Categories
Uncategorized

What Joseph Did

Or why SuperOneJoseph is bad news….

a post by guest blogger Justin BB

What Joseph Did

Joseph Muscat won a huge majority. Well done to him. The choice of a number of candidates who are palatable to the middle class helped, but that was not the clincher. No, Muscat won so handily because he ticked all the boxes of discontent. One of those boxes was the immigration issue…he pandered to the far right and stoked the fires of ignorance and hate.

What Joseph Did Next

As a graduate of the school of lies and sound bites, Joseph led a campaign that lied about lots. They lied about government’s healthcare plans. They twisted Vince Farrugia’s declared confidence in PN candidates and a PN government. I was interviewed by Super 1 back in the day when Joseph worked there – what made it to the screens and TV spots had very little to do with what I actually said. Can I trust Joseph to be honest behind his smile? Not a jot.

What Joseph Almost Did

The Labour-loving crowd and the lovers of all things new and kind of shiny think that JM apologised for Labour’s past. Almost, but not quite. Joseph actually said something to the effect of ‘we’re sorry, but PN should be sorry too/sorry for provoking us’. It’s redolent of a wife-beater’s apology – ‘sorry, but she provoked me’. He did the same thing again after Labour supporters beat up elderly PN zealots in Zejtun. By putting ‘provocation’ (whatever that might be) and violence on the same level, you are condoning violence because petty provocations will be there forever.

What Joseph Did Not Do

Labour is great at being an Opposition party. Calling for greater civil rights without making it your party platform is the easiest thing in the world to do – get all the pro-divorce and pro-gay rights people on board without promising anything. Actually to make sure everyone is happy, wink the other way too – tell the anti-divorce lot that they will be free to vote against divorce in a referendum, or in Parliament as the case may be. Wink at everyone and they’ll all vote for you until you become PM.

What Joseph Will Never Do

Joseph has four years to prepare to be Prime Minister. He will spend those four years lying and making contradictory promises and pandering to anyone and everyone. And he needn’t do that. To win all he needs to do is prepare a vision for government and make it his party’s electoral platform. By that I mean that he should ditch his private members’ bill on divorce and show some backbone, leadership and organisational skills – make it your party’s platform. But Joseph will not prepare for Government. Because Joseph is spineless and wants everyone to like him.

Facebook Comments Box

35 replies on “What Joseph Did”

I agree completely with your analysis. I would also add that Labour is completely evasive on its economic policy. Muscat like Sant before him has created a coalition of the disgruntled. And I guess he is more astute than Sant in filling the cracks with pseudo progressive rhetoric and Blairite smiles. The scenario is far from promising.

I’m surprised you let this through without a health warning, Jacques. I thought I had opened Maltarightnow by mistake.

@ Ettore: my only involvement with the Nationalist Party was my resignation from SDM after my executive accepted an in-kind sponsorship from PN. I was later elected to KSU as an independent candidate with MZPN’s entire network voting against me, and organisations like Pulse and Graffitti supporting me. You will also find that James Debono is as unconnected to PN as they come. If I sound like Maltarightnow and James agrees with the substance of my analysis, it is probably a measure of how ill-suited to the role our future PM is.

@ James: yes I agree entirely with your comment – the examples above are a few of many.

Justin’s incisive, faux-naive piece reminds me of Rohan Candappa’s The Curious Incident of the WMD in Iraq. For instance on page 73 you get this:

New Labour
This was another Good Idea of ours. We thought of it because we were Modernisers. and because we were modernising the Old Labour Party.
Philip With The Glasses was very keen on changing the name. That’s because he was an ‘ad-man’ and knew all about Brands. He said we had to Shift Perception Of Our Brand. We had to dispel the old Bad Things people thought about Labour. These are some of those things:

Bad Things
Pals with trade unions
Strikes
Bad with money
Always arguing
Don’t like business
Blame society for crime
Beards
Don’t like middle classes
Do like raising taxes and spending the money on daft schemes
Bad suits

@JBB
Ghandek ragun li JM irid lil kulhadd ihobbu u ghalhekk jiprova jwieghed kollox lil kulhadd minghajr ma jiehu posizzjoni cara fuq certu issues bhad-divorzju. Sfortunatament anke Lawrence Gonzi ghandu din it-tip ta problema. Fl-elezzjoni tal-EP kellu skoss kandidati jwieghdu affarijiet kontradittorji (bil-barka tieghu), fuq id-divorzju hafna tlaqliq u hafna sejhiet ghad-diskussjoni, izda ma ha l-ebda posizzjoni cara. Fuq ir-riforma tal-MEPa hafna weghdiet izda xejn konkret (waqt li l-President tal-PN jibni villa f’nofs wied mill-isbah il-Bahrija)…..

“He will spend those four years lying and making contradictory promises and pandering to anyone and everyone…:”

funny, that sounds just like Gonzi to me…

It gets tiring. Very very tiring. So what if it sounds like Gonzi? What does that make you anna and Sully? Someone who prefers to be screwed by Joseph Muscat rather than by Gonzi? Is it nicer? Suaver?

JBB’s point, and my own if I may add, is that behind the great promise of Joseph Muscat’s change lie a lot of empty words. You might get some questionable satisfaction in seeing the back of Gonzi & Co and being able to say that Labour is in government but the next day after Muscat’s election you are in exactly the same position as before— getting screwed.

Yay! Enjoy the PL vs PN comparisons… while others are still trying to imagine a way out of this mess of mediocrity.

@Jacques
Nahseb fhimtni hazin. Veru li Muscat qed iwieghed kollox lil kulhadd u din it-tattika tatu success. Veru wkoll li l-istess tattika hadmet ghal Gonzi qabel l-elezzjoni generali. Jibqa l-fatt li din hi tattika li tahdem biss qabel l-elezzjoni, imbaghad ladarba titla fil-gvern trid twettaq dak li twieghed (jew almenu xi ftit minn dak li weghidt). Mis-sena l-ohra Gonzi ma tantx tajjar nar u ghalhekk ha d-disfatta elettorali. Madankollu ma jfissirx li ghandi xi preferenza partikolari ghal paroli vojt ta Muscat jew Gonzi.

The reason I picked up on JM rather than LG is that there’s something of the Emperor’s New Clothes around Joseph. Apart from isolated hysterics that are unconvincing because they are hysterics, JM is not subjected to sufficient sustained scrutiny.

I should point out that I am a strong believer in the adage that criticism is an invitation to improvement. I think that JM should be given as rough a ride as possible – that might prepare him for his (almost) inevitable premiership; congratulating him on his lovely new frock when he’s wearing his birthday suit will just entrench him in his philosophy of SuperOne shortcuts.

@iktar milli maltarightnow hsibtni qed naqra xi Daphne Caruana Galizia’s notebook jien. Rough ride lil joseph ruhi? Issa tara jekk xi darba jkun hmm il labour fil gvern kif jehorgu id dimonji tal qiegh jiprovah ibiccruh mil-ewwel gurnata. Ara gonzi jamlulu zizi – ax tigi kif tigi dejjem iktar komdi bil Pn fil gvern ….ghax heqq ‘jifimom’ aktar hux veru….

Mhux tara fil-gazzetti tipo l pseudo indipendenti Times diga ntesiet it-tkaxkira papali tal PN – ar kiku tilef il labour kinu jajdulu ixolji l-partit!

Fej kien spineless joseph, ax qal li jrid jipprova jifhem lil dawk li ivvutaw lil lemin estrem. Heqq le mhux partit u gvern tal Maltin u l-ghawdxin kollha irid ikun. Ma tghidu xej allura fuq il gidba ta Frank Portelli u l-ghajjat isteriku tieghu f’nofs pjazza li l PL sa jtihom l vot lil immigranit ILLEGALI?

Fuq dawk ma tghidux li Gonzi/Simon kienu spineless.

Mala issa nibqaw nivvutaw AD ‘the j’accuse way’ sakemm jispiccaw bi tlett voti fil garzella fl ahhar count – ta james debono, arnold cassola u jacques rene zammit.

@Sully @anna – DV is exactly the kind of sorry labourite I had in mind. Happy to be screwed by his own. Tipo taghna f’taghna hux!

If DV read ALL that is in this blog he would know that we criticised the PN spineless tactic on the immigration vote. Imma insomma… viva l-lejber (small letters.. intentionally)

@j’accuse

Better to be a sorry labourite than a pretend-green who votes PN at the end of the day ‘ghax mandnix ghazla’. Daw jibdew ifaqqsu gmielhom mad 90 gurnata qabel l-elezzjoni.

oh and another thing rgding the so called violence at Zejtun. I guess you had to pin that on Muscat as well aye. So if this deranged baboon goes on a rampage ad kills a couple of nats then we should crucify joseph since he’s ultimately responsible. No one in his right mind can buy that.

Face it, it was an isolated incident – as was the case where a well known nationalist supporter attempted to enter CNL 2 weeks ago brandishing a knife. This guy has since admitted the crime and is awaiting prosecution….no one made a fuss about that I believe.

@Justin BB
Minnu li l-politikant ghandu jitghallem mill-kritika imma ikollok tametti li hemm two weights two measures meta tigi ghall-kritika tal-PN u l-PL. Meta Alfred Sant kien tela’ l-kontijiet tad-dawl u l-ilma, il-media kienet sallbitu. Issa – ma narax dak it-tip ta panic mit-Times per ezempju

@ DV:

(i) Yes, Zejtun was an isolated incident. But here’s Labour’s reaction to it:

“Labour condemns any provocation or reaction without any reservations, and believes steps should be taken.” (http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/06/07/t2.html)

Do you see the moral equivalence between violence and the so-called provocation of an (possibly over-zealous) old man?

(ii) As for your earlier remarks, Gonzi has the verdict of the electorate to listen to. Hopefully he will do so and react appropriately and coherently.

If JM listens to the verdict of the electorate, rather than constructive criticism, then we’re all in for a nasty surprise when Labour is returned to government. Do you remember the mess we were in between 1996 and 1998? Or was all that worth it because you knew that the occupant of Castille wore a red tie?

@Sully: Iva ghandek ragun. Iz-zewg partiti ghandhom bzonn iktar kritika mill-media. Parti mir-raguni ghall-medjokrita` fil-politika hija l-medjokrita` fil-media (biex inkun ghidt kollox, it-Times dan l-ahhar forsi qed issir ftit ahjar milli kienet).

@Justin BB

Id differenza bej il gvern tal MLP ta dak iz-zmien u l-PN tal-lum hi wahda – zewg kelmiet, ‘Dom Mintoff’

Kiku l-PN tal-lum kellu salib hekk l-istess destin makabru kien ikollu.

Bhala livell ta qaghad, gholi tal-hajja, kontijiet tad-dawl u ilma – l-istess livell qeghdin. Veru ma kienx hemm ricessjoni u l-prezz taz-zejt kien irhas. Imma frankament in-nies jigu jitnejjku min dan, jekk taffetwalom l-but ksirta u fullstop.

U ha najdlek haga ohra fuq tal Immig illegali ghax qeghdin tghidu li JM qed ikun popolista u jitfa l-petrol fuq in nar.

Ara innotajtux din: fl ispeeches ta Muscat dejjem inataw priorita dawn t-topics f’din l-ordni – dawl/ilma, xoghol, gholi tal hajja, immig illegali. ghalfejn? ghax is surveys kollha kienu qed juru li dawn kinu l main concerns. Yes Illegal immig was only 4th!! Either the PN pollsters or those they commisioned were doing something wrong but the PN seemed to give undue importance o illegal Immig when it was not the no1 topic concerning people.

Kemm andu jkun admonished iktar mala Edward Demicoli (dak li j’accuse kellu jatih it-3 minalija – EHE IL-BLOG KOLLU QRAJT) li f’xarabank qal lil grech b’dik l-arja ingenwa tieghu ‘Imma ala ridtu ggibu lit terroristi ta Guantanamo?’ jew FP li ghamel kampanja shiha jigdeb li l PL rid jati l vot lil klandestini??

Dawn kemm ghandom jisthu iktar…. Inhalli lil haddihor jiddecidi…

@DV
Nies bhalek jgibu fix-xejn il-weghdiet ta Muscat – ta toleranza u inkluzjoni u “friend to all” Party. Forsi Jacques ma jahsibihix bhalek- allura?

@sully

Min mindu ghanda ‘guilt by association’ go malta?

Mala jin raprezentant ta JM? jekk jien nghid perezempju li int persuna mill iktar disgustanti (li ma nistax nghida ax ma nafekx) allura JM sa jehel li jattaka personali?

Jacques ghandu kull dritt jahseb li jrid – I am merely pointing out flaws in his arguments – he can say and act and think as he pleases as far as I’m concerned…

DV:

Tajjeb li qrajt il-blog kollu. Issa jmissek taqra ftit storja. It-tahwid li kien hemm bejn in-96 u n-98 ma kienx biss minhabba li Sant rikeb lil Mintoff u mbaghad ma kienx jaf jikkontrollah. Insejt li Lino Spiteri u Charles Mangion irrizenjaw ukoll? It-tahwid kien ghax il-Labour telghu fil-Gvern u ma kellhomx idea x’se jaghmlu ghax il-pjan taghhom kien biss li jirbhu l-elezzjoni. Per ez:

(i) il-Gvern biddel is-sistema tat-taxxa u l-anqas hu stess ma seta jifhem u jiospjega x’dahhal ‘flok il-VAT; (ii) ta xokk lill-ekonomija meta zied ill-kontijiet tad-dawl u l-ilma. U d-differenza fil-prezzijiet li kien qed ihallas, li ssemmi inti stess, hija differenza enormi; (iii) biddel is-sistema tal-istipendji u dahhal sistema li kienet hazina ghall-Gvern (qatt ipprovajt tikkalkula kemm hallas interessi l-Gvern?) u hazina ghall-istudenti; (iv) ‘iffriza’ l-applikazzjoni biex nidhlu fl-EU; (v) sploda d-deficit; (vi) incertezza, u konsegwentement stagnar, enormi gax hadd ma kellu idea x’qed jaghmel il-Gvern u f’liema direzzjoni se jehodna.

Huwa dan kollu li nixtieq li nevitaw, u ghalhekk nixtieq li l-PL jipprepara biex jiggverna. U dan il-kliem nghidu lil hbieb tieghi li huma fost il-mexxejja tal-PL.

Dwar l-immigrazzjoni illegali, jekk se toqghod tqabbel lil kulhadd ara ftit il-hnizrijiet li qalet Marlene Mizzi, u li kien diga qalhom JM.

U din klassika: ‘Veru ma kienx hemm ricessjoni u l-prezz taz-zejt kien irhas. Imma frankament in-nies jigu jitnejjku min dan, jekk taffetwalom l-but ksirta u fullstop.’ Ghandek idea kemm hu statement bazwi dan?

U issa ha nhalli l-ahhar kelma lilek ghax xbajt nargumenta ma’ bnadar.

ok l-ahhar kelma:

statement bazwi – but do you challenge it’s veracity? I think not.

Dwar ir-rizenja ta Mangion – check your facts – he resigned not due to a disagreement on govt policy. Dik kien hemm teknikalita fuq mahfra ta prigunier li kienet inhadmet mic- civil b mod hazin u irrezenja fuq hekk.

Dwarr ix-xokk tad-dawl u l-ilma. Ehe naqbel 100% li kinet hazina, ovjament kien assuma sant li sa jkollu 5 snin.

Dwar l-iffrizar tal applikazzjoni fl EU – err mhux fil manifest elettorali kinet? Mhux il poplu ivvota ghaliha fl-ahhar mill-ahhar?

Dwar l-istipendji – jien personalment ghadni minix konvint kemm hi socjalment fair li kulhadd jaqla stipendji meta hi evidenti li xi whud mill istudenti jaffordjaw li jhallsu ghal-kotba. Imma dak argument ihor…

Issa dwar pjani konkreti – nahseb li it is still early in the day, I gues concrete plans will come to live a year or so before th election….

I’m really trying to keep an open mind here, but this is what I don’t get though…gonzi is the PM, he is governing the country, he is calling the shots, he is accountable, so of course he should be scrutinised the most…
I don’t know of any other country which spends so much time and effort criticising the opposition leader..
when and if it’s joseph’s turn to lead the country…he will be scrutinised don’t worry..

@DV – JBB best said it. Xbajt nargumenta ma bnadar.

@anna. I guess it is the point isn’t it? I don’t think I would really need to justify J’accuse’s line on scrutiny of the current government for it is there for all to see. Whether I should wait for Joseph Muscat to be elected before I start complaining that this is more of the same is not even a question I am bothered to answer.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

By Post Author

I always thought that this country is more obsessed with the opposition than with the government – this post is a point in case.

so, wohooooo … thank god is not mintoff. hlisna minnhu. x biza. btw – who is this mintoff guy?

Is that the same old guy who scares the shit out of middle-aged housewives?

JBB’s analyses is the same the PL does after every electoral defeat – so go on … it worked wonders for the PL …

… and the utility bills, the conservative mentality, the lack of credibility on environmental issues and so on and so forth had nothing do with the PN’s defeat? U hallina tridx.

RJ, I think that we’re a little bit traumatised by our experiences of the Labour Party in government, whether it was Mintoff and KMB’s heavy-handedness or Sant’s lack of preparation for government. We’re also quite affronted by Sant’s pre-referendum judgement and post-referendum behaviour. For those of us that remember pre-87 Malta, the palpable progress in the post-87 years, and the uncertainty in the Sant years (including the EU membership debacle), it is difficult to trust people who were participants on the wrong side of history.

You are right that we might also find it too easy to excuse PN, but that is most certainly not what I set out to do. You will note that I wrote about what Joseph did, and I conclude that he can win without all the silliness. He has probably the best opportunity to heal this country in a principled manner that any politician has had since independence.

As I said, I make the criticism above not to excuse the Nationalists…the best thing that could happen to PN as a thinking unit would be a stint in opposition – and that should, in principle be the best thing for all of us. But it will only be good for us if the other option is better. So I make these points because I hope that the Labour Party will make use of its current stint in opposition to prepare for government. My interest is in waking up some day in 2013 and being happy to have a brand new government that is up to the job. Unfortunately, Muscat’s track record so far suggests that it will be a case of changing the curtains and having new names in the power(and corruption) networks – arguably a good thing in itself. Yet Labour’s lack of preparation leads me to think that it will be a net loss to the voter. I hope that I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen any evidence to convince me that I am.

Finally, I made the argument in a sensationalist manner because I wished to provoke a reaction. I could have been measured and balanced, but I have little interest in equidistance between the two main parties.

PS I live in the UK where, despite an anti-government bias in most of the media, the Opposition is also held to account. This ‘obsession with the opposition’ is far from uniquely Maltese.

People expect revolutionary changes. That is naive. JM spoke consistently on divorce, gay rights and co-habitation rights. I believe that is a plus. You might have your reservation on immigration – then again everyone has. Yet, he was proven right on a mandatory obligatory sharing agreement.

Yet, I wish also to remind you about the many reports issued by international ngos and organisation on the conditions of the detention centres which were described as “inhuman” in all reports.

As for 2013 – it is a long walk and quoting the Times it won’t be an easy ride … the PN will manage to centralize all the resources (by resources I mean the State’s funds) to win the 2013 election as it will be. And then, we will be sitting and bitching because things never change, because divorce never got a chance, because a homosexual can’t visit his partner in hospital because he is not recognize by the state, and how those who co-habitat are systematically discriminated by the State – because hey, it is not very christian and not very democratic to pam pam your partner before marriage.

As for the Mintoff period – really and truly, get some pink pills (blue, green or whatever the MD prescribes) and get over it or switch to running commentary mode …

(but then again you live in the UK – the qahbu won’t get you there …)

RJ, you and I have different definitions of consistency. My definition of consistency on civil rights would be battling to make it the Labour Party platform. So far it is just a zero-commitment personal platform. I prefer JM’s approach to PN’s appalling approach, but I’m not convinced that it will lead to anything and will not be until he shows leadership and backbone by taking his own party on.

Re 2013: the power of incumbency, real or imagined, should pale in comparison to the power of nausea. By any account, JM has just won a huge victory and is on track to overcome the tiny PN relative majority.

Re immigration: As I said earlier, I have no interest in excusing PN. You’re quite right about the detention camps. I have spoken out against detention camps in my small way for several years, including here in the UK: http://law-research.blogspot.com/search/label/Illegal%20Immigration

Re multi-coloured pills: you mention Mintoff, but conveniently exclude (i) JM’s deep involvement in the Sant years as a SuperOne spin-doctor (the kinder description there) and (ii) the deep involvement of the vast majority of the shadow cabinet in the Mintoff and KMB years. So no amount of facile arguments will take the past and the path dependency away.

Finally, please attempt to be civil in your arguments. I have not recommended any treatment to you and I would hope for reciprocal respect.

PS Labour is not necessarily right about obligatory burden-sharing; international politics is really about the art of compromise and it is quite possible that it was optional or nothing at all. And, before I get sent to another blog again, just because that is exactly what PN said does not make it wrong.

Comments are closed.