Monday, 18th May 2009
GONNA BE ‘N ELECTION
Is it just me, or has the country gone and done a Rip van Winkle, nodding off for four years and waking up in time for a General Election?
Both parties seem to have gone into “yah boo, sucks to you” mode, doing their damndest to get the electorate to vote for their candidates by turning the poll into a PN v Labour re-match. Precisely what they hope to achieve by doing this, I’m not too clear in my mind.
From a Labour perspective, I can just about figure out what they’re doing. By trying to convince the electorate, bless it, that this is all about voting for Labour against PN, when they (Labour) get a good result, which is pretty much a foregone conclusion, they will be able to exercise bragging rights and strut around for the next four years, saying that Gonzi’s PN no longer enjoys the country’s confidence or whatever.
Labour will no doubt be bolstered in this by a few decent Local Council results, it being traditional that Governments in office get a right good kicking at the lesser polls, especially when the economy is going to hell in a Prada handbag.
So it’s understandable that Labour are trying to turn this into a national thing.
What is not understandable, though, is how, when they have such a good field on which to play their games, some of their people can make a pig’s dinner of it.
It is to Mr Beddingfield, Glen of that ilk, to whom I refer. This political genius (I’ve no idea of his real IQ, it’s about his political acumen that I’m on) came up with the stupendously inane crack that democracy in Malta is in danger during the course of one of his pre-poll monologues.
I don’t know if he was speaking to the massed ranks of the Bubaqra Ladies Who Tombla or to an assembled bunch of caffeine-imbibers corralled by “The Friends of Glenn Bedingfield” (and yes, I have used Glen and Glenn interchangeably, I don’t know which is correct and I’m not really worried) or if, indeed, he was addressing an august body of men and women in Brussels or Strasbourg, which I suspect may be the case, but the point is, does this gentleman really think that making ludicrous statements like this is designed to attract voters to him?
Let’s analyse it.
Anyone who is not a natural Labour voter will probably think “oh hell, another loony statement by one of the Old Labour Guard, let’s move on” and not give the thought of perhaps voting for this bloke the time of day. An intelligent natural Labour voter will probably think “oh hell, another loony statement by one of the people who are doing everything to remind people of Labour’s inglorious past” and cross him off the list of probables.
An un-intelligent natural Labour voter will probably think “oh hell, there’s a great man, telling it like it is, let ‘em have it, Glenny-boy” and put him on the list of people to give it to. The problem with this, from our hero’s point of view, is that given that this is the un-intelligent Labour voter we’re talking about (of whom there are presumably as many as there are un-intelligent PN voters) the voter will probably forget and just vote for the names he recognises.
As to the effect Beddingfield’s ludicrous statement had on anyone who isn’t able or doesn’t intend to vote for him, well, it’s probably pretty similar to the effect you get if you stick your finger far enough down your throat.
Moving over onto the other side of the political fence, the PN campaign has attracted the ire of various commentators, being the commentators who, surprise surprise, weren’t exactly enamoured of the PN when we went to the polls in the General Election and who have been demonstrating their bitterness ever since, rather like Chelsea supporters after that display of honest and skilful refereeing by that paragon of gentlemanly virtues, the Norwegian ref.
The bill-board which most annoyed the various people who were annoyed was the one that put Dom Mintoff, KMB, Alfred Sant and Joseph Muscat at the bottom of the tree, with the Labour MEP candidates hanging from the branches like so many fruits.
If I were Muscat, I’d seriously consider a libel action: he’s not turned out to be the bee’s knees and the cat’s cream, true enough, but he’s certainly not as bad as the trio with whom he’s been lumped in by the Nasty Nats. I mean to say: Dom Mintoff, whose respect for democratic process was non pareil, KMB, his worth successor and Sant, who still says that Malta did not vote for joining the EU and still regrets rien.
What a bunch to be associated with, poor lad.
RSS
Comments
I am too biased! You must be joking.
Tell that to Joseph who (allegedly) took the trouble of editing Alex Perici-Calascione's speech and take parts, out of context, to make it sound the exact opposite of what was said!!
This alone, is well beyond biased my friend. There is a word which describes it better but the moderator may find it objectionable.
Biased, my foot! You and your friends and more importantly the LP should refrain from treating the rest as imbeciles.
But then, misery likes company, but you will not have ours - no way.
INDEED, Half truths, misinformation, manipulation of events and BLATANT LIES has been the trade mark of the PN troughout our political history. Your comments more then often reflects that trade mark.
It is the LP which remains 'everlasting captive of the negativity'. We all wish that their policies were more people friendly, moderate and free from half truths, controversy and spite.
It is the LP which from time to time makes radical U-turns having realized that it was wrong in the past. That's negativity for me.
To comment on such a record is no negativity on my part but an attempt to remind many that the LP is constantly prone to make policy on the run, makes wrong decisions, never have any regrets and therefore cannot ever be trusted. Take the anti-EU stance in 1996 freezing Malta's application, the outright anti-EU war in 2003 and its refusal to admit that it had lost the referendum. Ah! but joining EU was not their idea!
When they really clean up (starting fresh) then my perception of the party may change, but until then, I cannot but wish that the voter will not be duped into experimenting with Joseph's 'new beginning' which as time goes on, shows that it is a mere repetition of old.
If in any case, I am wrong in my assessment, please feel free to correct me.
And you sound like an everlasting captive of the negativity you have just commented on. Or maybe, yours is just victim-posturing for some obvious reasons. Anyhow, regarding what I said about the PL's attempt to rehabilitate Dom Mintoff's name, I was referring in particular to the fact that he was labeled "traitor" by the MLP.
Your statement regarding the ' PL trying to clean the name of Dom Mintoff so as to regain the votes of his loyal supporters' sounds like wishful thinking of some obscure young Labourite who did not live under Mintoff's regime.
Nothing can erase history. What is written is written and no matter how much the LP or PL or MLP tries, its history is engraved forever amen.
The present brand is the fruit of Mintoff's mentality and follows his distorted view of democracy, free trade and civil liberty. We heard enough about 'an eye for an eye' and 'our government will be for Laburisti, then for the Laburisti and if anything left over will go to Laburisti' - evil slogans from the past.
I would not be surprised if (and that's a big 'if') Labour ever returns to power, their unemployment remedy will borrow a leaf from its past handbook and re-institute parastatal bodies whose wages come directly from the taxpayer.
"'skond zokk il-fergha' is a PN billboard and not a PL one" I didn't know that! haha! The way the PL members spoke about it gave me the impression that it was a PL's billboard since they seemed to be very proud of it.
But still what I said regarding the PL trying to clean the name of Dom Mintoff so as to regain the votes of his loyal supporters is still valid.
Yes, but they should be careful not to sound like a party of mercenaries. Mercenaries are soldiers that fight NOT for the principles they believe in, but for the money. They are willing to take whatever side regardless of whether they would be fighting for a good or a bad cause. They go where the money flow. In this case we don't have mercenaries but political groups and instead of the money we have votes. Political parties should stick to their principles and offer to the electorate only those candidates that have at heart those same principles.
For example, suppose that party PX offers 2 candidates, one pro abortion and one against. This to me would mean that either PX don't care whether abortion is good or bad and would hence fight for the most voted cause, OR they just want to fool one sector of society by getting its votes and then do behave according to their party's values and not pro the cause that would have been voted for.
I'm not saying this is or isn't the case of PL or PN, I'm saying they should be careful not to give that impression.
He must be proud to keep the SMURFS moral high.
But, ABC, you surely remember il-qawl Malti - 'ma min rajtek, xebbahtek'! In which case, grouping Joseph with the 'bad' trio is no surprise, as a matter of fact, Joseph's many recent pronouncements sound more and more like tape recordings of yore.
That is good marketing. Market fragmentation and niche markets.
The PL's "Skont iz-zokk il fergha’" strategy gives the message that there is a candidate for every labourites, because now the PL is open to everyone including those loyal to Dom Mintoff (who probably didn't vote in the last general election), those sceptical about the EU, those pro the EU etc .
Both the PN and PL's strategy is to divide and conquer.
With apologies to non Maltese readers.
OMG! Who is kidding who??!!