Blogs » Alfred Grixti

  • email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Boomerang

It is clear that the Nationalist Party was anticipating that Labour would kick off the first week of the election campaign by focusing on the issue of good governance and zero tolerance to corruption.

In preparation for this the PN’s strategists took a twin pronged approach. On the positive side they launched a US-presidential style campaign based solely on projecting the image of their leader and Prime Minister, Dr Lawrence Gonzi. This strategy fell flat on its face for two reasons. First, the beavering elves at Labour HQ were quick to point out that the whole concept and execution of this strategy was an unashamed cut and paste from the campaign of French President Nicolas Sarkozy – Ensemble tout devient possibleYes, together everything is possible.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it became clear that the PN was reacting to Labour’s criticism on the short comings, both in terms of political correctness and management, of the PN’s cabinet. Hence the strategic decision to have Dr Gonzi front the campaign from day one. This strategy backfired because Labour began to attack the PN for keeping its ministers out of public view and saying very clearly that once more Dr Gonzi was covering up for their short comings. This brings me to the second strategy used by the PN during this first week of the election campaign. This was the negative attack strategy designed to throw Labour off track. Here the PN had a 50% success in that Labour had to devote time to fending off and using rapid response resources to react to what have turned out to be nothing but untruths spun by the PN.

Of these, two really took the cookie, the distortions about the reception class and overtime rates. On the reception class the PN, led here by Minister Louis Galea, attacked Labour that this was nothing but an added year forcing all children in Malta to repeat a year of schooling unnecessarily. This distortion of Labour’s policy boomeranged first when the PN found no academics ready to support its stand and then when Labour’s shadow minister, Carmelo Abela, showed Minister Galea, the book, the page and the sentence where the Nationalist Government had already acknowledged the need to introduce the reception class.

This was on Xarabank last Friday when Mr Abela quoted from the official Ministry of Education The National Minimum Curriculum on its Way, p. 460 where it states unequivocally that there is a need for a reception class at age 5. This was published in 2000 along with an introduction by Dr Galea himself. The second distortion which boomeranged on the PN was that which it spun in reaction to Labour’s proposal to make all overtime tax exempt. The PN here claimed that Labour would cap all overtime payments at normal rates of pay. This was not only blatantly untrue. It also happens to be what the Nationalist Government was putting on the table for discussion during the negotiations on the social pact four years back.

Labour Leader Alfred Sant, put this untruth to rest when he published the first draft, which was never published by the Gonzi Government, of the document entitled “Proposed Text for Social Pact.

In this document, under the heading entitled Stimulating Work and Economic Activity, the GonziPN government had proposed that;“The first four hours of overtime per week are to be remunerated at normal rates of pay. This is subject to a maximum of 100 overtime hours per year which can be remunerated at normal rates of pay, and subject to the condition that the overtime hours remunerated at normal rates of pay shall in any one week not exceed one-half of the total overtime hours worked.” So if you ask me how I would score the first week of the campaign, the answer is simple - Boomerang to the PN!

  • Google Bookmarks Del.icio.us Facebook Blogger YahooMyWeb Digg Reddit Stumbleupon
  • email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Comments

H. Weenink (on 16/2/08)
I just received my voting document, so once again I am allowed to participate actively in the democracy of this small nation I have married into. Now Malta is indeed a proud and active member of the EU there is no need to spend many words on this anymore except to ‘count our blessings’ from this and make sure no-one is allowed to botch it up all over again. Although I shared my views on Malta’s EU-membership and the MLP leadership in this paper before [on the ‘eve’ of the last elections and prior to the EU-referendum], I feel once again compelled to jump in the electoral fray and to announce and amplify my vote somewhat publicly. However ‘the grass was cut before me’ as the saying goes in my native Dutch tongue, on page 13 of today’s edition in the section ‘Opinion’ by Frank Psaila. I don’t know Frank, or anything about him, but he couldn’t have said it better! I urge the readers of both ABC (‘bocca’) and, more so, Mr. Grixti’s blogs to read it. Back then, 2003 & 2004, I asked, almost begged the social-democrats in the MLP to elect an modern leader; but alas.
For the record, my vote for Gonzi next month clearly does not mean I agree with all PN policies. I dislike some of their conservative, ‘Vatican-dictated’ or self-imposed, ‘holier-than-thou’ policies; I disagree with velvet-glove treatment they gave/give the hunters-lobby. Also the cultural embedded attitude towards corruption, which exists in both main parties (of course ‘NOT during election time’) and gave Dr. Sant the chance in 1996 to prove he could do it better, needs much more Political and Managerial professionalism. Dr. Gonzi has already proven his leadership in his relative short time at the wheel of this Nation and shows us his foresight by announcing that, if the electorate allows him to continue, he would take the responsibility for MEPA.
In last elections in The Netherlands –yes, I have dual citizenship- I voted for Wouter Bos, now deputy-PM and Minister of Finance in a Cabinet with the main Christian Democratic and Christian Union parties. Due to my ‘roots’ I am used to and believe in coalition governments. However, every nation has its own path to follow in this and a possible evolution in this direction can only mature as an exponent of Malta’s own history.
Claudia Vella (on 16/2/08)
The reception class is an idea that was copy pasted on to Labour Plan for a New Beginning on the suggestion of a head of school or so Karmenu Abela wrote in The Times a few days ago. The 'strange' thing about all this is that in all the time Labour had to work out on how to implement this idea (since 2006, they say) they only came up with a list of countries that already have this 'class' and with the page and paragraph of where in a Document of 2000 mentions this. It is a pity they did not find the time to see how such a class could actually be implemented. Please no more rethoric about how this new class will improve all chances for all children to succeed and to give back the childhood to our children. Indeed this proposal raises more questions then it answers? Why not work along with the idea of updating the National Minimum Curriculum? Why not commit to continue on the process of continuous assessment so badly needed by our educational system? Why not tell us how IT shall feature in the educational system under a Labour governement? Will this addtional class mean that our children/young people will end compulsory schooling at age 17 instead of 16? Can we parents have some concrete answers about this proposal?
john Schembri (on 14/2/08)
Can Mr Alfred Grixti tell us what he did, to look so good at 55? Fr Joe please take note, you're his age!
Victor Vassallo (on 14/2/08)
It is very evident that Labour is setting the agenda.
Paul Vella (on 13/2/08)
The Labour Party's Policy Paper on education was approved by the General Conference of the Party way back in the summer of 2006, nearly 2 years ago. The proposal for strengthening the primary education sector by introducing the Reception Class for 5 year-olds was published then. It's only a matter of spinning by the PN that caused this controversy.

Mr. Gatt should have heard Mr. Bencini in yesterday's "Dissett" to comment on his balanced views regarding this proposal. He insisted that this issue should not be blown out of proportion but discussed to find the best ways of helping children go to primary schooling without any hiccups.
E Gatt (on 13/2/08)
Mr Grixti is once again saying that during the Social Pact talks government had proposed that overtime should be paid at normal rates. This after having the employers'associations and and UHM stating for countless times that it was the employers' associations and not government which made this proposal which was not even in the final draft.

Same thing happened with the consultation the MLP said it had with the MUT regarding the additional year it wants students to have. John Bencini of MUT has been quite clear in denying that such consultation was ever made. I am now wondering if these things were actually discussed within the Labour party or is this a repetition of the removal of VAT where even Lino Spiteri did not know about it before Alfred Sant said it on the media!!!




Anthony Busuttil (on 13/2/08)
So the Nationalists added 1 week to the 13 given by Labour, because 14 weeks is the minimum allowed by the European Union. Big deal!
Paul Vella (on 13/2/08)
With reference to Mr. Vassallo's request for information regarding Labour's proposal to have maternity leave increased to 14 weeks, may I refer him to "Pjan Ghal Bidu Gdid" published in July 2007, Page 130 with the following paragraph: "Ghal haddiema full-time nahdmu biex l-erbatax-il gimgha leave ghal maternita tkun imhallsa fuq l-istess linji tat-tlettax-il gimgha leave ghal maternita mhallsa, kif introdotti mill-Gvern Laburista fl-1982. " Further comments are superflous.
Angelo Vassallo (on 12/2/08)
The 13 weeks Maternity Leave were introduced in Malta by the labour government - granted. And no one is taking it away from the labour party.

But here we are talking about something completely different. We are talking about who was the fist party to come up with the proposal regarding the fourteenth paid week. We are talking about who performed the "cut and paste job" and from whom.

Could Mr. Paul Vella be so kind as to indicate to us the chapter and page from the quoted publication entitled "Pjan ghal Bidu Gdid", published by the mlp in Summer 2007.

This is the only way to settle this controversy once and for all
Paul Vella (on 12/2/08)
What Mr. Vassallo ought to know is the 13-week of Maternity Leave were introduced in Malta by no one else, but by the Labour Government way back in the begininnig of the 80's. The present government only added a week to that. The proposal to add a week was in "Pjan ghal Bidu Gdid" before last October's Budget. It was another "cut and paste" job from Labour's proposals!
Chris Ripard (on 11/2/08)
I think the very fact that a socialist is using timesofmalta.com to get his opinion across is a very good sign indeed and shows that the country has come a long way since the late 70s - early 80s.
Kris Scicluna (on 11/2/08)
labour have been waiting for the prime minister to call the election for ages. they have been saying that they are prepared for months. they would have been ready had Dr.Gonzi called the election in December, according to Jason Micallef. Yet, they presented there electoral programme with a 'misprint'. somehow it makes me wonder what would have happened had Dr. Gonzi really called the elcetion in December and how prepared they would have been. because to include in your electroal manifesto something which is already put into effect since last October, one might think that maybe, (just maybe), the dormant party isnt the one in government after all........
Angelo Vassallo (on 11/2/08)
The 'boomerang' that Mr. Grixti should have talked about in his contribution is the gaffe he and Karl Chircop did about the 14th week of the maternity/pregnancy leave.

Whilst Mr. Grixti maintained that the Labour party wanted to show that this proposal belongs to the MLP (although it is truly a Nationalist one); Karl Chircop, on the other hand, said that it was only a misprint in the Labour electoral manifesto/programme.

Misprints like this are unacceptable. It was not a misprint at all. It was another Labour Party GAFFE.

All posts

Poll

Should the George Cross be retained on the Maltese flag?

  • yes
  • no
  • don't know


View results

Fun Stuff


Play Sudoku