and, secondly, those equally pesky obligations that tie the hands of European governments.
It’s weird really, David Cameron’s bunch in the UK have the same sort of problem and the idea seems to be gaining traction there that the UK can do without the EU.
On Saturday, we had a pretty good lunch at Mojo’s in Victoria, in front of Arkadia, a bit to the right with your back to the car-park. Tasty stuff, friendly service and a good crowd, just what the doc ordered. Try it and, if it’s full, try the neighbours and come back another time, it’s worth it.
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Tommy Vella
Feb 12th, 06:53
Fine sense of humour Antoine, keep it up. We do need it.
Victor Laiviera
Feb 12th, 00:27
Prior to 1987, the Labour media made much of Fenech Adami's inexperience.Their cartoonists used to depict as a baby wearing a diaper.
it did not work then and it is hardly likely to work now.
But desperate times call for desperate measures and I think that the PN view is that anything is worth a try.
Victor Laiviera
Feb 11th, 14:05
I was present for the debate and what impressed me most was the elephant stomping about the hall shouting "Hey, Dr Gonzi - I'm here" and waving a placard which read "No Parliamentary Majority".
Antoine Vella
Feb 11th, 20:18
You were seeing elephants? It figures.
They should make these events alcohol-free.
Victor Laiviera
Feb 12th, 00:58
"The elephant in the room" is an idiomatic expression. You should, at least. know the basics before venturing to comment here.
j brincat
Feb 11th, 12:43
"but the little I heard gave me the impression that here we were watching a boy among men, and I’m not talking about relative ages, either"
Is there anything we can do if you are impressed with little things? Do you have to go and tell the whole world how easily impressed you are?
Why not concentrate on your lunches?
(jb)
Antoine Vella
Feb 11th, 20:21
Brincat, why does the phrase "a boy among men" immediately make you think of Joseph Muscat?
Leo Bartolo
Feb 11th, 11:52
Quote:" the little I heard gave me the impression that here we were watching a boy among men". Furthermore, quote: " The impression was strengthened by the number of messages I got from friends. Can Beck, being a lawyer explain how he can write an article based on 'the little he heard' and heresay,Is this the way he acts in court rooms? Is it possible that noone brought to his attention that the PM simply ignored certain questions put to him, during the said debate. You are not biased, dear Beck, of course not. You simply cannot stand hearing the word Labour Party. In this context ( I repeat again) that I for one, will boycott the restaurants which Beck frequents during his weekend's rendevous. Please do not stop writing your Saturday bits because they are becoming pebbles in David's hand. Remember David and Goliath? (The boy among men?) Of course you don't.
Antoine Vella
Feb 11th, 20:16
Leo, the biblical David was a "boy" in age, not in attitude and mentality. For the latter you have to look at our Joseph.
Most politicians find themselves having to face uncomfortable questions at some time or other. Joseph Muscat stands out because he does it ALL the time and evades questions so clumsily that he comes across as a schoolboy (Form 2C comes to mind) who didn't do his homework.
He should take a leaf out of Alfred Sant's book and refuse to answer hypothetical questions. Since it's hypothetical whether the PL has any policies, this approach would allow him to avoid questions on the subject.