In tennis they don’t use the word zero when counting scores. They have a fancy name for it – they call it love. Some say that the name came from the tennis courts among the nobles in France when they used to call the zero “l’oeuf” (the egg) thanks to its ovoid shape. A tennis match kicks off at “love all” before moving on to other weird ways of adding up scores to find out the real winner. In any case for a tennis player love is nothing. Zero.
And Labour have got themselves a spanking new deputy leader just in time for the ball. We’ve already said much about how Labour have played to the PN’s tune when it comes to hyping the importance of deputy leaders and their “relevance” in politics and party programmes. We have also seen how Labour’s move is a clear demonstration that there was a moment of panic at the poll readings, that Anglu Farrugia was identified as the weakest link and that Simon Busuttil needed to be countered at all costs.
It is a battle of image and definitely not of substance. The supposed charm that oozes out of the newly anointed PN deputy leader was wreaking havoc with Labour’s plans. Somehow (and surprisingly) the PN bluff about having a “change card” in hand was working. So Labour needed to act fast. What better way then than to call the PN’s bluff? How? Short of cloning Simon they could only get as close fitting a substitute as possible. Enter Louis “Connery” Grech. Charm? Plenty. Affability? Truckloads. Substance? Come again?
For yes. We said it when Simon was anointed and we will repeat it with much greater force now that Labour got their clone. Where’s the substance? Show me the money. Grech shot out a speech about accountability, respect, managerial style and all that FEMA-speech yada we have long been hearing from Joseph. For a bit of added value he stole a few leaves from Franco Debono’s routine about meritocracy. Beyond that we just have image and the spiel about “experience gained in Europe” – Simon Said, Louis Did too.
So do we have anything new in our political constellation? Not really. We’ve got nothing. Love. The mad political extra-time before the end of the year has simply been an appendix of new-style valueless marketing. For now all we get are Simon and Louis… from Brussels, with love.
Jekk tinzerta tkun qiegħed ħdejn xi bajja Maltija taf tara kartelluni li javzaw lil kull min bi ħsiebu jgħum illi “Topless sunbathing is prohibited”. Dejjem laqtitni din fuq ħafna livelli. L-ewwelnett għax għadna iffissati biż-żejża. L-iskop ta’ din il-projbizzjoni ma hix ċara. Hemm forsi skop sanitarju? Jista jkun li l-“awtoritajiet” qed jikkumbattu il-kanċer tas-sider – għax ħafna xemx mhux tajjeb għaż-żejża? Forsi. Jista’ jagħti l-każ ukoll li din hija projbizzjoni oħra minn dawk ibbażata fuq il-pudur ta’ ħaddieħor. Taf int. Forsi l-“awtoritajiet” qed jipproteġu lili u lilek minn xi esibizzjoni esaġerata ta’ mammarji. Big Brother is protecting you.
Fil-verita l-ebda skuża ma treġi. Għax allura għax ma tipprojbix tipjip fil-pubbliku bl-istess raġunar? U jekk se tuża l-iskuża tal-pudur mhux aħjar tgħid lil ħaddieħor iħares band’oħra? L-isbaħ “No Topless Sunbathing” fil-bajja ta’ San Ġorġ mitt metru bogħod mill-“Gentlemen’s Cubs”. M’għandux x’jaqsam ta – it-topless sunbathing mal-Gentlemen’s Club – imma xorta toħroġ idea konfuża tan-normi li jirregolawna u l-mori li jsejsuhom.
Imma barra dan kollu hemm ħaġ’oħra li tittikani. Il-projbizzjoni m’hijiex ibbażata fuq liġi li tistipula espressament li tixxemex b’sidrek mikxuf huwa illegali. Le. Il-projbizzjoni hija interpretazzjoni ta’ liġi li tistipula li tkun “indeċenti fil-pubbliku” huwa reat. Jiġifieri x’imkien hemm kejl soġġettiv illi f’daqqa waħda isir universali. Il-qrati għalhekk hemm qiegħdin – biex jinterpretaw u japplikaw il-liġi … u kulltant per forza maggiore dik l-interpretazzjoni taf biss tirrinforza l-assurd – sakemm jiġi maġistrat u jinterpreta kollox b’mod differenti.
****
Smajna li l-Kummissjoni għall-Amministrazzjoni tal-Ġustizzja se tinvestiga lil Maġistrat Demicoli wara l-allegazzjonijiet ta’ Anġlu Farrugia. Qabel inkompli irrid ngħid li żewġ il-Maġistrat Demicoli huwa ħabib tiegħi (għax jidher li għal xi nies din l-informazzjoni taf tkun importanti iktar mill-fatti). Issa il-kwistjoni li għaddejja minnha il-Maġistrat hija proprju kwistjoni oħra li tirrefletti l-assurdita ta kif inħaddmu l-liġi – assurdita li ħafna drabi ikollha l-għeruq tagħha fis-sistema partiġġjana.
Il-Kummissjoni għandha kull dritt (Artiklu 101A (11) (f) Kostituzzjoni):
li tiġbed l-attenzjoni ta’ kull imħallef jew maġistrat fuq kull ħaġa, fil-qorti li fiha hu jkun ipoġġi, li ma tkunx konduċenti għal funzjonament effiċjenti u xieraq ta’ dik il-Qorti, u li tiġbed l-attenzjoni ta’ kull imħallef jew maġistrat għal xi aġir li jista’ jolqot il-fiduċja li għandu minħabba l-kariga tiegħu, jew għal xi nuqqas minn naħa tiegħu li jimxi skond xi kodiċi jewkodiċijiet ta’ etika li jkun japplika għaliha;
Mela sew. Il-Kummissjoni dehrrilha li għandha tara jekk l-aġir tal-Maġistrat Demicoli kienx influwenyat minn xi bias politiku kif allegat minn Anglu Farrugia (li barra li hu politiku hu ukoll avukat). Din l-investigazzjoni tista twassal għal “ġbid ta’ l-attenzjoni” tal-Maġistrata ikkonċernata. Nimmaġina li jiktbu ittra oħra fejn jsemmgħu il-preokkupazzjoni tagħhom dwar bias possibbli. Pero ħaġa waħda ma ddoqqlix. Sakemm ma hemmx xi prova ta’ influwenza esterna (tipo telefonati, tixħim, pressjoni mill-partiti jew Ministri jew xi ħaġa hekk), l-uniku indizju li għandha il-Kummissjoni hija l-kawża innifisha.
Is-sentenza tal-Maġistrat Demicoli hi dik li hi. Kienet waħda motivata u ma ninsewx li peress li qed nitkellmu fuq kamp kriminali qed ngħidu li irid ikun hemm każ “beyond reasonable doubt”. Dik l-istess sentenza diġa ġiet eżaminata fl-appell u diġa ingħataw raġunijiet sostantivi u raġunati għalfejn għandha tinqaleb. Li jinkwetani allura hu li l-Kummissjoni se tkun qed taġixxi bħala Qorti ta’ Appell ieħor. Jew se taqbel mal-Imħallef Mallia u jekk tagħmel hekk ikun fuq punti ta interpretazzjoni legali, jew le. Il-kwistjoni ta’ bias politiku m’għandhiex x’taqsam.
Biex nagħti eżempju fittizju, stajna kellna sitwazzjoni inversa fejn il-Maġistrat sabet lil Bartolo ħati u dan inħeles fuq Appel. Allura konna ngħidu li l-qorti tal-appell hija biased? Skond statistika li qaluli fuq xi 600 kawża appellata xi 200 jiġu mibdula fl-Appell. Dan huwa normali fl-iter legali. Il-problema ma hix il-bias potenzjal ta’ imħallef jew maġistrat imma li partit politiku (jew membru tiegħu) ħass il-bżonn li jkompli jippolitiċiżża il-qrati u jkompli jimmina l-fiduċja pubblika fil-ġustizzja. Deherli li Muscat sewwa għamel li talab ir-riżenja ta’ Farrugia għal daqshekk (ġietux ix-xoqqa f’moxxtha jew le).
Wara kollox għandna kultura miftuħa ta’ Maġistrati u Imħallfin li huma jew ta’ xi kulur jew ta’ ieħor. Mhux sigriet. Ara x’ġara ma’ l-aħħar skandlu – il-partiti jippuntaw subgħajhom lil xulxin “Dak tagħkom… appuntajtuh intom”. Sfortunatament il-verita hi dik li hi. Il-ġudikatura s’issa kienet appuntata biex jitpaxxew il-partiti. Li jiġu issa l-partiti u l-makkinarji tagħhom u jibdew jakkużaw lil min jaqblilhom b’bias politiku jikkonferma kemm aħna dilettanti tal-liġi tal-assurd.
The “Christmas Truce” has gone up in ashes with a Ho! Ho! Ho! and without so much as a by your leave. It was obvious from the start (as we had predicted) that the two parties would be unable to contain the inertia of the electoral swing. The 9th of March has a gravitational pull of its own that knows no truces and acknowledges no pauses. Even before the big Anglu Farrugia bomb had fallen into the atmosphere like a big party pooper, the two parties were still heavily active on the promotional front but nothing really changes there.
Anglu’s resignation promises to be much more than a blip on the “truce” agenda. Labour have been forced to hold an extraordinary council meeting between Christmas and New Year. No time to unwrap the presents and no time for Luciano to regale us with the latest news from under the Christmas tree at Casa Busuttil (Labour). Instead Labour will be cooped up voting for their new Deputy Leader for Parliamentary Affairs. Which is quite a bitch really. In the first instance, Parliament is all but wrapped up now and Labour could have provided an interim leader without having to go through the pains of an expedited deputy leadership campaign. The post itself – as was the case with the PN – is not an issue really. Labour’s deputies have been useless props all along – causing more harm than damage (and you cannot say we didn’t tell you so before this happened) – so this is nothing to do with the post per se.
So what IS happening? Why has Labour so evidently gone for this step? Let us see what we can read in them while the facts are still fresh:
1) The Truce
The run up to the truce was an all round victory to the nationalists. Poll gaps were softened and thanks to the shenanigans of Anglu Farrugia (and the complicity of TVM) , the last memory before Christmas would definitely be the bumbling deputy’s antics on Xarabank. Not good, Labour would say. What Labour needed was not a truce but a “casus belli” – an excuse to reset its train on tracks. Ironically Anglu’s perceived moment of triumph over Simon – the very appeal case of which Simon was absolutely ignorant – turned out to be his cup of hemlock. Comments made by Anglu later in the week would become the excuse for Labour to dump excess baggage and to keep the momentum going. Forget Santa… this Christmas the people will have “a new deputy leader”. It was a bit like wishing for an electric car racing track and getting a woolly jumper instead. (Ghax dak ghandek bzonn).
2) The Resignation
I’m quite sure that whoever is supposed to be planning Labour’s campaign must be believing that they have carried out the smartest of moves. In one fell swoop Labour rids itself of an inconvenient bungler, keeps the electoral momentum going and has paved the way for the election of a deputy leader who is capable of returning the swings from that supposed Goliath called Simon. Wrong. We do not need to wait for the election of the new deputy to find out why. First of all Labour has shown once again that it is reactive and never proactive. They allow the Nationalist Party to dictate the rules of the game once the election is in full swing. No matter how much Joseph twists and turns about a “culture of resignation” he will never sell it through. The real reason is that Labour needed a replacement and they needed it fast. In falling for this trap they have allowed the discussion to shift into the barren (and relatively irrelevant) land of Deputy Leaderships. Again J’accuse asks: Since when do Deputy Leaders or Vici Kapi run the country?
3) The Culture of Resignation
Yes. Labour do have a point to win here, albeit a very minor one. Nobody is kidding anyone – this was not an automatic resignation by Anglu Farrugia. He was asked to resign and as we have seen from his reaction and letter, he was not exactly pleased with the result and showed so clearly. He DID resign though – which is the point I mentioned earlier. Muscat still CAN move his people around with relative ease something that Lawrence Gonzi plainly could not do throughout this legislature. It’s a damp victory of course since I am quite sure that the mechanics of this system depends very much on whether you are in government or still desperately aspiring to get there. Farrugia was not in the same position as a Pullicino Orlando or a Debono to mention the obvious two.
It is also about a culture and approach to resignations. I still cannot understand Labour’s fully. On the one hand they are rather cynical and are prepared to break up Christmas in order to realign their electoral plans. On the other hand this resignation turns out to be weakened and diluted by Joseph Muscat’s offer to Farrugia that “the door is still open” for him. How exactly Joseph? What does that mean to us idiots who still believe that a party candidate is accepted when it is clear that his opinions and ideas conform with that of the party ticket? It’s the “anything goes” mentality really – and it also goes to show why the resignation was more about replacing Anglu than about removing him.
4) Teamwork
A small word about teamwork. Joseph got to kick out Anglu without too much squealing and protesting. Labour is taking a risk (whether it is calculated though is another thing) here. An internal election in this period is either going to be a doctored affair – with the anointed one already chosen and pushed – which will make it look fake. It could also be an acrimonious affair that exposes certain faults in the party. The PN media have already started pushing on the weak link of Jason Micallef (as though electoral district rivalries were non existent in the PN camp). Joseph Muscat has been forced to declaim one of his usual tautologies: after a break from promising the eradication of poverty (St. Francis will not be proud) he came back with the assertion that “anything that the PN says is a lie”. If I were the PN Communications office I would issue a quick festive press release in the light of this statement: “Joseph Muscat ragel tal-ostra“.
5) The Nationalists
They’ve definitely been thrown by this sudden earthquake. They might smile while gritting their teeth at any mention of the culture of resignation that so plagued them during the last legislature but that will be a small price to pay. What they have to hope is that the new deputy leader from Labour HQ is not a clone of Simon – which he can very well be. Bar the fact that such a deputy will inevitably have militated against membership of the European Union (or protested mildly) we can expect another person with experience in the EU – an MEP. They’d be surprised at how fast the Labour supporters and the ditherers might warm up to a Louis Grech or Edward Scicluna di turno. Simon’s call until now has been “to bring something new” to Maltese politics since he always worked in Brussels (although he DID write the last electoral manifesto for the PN). Well, Labour might just be about to clone Gonzi’s new toy and in the local world of zero sum assessments it might not be too long before the “Simon move” will have been replicated.
So the nationalists are right about the Simon effect. Anglu Farrugia did end up resigning after that ill-fated debate on Xarabank. It was not because of any kind of outstanding performance by Simon though. This was a delayed reaction by Labour who has realised very late in the day how badly one of its deputy leaders was effecting its points at the polls. The truth is that Anglu should never have been on the team – or at least he should have been hidden smartly in the same manner the PN hides its more embarrassing (but vote promising) candidates.
Conclusions
There’s much more to be read and seen in this but these are the first impressions. The main certainty we have is that this Christmas will be tinged in red with a couple of PN sideshots every now and then just to keep us in the spirit. The early impression I get is that Labour was pushed to immediate action because of the results that it was seeing the polls – which can only mean that the great divide is no longer so great. It also means that the next campaign promises to be much much more than a simple walkover.
The other issue relating to bias presented itself fittingly just as I was being discharged from my one-day stay in hospital. The one and only guest on Where’s Everybody’s TVHEMM was the indefatigable Franco Debono. Franco’s interlocutor on the programme would be the usual presenter – Norman Vella. The programme was presumably supposed to be Franco’s compensation for not having been allowed to appear on Friday’s Xarabank opposite Simon Busuttil – and the subject of yesterday’s programme was supposed to be why Franco Debono voted against the budget.
I had already had a chance to see Norman Vella at work just after the budget vote. Given that I am not regular viewer of national TV I could not compare this performance to previous occasions though I had heard that he ran quite a good show on TVHEMM. His post-budget questioning made me quickly forget any plaudits I may have heard in the grapevine – his was a biased performance throughout, no two ways about it. Norman Vella was at no point interested in compèring the discussion and seemed to be an agent of the nationalist party throughout the show. Heaven forbid that our talk show hosts fade away anonymously in the background as was wont to happen in the eighties during pre-election broadcasts. I’m all for investigative and inquisitive journalism always on the hunt for the scoop or for acting as an additional check on our politicians inconsistencies.
Having said that Norman Vella’s modus operandi has nothing to do with journalism. On the post-budget debate his attitude towards Arnold Cassola was atrocious. It reminded me of the 2008 Pierre Portelli belittling the third party on live television. What is this fixation with coalitions anyway? Is that all that Vella and Co can think of when they face the only party that seems to have concrete progressive counterarguments to the budget? Forget all that, forget what AD might be trying to get across…what counts for Vella and Co is any attempt to put AD in the bad light of “a coalition as they understand it”.
Because after Franco, JPO and Mugliett the Nationalist party apparatus has performed magical summersaults in an attempt to denigrate the idea of a coalition in government. The fallacy is based on the fact that they try to make it sound as though the JPO-PN or Franco-PN arrangement was anything similar to a coalition. Well have I got news for you. It isn’t and it never was. JPO and PN cohabited in parliament after their public split. They were elected on the same ticket with the same agenda. If there was a split it was the PN’s problem – no new entity was created, no new ideals and definitely no coalition. If anything it was a dirty cohabitation.
Franco? A coalition? Franco was a result of ONE FRACTURED PARTY. No coalitions there either. A real coalition is formed by two parties AFTER an election when none of the parties elected to parliament enjoy a majority. That is assuming that we get three parties elected. So when Norman Vella decides to put on his latest idiot face (per modo di dire) and ask “Ma min taghmilha koalizzjoni?” Whether he is addressing Arnold Cassola or Franco Debono, he knows that he is just being facetiously ridiculous. A coalition is created by two parties once their power in parliament is known and is agreed to on the basis of a set of electoral promises that each party brings to the table. Norman Vella (probably) knows that. He is not a journalist though. Like JPO in 2008 he is a nationalist bearing a journalist’s card.
Yesterday, the apex of journalistic integrity decided to introduce a video clip about what Maestro Calleja had said during some University award ceremony. The relevance of the contents of this clip to the budget debate and vote will only remain known to Norman Vella and the Where’s Everybody team. Gurnalizmu fuq Kollox? Sensational journalism they mean. Biased even. The only interest of that clip was to work up Franco Debono into one of his heated states. It is a huge weakness that the man has – unable to notice that the more he huffs and puffs the more he sounds unreasonable. I am sure that WE were banking on that too when they chose to put Franco before the equally loud, mannerless and distasteful compère. Let’s face it. This was a show not a program.
Does our TV need this kind of bias? Isn’t it obvious that the closer we get to the election the more panic-stricken certain sectors of the media are getting. It’s pathetic all round. On the one hand you could already sense the labour “journalistic” crowd partitioning the new pie between them, much before the election is over. On the other hand the last pathetic attempts to grasp onto anything that might win their patrons valuable points leave the incumbents looking like a sorrier bunch than they usually do.
Andrew Borg Cardona likes to tweet that I am obsessed about this matter (maybe not as obsessed as he is about the elfish business). But if you are too blind to see how the PLPN rot of doing things has penetrated every sector of society then there’s a fat chance that this rot has got to you. Still. Makes for some interesting blog posts – think you not?
Anglu Farrugia’s smile should haunt Labour diehards for years to come. I say should because I am convinced that they are probably in the throes of jubilation and singing his praises at how his performance far outshone that of Simon Busuttil. Unfortunately it is only those blinded by the wrong kind of passion for politics who will have seen anything of value in Labour’s bumbling deputy leader. His performance was catastrophic and whoever coached him must have been tearing out his or her hair from the first minute.
It has nothing to do with Simon Busuttil and whatever performance he put on. As I said in yesterday’s post, Anglu Farrugia would be capable of losing a debate with himself. He is completely at loss in 99% of the subjects brought up and it is evident that he can only sound convincing to ‘kerchief waving constituents gathered at a coffee morning. How many more times must he be forced to face the agony of prime time television only to squirm and faffle the moment anything technical or specific is brought up.
The Living Wage? More like living hell. The moment Anglu attempts to describe the economic reality of the living wage and what it is about he makes it sound like a cross between viagra and self-raising flour. He had absolutely nothing to go on – and were it not for the PN bungle with regards to taxing the minimum wage I have a strong suspicion that Labour candidates would have absolutely no other example of taxes that would be changed to alleviate what they call the burdens on the less wealthy.
Which is where I have to speak about the man who sat on the sofa and who had approximately a quarter of an hour to have his say compared to the interminable 45 minutes in which Anglu Farrugia gave us his little bit of circus. Carmel Cacopardo’s interventions were not only incisive and clear but they were relevant. No theatrics, no faux rhetoric or time wasted on personal arguments – straight to the point. Cacopardo spoke of policy. He had questions, he had criticisms and above all he had solutions.
It is such a pity that Carmel Cacopardo and his party will once again be a victim of the winner-takes-all politics that is so useful to the PLPN. You’ll see how on the eve of the election Simon’s nationalist party will be busy unearthing the ghost of Franco and instability in order to scare votes away from electing the third party. It will be too late then to explain that this third party has concrete ideas and would stick to a coalition on terms of principle not for the sake of power. A coalition government would be the stuff that dreams are made of – with a serious AD keeping the arrogant arms of PN in check.
What would be more realistic in a world where voters vote with their minds and not with their hearts would be AD winning over the cape of opposition party from a Labour party that is devoid of ideas and that has become a veritable farce of a party – all slogans and no substance. In a real world the 62,000 persons living below the poverty line would be voting AD into parliament and making sure that they get a strong say in the opposition. In a real world that is…
but this is the world of Anglu Farrugia, the Where’s Everybody aquarium and endless spin that will do its utmost to make a very serious party as AD seem as irrelevant as Franco Debono.
In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle.
Oh what a night that was. Xarabank’s editors invited Simon Busuttil and Anglu Farrugia for what was meant to be the battle of deputy leaders only to find that in the last moment the Labour party had opted to send Franco Debono to face up to the nationalist party’s champion. Improvisation is never a spin-master’s forte and the night threatened to spin out of control quite quickly – and so it did. The facts of the story are known to all so it is useless repeating all the steps of this marvellous pre-festive pantomime though there is more than one tasty morsel for us to chew upon.
Labour
It was their moment. They sprung the surprise on an unwitting Where’s Everybody. I’d love to watch the harassing of JP Vassallo by that One TV hack over and over. Bereft of script and prompting WE’s JP cut a poor figure and you could observe him turning a whiter shade of pale with every question. The lady in question (who had earlier been told to find some manners by Simon Busuttil) could have asked him anything – I doubt he was listening in the end. You could sense JP wishing the earth to open up and whisk him away to some programme where he could read the list of the days’ sponsors calmly and lucratively as he knows best.
There is no doubt that the element of surprise went Labour’s way. For a few minutes they had the upper hand. Had they just left it at that and opted to let the headless cast and PBS to solve the impasse with the postponement they would probably have carried the night (for what it is worth but more about that later). Peppi Azzopardi would lend a helping hand to foment further suspicions later on. Still smarting from Franco’s suggestions about further coaching and mediation services for the nationalist party he turned up on TVM with a paleRuth Amaira (not embarrassment but excess make up in this case) and proceeded to morph into a stepney for the main PN arguments of the night. His culmination point? “Ma riduhx jigi lill-Anglu Farrugia”. Really Peppi? Is it up to you to say?
Labour though couldn’t resist putting up a show on ONE TV and that is when it all started to go horribly wrong. The less people like Kurt Farrugia and Anglu Farrugia speak the better. Anglu Farrugia made a brief appearance and managed to fail to express himself clearly and got his words in a twist. It is hard to imagine this man debating with himself (a debate he’d probably lose), let alone pulling anything off with the astute and experienced Simon Busuttil. His fleeting statement was a disgrace. Had he sat there and told his interviewer (the one dressed as an elf in red tie) that the Labour party simply wanted to cock a snook at WE and their programmes he would have pulled something off. Instead he claimed that their “mishap” was inspired by democracy because they genuinely wanted to give Franco Debono a chance to speak. Bollocks.
Anglu managed to turn a sly move into a farce in the space of thirty seconds. All it would take was Kurt Farrugia turning up the heat (or so he thought) dwelling and mulling on how “Simon beza’ minn Franco” and then proceeded to basically state in no unclear terms that Labour expects to dictate the time, place and compère of the next debate. Smooth Kurt. Smooth indeed. Shooting oneself in the foot does not even begin to explain the effect of Kurt’s statements. When assessing the aftermath of their evening dramatics Labour might be disappointed to find out that while diehards will easily fall for the lie that Simon shied away from the debate and while many a voter would have been happy observing the WE team squirming in uncustomary discomfort, their follow up antics will have set all the alarm bells ringing among the voters that really count. We are probably not even talking of a pyrrhic victory.
The Nationalists
Well. You have to look at the nationalists tonight through Franco’s eyes. It is inevitable. All through the antics of the rebel MP before the paparazzi there were two words ringing in every viewer’s mind: History & Irrelevant. Well there was history and irrelevance managing to upstage a prime time programme on the national TV station and getting enough embarrassing coverage and insinuations to feed the disgruntled one more time. This was Franco post-JudiciaryGate – we all knew he was burning to remind us of his proposals for reform and how the PN ignored them (they included a reform of the appointment methods of the judiciary). As he yelled at the closed room where Frank Psaila and Simon Busuttil were cooped up he let loose some new revelations regarding Peppi’s attempts at mediation.
As Simon Busuttil was bundled out of the room towards his car he was surrounded with the generation of young turks – the Carol Aquilina’s and Frank Psaila’s who doubled up as impromptu bodyguards. There’s something about the smirk on the face of Aquilina as he pushed and elbowed away reporters (reporters mind you – not a violent crowd) with arrogant disdain that serves as a strong reminder of the kind of arrogance that has so stained the nationalist milieu in recent years. Simon did his best of patching up and claimed victory for his side. “Tonight Joseph Muscat’s Labour has shown its true colours. A coward party built on gimmicks and dishonesty” was his summary on facebook.
Oh the irony. Bullying reporters? Gimmicks and dishonesty? Here’s the history lesson then. Back in 2008 a JPO coached by Peppi Azzopardi was given a journalist’s card in an attempt to constantly harass Alfred Sant. Back in 2008 all was fair in love and war and no mention was made of bullying tactics. I also remember an incident when One journalists were not allowed to leave Villa Arrigo in order that they may not harass Gonzi with questions. A case of double standards, no doubt about that and it is useless pleading that this is not a case of comparing like with like. Both Franco and JPO were tools used by the two parties to get what they wanted.
That strategy had just about worked for Gonzi PN (just about since it turned JPO into a hero – yes, that’s you voters who gave him your number one choice) and Labour were dabbling in the same arcane arts. Sure PN sympathisers will still see Franco in a bad light and call him names. Sure they feel that Labour shied away from sending Anglu Farrugia to cross swords with the Great New Hope (do you blame them?) but in the end the PN too is left smarting with wounds and a clear warning that it will not be so smooth – even on home ground like PBS. Pyrrhic victory? Not on your life.
The Debate
A telling image of the night was the interview with Carmel Cacopardo (as Arnold Cassola held his coat in the background). The alternattiva politicians were caught in a battle that had little to do with them but they were asked to comment just the same. Little wonder that they complained of the failure of the system to give them a chance to once again air their views. How could they? All the dramatics, both the PL and the PN shouting victory but in the end the main victim was reasonable debate. That is what the PLPN style of politics will get us to. Clear debate on clear issues remains off the agenda and we are two days away from the moratorium.
Franco Debono
He gets knocked down but he gets up again. There he was huffing and puffing but he could not get the house down. he did make a couple of points though. Whether or not he was being used by Labour he has shown the PN that his irrelevance and relegation to the footnotes of history has been postponed – at least until March 9th. Labour would be stupid to allow the people to forget Franco through the campaign (though their calls and moans about the fractitiousness of the PN lack sincerity – since when does a party worry about the other party’s woes). Franco is a convenient distraction from the fact that Labour lacks heavyweights who can sell ideas to the votes that count and more importantly a convenient distraction from the fact that Labour still has not any ideas to sell.
Once again Franco fails in PR. His method cannot be endearing even to the most sympathetic of his observers and he never fails to turn an issue into “Me, Myself and I”. Strategically speaking he must be aware that he is grasping at the last strands of opportunity as his utility factor will dwindle even within the coffers of Labour’s strategy plan (if there is one). It will be interesting to see how he follows up this latest performance – sadly it will be to the detriment of real political discussion on real pressing issues that we so desperately need to address.
Merry Christmas?
Will the parties really afford to allow the current momentum to turn into a period of festive inertia? Is the momentum bigger than any of the two of them? We can only find out over the next few days, meanwhile these are interesting times to follow and whatever is going on in the strategy rooms in Hamrun and Pietà will be revealed to us … probably much sooner than we were expecting.
