In a craven effort to divert public attention away from his indecisiveness and penchant for procrastination, Joseph Muscat, without whose direct approval I am morally convinced nothing happens within Government and Party, decreed that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando should represent the Labour Party as an opinion-writer (thus, strangely, was he described in another section of the media) to discuss (anything but) the dismissal of his no-longer Big Beast from the Cabinet.
That was a nice long opening paragraph, wasn't it?
By dint of this massive error (if error it was, see below) the world, or at least such part of it that actually gives a damn, finally had it confirmed that Pullicino Orlando should not be allowed out in polite society.
We also discovered, by Pullicino Orlando's own admission, that he was being treacherous for at least the last two years of the tenure in Government of the party as a part of which he was elected.
Pullicino Orlando seems to have a massive ego and clearly believes, loudly and obsessively, that his is the only point of view that has any merit whatsoever. From what I was reading online (I don't watch Xarabank, there are limits to my patience for presentational mediocrity or vapid subject matter) he also has little, if any, capacity for discussion.
Whether this is a direct result of his egomania or something more fundamentally worrying is a question I'll leave to the trick cyclists.
Given the foregoing, it is clear that it would not be charitable to discuss the guy's apparently significant problems any longer, because it would almost be the modern equivalent of going to the gates of Bedlam and laughing at the loonies. We should just let him be, stewing in the juice of his own bile and bitterness.
But what of Muscat's gambit in dispatching him to represent the Labour Party, resulting in the party becoming forever associated with Pullicino Orlando in the minds of right-thinking men and women? In the context of the undeniable fact that Manuel Mallia, Franco Debono and number of others populate the bin of ideas that constitutes Labour, was it such a good idea to remind people of this specimen's inclusion with them?
In the short term, which many see as the only term that interests Muscat ("let's get elected, then we'll see") the scheme worked: Mallia went off the radar, if only temporarily. Mallia's is a gift that will keep on giving, however, you have to be short-sighted not to see that.
We also had the Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese dressed up as an "agreement" (not from what I could see) slipped past us, the idea being that no-one would take any notice. Again, buzz, wrong answer.
In the (very) slightly longer term, which perhaps Muscat can perceive dimly within his tactical frame of mind, Xarabank might serve the same ultimate purpose as the Three (Un)Wise Men's Report and serve as a peg on which Muscat can hang his "Get Rid of JPO Hat".
On the strategic level, though, I can't see that having Pullicino Orlando represent Labour, especially if the Nationalists put his performance on a loop and let it play endlessly, did Labour any good. How decent, genuine, Labourites can reconcile this sort of cynicism and vulgarity with their own values is beyond me, but that is for them and Muscat to worry about.