Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Campaign 2013

The queue as a political symbol

The queue has taken centre stage in what has been dubbed the “Battle of the Billboards”. This summertime kerfuffle is a mere taster of pleasures yet to come since the electoral campaign promises to be a concentration of superficial messages orchestrated in physical tweets plastered across the illegal billboards across the land. Writing in his Sunday column Mark Anthony Falzon repeated one of the mantras of this blog: that the two party system suffers when one (or worse, both) of the parties lowers its standards. We tend to call it the race to mediocrity and there is now ample proof that the political parties abdicate the reasoned approach to convincing voters in favour of the marketing-driven propagandist approach.

So while the Nationalist party is lost in its fixation with Dr Who-like time-travelling reminding us that New Labour is old hat, the Labour party revels in the comfort zone of tit-for-tat. It is a comfort zone that is devoid of propositions and mainly constructed around the eternal grudges of real or perceived faults. Which is where the queue comes in handy. The PN marketing team was surely on a tea break when they came up with the cut and past job of a poster 30 years young. There was the obvious omission of the “conservative” part but that was a minor issue when compared to the humungous gaffe of bringing “the queue” to the fore of the current political discourse.

One reason why the Saatchi & Saatchi poster worked back in 1979 was surely the fact that it focused on the anger that people had for the incumbent Labour government. The queue is a potent symbol of dissatisfaction. People queueing for unemployment benefits were a strong reminder of things that were not working. It was tangible. The queues were there for all to see. By contrast the nationalist billboard falls into a double trap. First of all the proof of Labour not working can only come with a Labour party in government. Is the nationalist party’s word still strong enough for the voter to believe it? Which brings me to the second part of the trap. It was child’s play for Labour to appropriate itself of the queue symbol and use it to strengthen its Mantra for the Disgruntled.

We got the queues for operations, for jobs, for education. You name it, Labour cloned it. Did it matter that most of the counter-billboards were factually incorrect? Not much. Labour was given a free ride to do what it does best – repeat the lie enough times to make it sound true. Or trueish. The counter-counter-spin cried Not Fair! But the damage had been done. The PN had introduced a demon that would be hard to get rid of. It was now forced into a corner of comparing PN 2012’s achievements to those of Labour circa 1984. Let’s face it… it is a comparison that does not hold water.

The PN would have done better trying to force the hand of Joseph Muscat to come down from his castle in the sky non-committal mode and try to focus its billboards on exposing the emptiness of New Labour – whoever is in the present line up. The fixation on the Karmenu Vellas and Alex Sciberras Trigonas of this world is beginning to turn stale. There seems to be no end of it though and the PN stables seem to be lost in the taste-driven marketing ploys that only just tipped the scales in 2008 (and let’s not forget the JPO factor in that particular round of elections).

Speaking of JPO, do not underestimate the effect of the uninvited return of Jason Micallef as an election candidate. Muscat risks having his own JPO within his stables – another cohabitation in the making – and Labour do have a habit of making such internecine squabbles turn ugly. We can expect various phases of this new relationship. First the very public reconciliation and the “all’s well that ends well” approach. Then the early post election phase we can call the “there’s daggers in men’s eyes” phase. Finally there will be the inevitable eruption when a possible PM  Muscat realises – as Gonzi did much to his chagrin – that you cannot keep everybody happy all the time.

What then? Then we can party like it’s 1979.

 

ADDENDUM:

Remember this from the late 80’s? The queue – a potent political symbol indeed. Music by Brown Rice for the legendary satirical programme “Aħn’aħna jew m’aħniex”…

Categories
Values

The IVF conundrum

I have been meaning to blog about the controversy that is the new IVF bill and reactions thereto. Setting aside the position taken by the church – a position to which it is entitled but which should obviously not be taken as the universal truth in a secular society – there is also the position of the LGBT lobby that begs consideration.

The premise of the LGBT lobby’s assertion is that IVF should be accessible to same-sex couples and single parents. I have serious problems getting my head around this one for the reason that I see IVF as a scientific aid to couples who are finding trouble having children. IVF in that context assists these couples. What the new bill is proposing to do is to regulate the matter in such a way that such couples no longer find themselves in an illegal situation when having recourse to the benefits of scientific advances.

I find that the qualms expressed by Andrew Borg Cardona in today’s column are very much the ones that I have – in particular with regard to the fish and bicycle argument. It is hard to envisage a fundamental right for LGBT couples to IVF though, like Andrew I would not be one to set up barricades should such a law eventually come to pass. The incongruence is between the idea of what is accepted in current society (and what has been transformed into law) and the possibility of a fundamental change in that very level of mores.

Without entering into the issue of whether same-sex couples having offspring (obviously with donors involved) is moral or immoral – I do feel confident in asserting that this kind of development would warrant a wider platform than a back-door entry via an enabling clause in a bill in parliament.

Here is the relevant part from Borg Cardona’s article (by the way Andrew … convoluted moi?)

The question is: Is it really the case that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to raise a family, a right that shouldn’t be denied by the law itself?

Speaking for myself, and a philosopher or ethicist I ain’t, I have this nagging doubt worrying my logical bone like a slightly lethargic puppy. It’s not something that exercises me to the max, far from it, and if the law were to be changed to accommodate same-sex couples, I’m not about to take to the barricades. In the case of two males, obviously, legislation concerning IVF is pretty much a fish and bicycle proposition, while, equally obviously, for two females, it is very relevant that the law is limiting the facility to male-female couple. Thankfully, no one has tried to square the circle that would be a lesbian and gay couple, who would appear to have no bar to getting married or resorting to IVF, somewhat paradoxically.

The real question to be getting back to is, then, can you extend the definition of a fundamental right to embrace people who don’t have the wherewithal to achieve what they’re trying to achieve? I really don’t know but my perhaps less liberal side tends towards the “not really” side of the argument.

Categories
Campaign 2013 Politics

From Sarkozy to Saatchi & Saatchi

It’s out. The Nationalist party has “launched” a new billboard – complete with press release and comments by the party President. The PN is really trying its darned best to water down the importance of a press release and a press conference. First we had PBO calling not one but two press conferences and now Marthese Portelli, Tonio Fenech and Chris Said were wheeled out in order to explain… a billboard. You know that your billboard campaign has started on the wrong foot when you need to explain or, worse still, justify the content.

While the 2008 campaign was wrought with messages of “taste” and “guilt by association”, the PN in 2012 is resolute in reminding us how much of Labour’s current lineup has its roots way back when the Commodore 64 was launched (note the nerdy reference here). One thing has not changed – the absence of original thought in the creative department. In 2008 we had the plagiarised Sarkozy slogan “ensemble tout est possible” and for 2012 the PN has kicked off with a plagiarised poster from the UK Conservative party campaign back in 1979.

Do note how Marthese Portelli takes care not to mention the Conservative party in her “explanation”. The emphasis in some quarters is on “Saatchi & Saatchi” – you know, the Versace of political campaigns. Like that should make the whole plagiarising business disappear instantly. I wonder whether Saatchi & Saatchi could claim any royalties for this “cut and paste” job – which might go some way into explaining PBO’s estimates for billboard costs.

The original poster did say “Labour isn’t working” (changed to “Labour won’t work” for obvious reasoning) but it also had a little addendum: “Britain’s better off with the conservatives”. Now that’s vanished of course – and I am quite sure the PR department is smart enough not to deviate the attention of the voter with the assertion “Malta’s better off with the nationalists”. Because that is essentially the part of the formula the PN cannot afford to gamble on. The campaign HAS to focus on Labour’s perceived inadequacy to govern (and Labour goes quite a long way in reinforcing that perception) but it also HAS to shift the focus away from the current state of the nationalist party.

So. Are we better off with the conservatives? What is the PN doing to allay fears that their conservative elements will not dominate a future legislature? Well. Right now we have the rush to change laws on expression, the IVF bill with all its controversies and a number of other minor laws crying for attention (still slapping nudists with criminal fines are we?).

In the end this is not a game changer but it is a clear indication that the nationalist party will definitely find it tough going if it were to act as though all were fine and dandy. And it will take much more than an article by a human rights lawyer to convince the intelligent voter that the PN vote is the vote for change.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The joke’s on you

I’m just back from a late night showing of a fantastic The Dark Knight Rises. It’s definitely my favourite from the Christopher Nolan series if only for the plot that jumps straight at you as a masterpiece of political intrigue. What happens to society if you give it the freedom to choose? What happens when you unleash the angry, when you release the envious and the underachieving and give them a free run to destroy those who they perceive as the elite?

It didn’t help me much that my current read is Francis Fukuyama’s “The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution.” It’s a highly recommendable exploration into how society comes up with its institutions and orders itself in order to survive. In particular it is a look at (1) the state, (2) the rule of law and (3) accountable government. But more of that later in future posts.

Before going out I thought of rehashing a photo that’s been doing the rounds about another smart and funny billboard that the PL thought up in answer to the as yet empty billboards that apparently cost the PN €200,000 to erect (tee-hee). You know the one… it points at an empty PN billboard and has the amazing two-liner “gonziPN – Gvern Bahh”. There’s something irritating about Labour’s complacent attitude with regards to the facile catchphrases that ultimately all point to the same baseline: “Gonzi Iggranfat mal-poter”, “Gvern bla ideat” and now “Gvern Bahh”.

Friends of this blog seem to identify a pro-nationalist streak in me whenever I take a dig at the immense vacuum that is Labour. It would keep Stephen Hawking busy for quite a while – the vacuum that is. Unfortunately when I weigh my reaction about such campaigns as the “Gvern Bahh” campaign I find that the anger element far outweighs the funny (oh Labour can be smart) element. Why? Because, as I have said a hundred million times before Labour is in a constant mode of denial whereby it assumes that simply pointing out the deficit of the incumbent will give it a free ticket to govern.

Labour assumes that the intelligent voter can be wooed simply by saying – hey you’re in shit so might as well have us be the new provider of daily fecal matter. The voter is in a bit of a situation like having to choose between two restaurants. The first is your traditional run of the mill Pizza & Pasta Italian that is having a bit of a down time with the chef having lost control of the kitchen.

The other restaurant just has the one guy standing outside pointing out how bad the plates in the Italian restaurant are of late. The only hunch is that we have no idea what the second restaurant sells, whether they actually have any kind of food on the plate and whether it is the type of cuisine that is to our liking (they claim they can cook anything but refuse the smallest of tasters). Yet we laugh at the jokes about the not too al dente spaghetti and the colour of the crockery in the Italian joint.

Yep. We only have two restaurants to choose from and sadly the only kind of joke there is to laugh at is a joke at our expense. You’ve got it right mate… the joke’s on you.

and a nice tune to finish this off… all the way from the free airwaves of 1991 (I recall a DJ Schembri if I am not mistaken)…


 

 

 

 

Categories
Travel

New Livery, New Purpose

The new makeover at Air Malta has hit the headlines. Inevitably the discussion has centred on the cost (€2m) and not on the content. The press chose to highlight the fury of the pilot’s union when it complained that such an expense was not justified given the sacrifices that workers are being made to bear . You do have to wonder how these people expect the airline to become more competitive by retaining a tired livery and marketing plan. Attempting to transform the airline’s competitiveness will inevitably cost money – it’s either that or compete with an outdated marketing plan.

The rebranding exercise looks great. I especially love the idea of combining the marketing of the airline with the marketing of the destination. Selling Air Malta and Malta at the same time is an excellent idea – and the colourful livery that is a call to the exotic, sunny nature of the island is a brilliant move all round. Coming as it does in the middle of this August rush that has been reported up north – with British and other clients rushing for last minute escapades to the sun that never came – the marketing exercise might just be the start for a strong selling point: come to the land of Sun, Culture and friendly people.

The airline might need to target more regions that are currently orphaned of its reach and full of potential sun-seeking tourists – and I obviously have in mind the Grand Region of Lorraine, Luxembourg and Rheinland-Pfalz. The Luxembourg airport might be too prohibitive thanks to the  Luxair monopoly but Nancy-Lorraine and Frankfurt Hahn airports are cherries that are ripe for the picking. The same probably applies to other unconventional destinations that have developed a regular customer thanks to the new hubs promoted by low-cost airlines.

In the meantime a good two thumbs up to air malta for a job well done.

 

Categories
Satyre

Not the Labour Party Club

It has become a habit in some quarters to point out the spelling deficiencies that appear on boards and menus around the island. You don’t have to be a budding board writer for the Valletta Labour Party club in order to indulge in some fantastical spelling – where the “gordon blue” reigns supreme. Here’s a snapshot from the ice-cream selection at a popular parlour in Sliema – Fond Ghadir to be exact.

Go ahead… blame it on the “Italians”