Categories
Campaign 2013

The Road to Castille #1 : The marketing

It began with a bang. As the contestants unveiled their mutual electoral colours we could tell from the get go that this would be a campaign heavily dependent on the marketing. Malta Taghna Lkoll and Futur fis-Sod relied heavily on not being one colour, on not being monotone. Here was the visual realisation of what the parties had already attempted 5 years back – being something for everybody. The PN’s MSN clone segued from Blue to Green to Yellow to Red with ease while Labour’s naïf collage spoke of “everybody” – or rather “us” a distinction that would later bear on the message.

The fanfare and explosion of colours was blinding and the inspiration from across the Atlantic could be seen from the start. Our political leaders will continue to be Obamafied until a new source of inspiration comes along. The mychoice.pn site was stuck in a mental masturbation for anything Obama-ish with the banners and the ribbons and retro fonts unabashedly cloned from the Democrat intitiatives. Labour was not to be outdone in that department. More heavily funded this time round, Muscat’s party did it’s utmost to get the feel of the “Change” wave that Obama had created the first time round. The videos and the “Taghna Lkoll” mantra seemed to do the trick as well as those very impersonal and trumped up photos with people holding little placards as though we all go through life holding pieces of cardboard in our hand.

The main parties steamrollered over personal data protection rights. Nothing is new there. The PL and PN operate under the assumption that the world needs them to exist and that the rules are only there in case things go out of hand but otherwise they are swept under the carpet during a campaign. Incidentally yes it is PLPN – the Labour party might have spent the larger part of the last 25 years in power but it never ever challenges the status quo with regards to the rules of the game. Labour does not seek change from the PLPN system, it simply seeks more frequent alternation within the PLPN system. It’s not an obsession of mine, it’s the sad truth.

The campaigns are best characterised as a bombardment of half formed lies (it’s like a half-truth but with less substance) that land sporadically and indiscriminately on the acolytes and the unconvinced alike. They’ll tell you that their party organised your flight home to vote – giving you the impression that you owe the PN or PL your life. They won’t tell you that this is taxpayers’ money being used to satisfy their control freak mechanisms and that all the while the data of the couple of thousand using the flight is controlled by both parties in full and blatant violation of data protection laws.

You will receive an Amazon-forestful of propaganda in your letterbox from the two parties who claim to have put the environment at the heart of their policies. As Caroline Muscat documented well enough in “A threat to electoral integrity” it is blatantly obvious that both parties operate with a much higher budget than would be allowed by law. I have to highlight that because the extent of the importance of this statement rarely hits home. The PL and the PN operate ILLEGALLY every election. They overspend in blatant disregard to the rules of the game. They will tell you that it is because the rules are outdated – and that somehow gives them a god-given right to ride roughshod over the rules of the land. Would AD be able to state that the rules of representation are outdated? Tough chance.

The hype about manifestos (or electoral programmes if you’re into this latest technical distinction) came and went as stealthily as ever. From the early rumblings when Konrad Mizzi was still a real person and not a figment of our imagination we thought that the main highlights of the manifestos would be discussed in depth and torn apart or elevated to Nobel prize material depending on the party proposing. This soon evaporated into uselessness after the “tablets for all” farce that risked showing the true colours of the PLPN manifestos – an auction in a supermarket, buying votes with promises tailor made on the spot. After the tablets we heard little or nothing of the content of the party’s promises as stage two of the marketing campaign required a concentration on scandals.

The dark side of the PLPN system came out in full force here. The inevitable weak points of corruption and connivance with the darker side of society would be painted into the tableau in accordance to a party’s needs. Thus the PL would do its damnedest to link a real ring of corruption in oil procurement to a tenuous connection with the minister concerned. Reality – the existence of corruption in various sectors of our PLPN patronised system (from Maritime permits, to driving permits, to VAT inspections, to oil procurement, to environment decision) – was being hyped for electoral purposes. The PN fought back with undercover tapes and recordings that would only end up exposing another side of the PLPN – their network of kazini  as a useless relic of politics past now in the hands of little entrepreneurs who would turn a blind eye to illicit methods of making a quick buck.

The warts and all phase would simmer down when the yelling was over with no real victor and a deeper entrenchment by the two sides was confirmed. At this stage the parties would morph into some sort of religious Messianic cult sect.

Muscat’s Taghna Lkoll would pull the non-divisive rabbit out of the hat and this would turn out to be a surprisingly catchy concept. The hordes of flag-waving tribal acolytes would suddenly adopt a questionable neutered approach of “Love thy neighbour” complete with a full revisionist approach towards history. History need not be made when it is being re-written and Labour is banking heavily on being the proverbial victor that rewrites history (at least for a while). It is a re-legitimation of the stigmatised “Labourite” that is so appealing for the hardcore while at the same time sterile enough for the doubting thomas to actually contemplate the vote. At this point actual tangible plans become useless – replaced conveniently with buzzwords such as “costings, roadmap and injections” that make the speaker sound deceivingly competent.

Gonzi’s reaction to all this has been the calling of the troops. His Gozo mass meeting speech also drew upon history. Not history with a big “H” but rather the historical personalities of the nationalist party. His was not to deal with the recycling of Eddie’s “reconciliation” as Muscat seemed to be doing. No. Gonzi, preceded by a catch-phrase generating Simon (Gas daaaawn gooool-haaaajt! – seriously?) would call upon the spirits (dead or alive) of the giants of Nationalist history and then would rightfully move on to list tangible achievements. No need for rewriting there but a legitimate claim of the success – a give credit where credit is due of sorts. Which is the closest we got to talking about actual stuff and not the pie in the sky sweeping statements of the Muscat kind. It would be a mixture of nationalist (as in the party) pride peppered with little hints of remorse for the arrogance that seems to have miffed so many. Then like the Moonies and the Jehovah Witnesses Gonzi would send his masses out to proselytise – convince two other people to vote PN. Still it’s always better than Simon’s grocer idea.

In the end the campaigns ended up doing just what was expected of them. To raise the ante on noise, colour and special effects in order to hide the unshamefaced prostitution of values for the sake of votes. In this latter category I believe that Muscat’s bandwagon of opportunism wins the game hands down. His last minute deal with the hunting community (where he promised nothing more than what the nationalist government already provides – observation of EU rules) was the final cherry of the cake after much flirting with his ghettoised concept of society – from women to LGBT to businessmen to workers to students. To each a promise without actually showing how the money will be brought home.

Gonzi’s team seemed to be a mix of desperation and anger. You cannot blame them – whatever is said they have been the “bahrin tal-maltemp” that Gonzi describes. Their fault mainly lies in  obstinately persisting in playing the same game within the rules of the PLPN system and this will undo their government in the end. They can blame the voter they can blame those who will move on to the hope being given by a third party but the truth is that Gonzi’s PN’s greatest mistake is that of playing along with PL when it comes to the wider rules that mold our institutional and societal structures. The greasy poles, the career ladders, the inevitable cronyism, the tribal approach, the winner takes all mentality, the divine right to govern with a majority without listening to anyone else – that is what will undo this government. No amount of marketing could avoid that.

Sadly another party is rearing to take its place under the great rules of PLPN alternation and the campaign has only proven to us that it will be more of the same. If not worse. Once the mask of unity and taghna lkoll falls the impact will be terrible.

We’d like to say we told you. But it would be as useful as our vote.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Cross-voting and angry voters

Let’s begin with the unequivocal points. Cross-voting, or the practice of filling your preferences in the ballot across party lines, is allowed. It is legal. It is legit. It does not nullify your vote. You can start with a 1 next to a candidate from AD, you can continue with a 2 and 3 next to PN candidates and then you can even move on to a 4 and 5 next to PL candidates. Hell, you can even go back to the PN for number 6 and back again to AD for number 7.

So you see. Do not believe the lies that are out there. You can and should cross-vote. Why? Because elections are not only about governance and governability but also about who represents you in parliament. Even if there is a remote chance that the number 5 on your ballot becomes useful to select a member from your district it is advisable to use it. Cross-voting allows you to influence not only which party goes on to govern but also allows you to select which members of the other party you would prefer to represent your district in parliament. That, my friends, is the “single-transferable vote” which is a much happier term than “cross-voting”.

In a way you could see STV as trying to make your vote as effective as possible since it keeps bouncing from one candidate to another until finally one of the candidates you chose actually gets to use it to get into parliament. As for government forming the all important number is the number 1. That is the vote that also counts for your party of choice – it allows you to say two things: (1) that you would prefer the candidate you marked number 1 as the best option to represent you in parliament and (2) that you would want his party to govern. That second assumption does not move down the lines. The governance assumption starts and stops with the number 1.

So why vote AD with a number 1 if they can never govern? Well in that case this vote takes on a new and fundamentally important meaning. Voting AD number 1 has nothing to do with if and when it will form a coalition or form part of the opposition. (It could eventually but that should not be your motivation). Voting AD number 1 is you telling the system that you want to damn well make sure that a third party gets into parliament. You are saying that you damn well want to make sure that the only open party unencumbered by private or business interests and that is honest and clear on every policy gets to have a seat in our chamber of representatives.

That, my friends is a positive vote. So here are some do’s and dont’s from J’accuse:

1. YES YOU CAN – cross-vote.

2. YES YOU CAN – move from one party to another.

3. YES YOU SHOULD – vote AD number 1 if you REALLY want to make history

4. NO YOU SHOULD NOT – scribble on the document, use X’s or any other signs that are not numbers

5. NO YOU SHOULD NOT – believe the PLPN lies.

 

Spread the word. It appears that there are quite a few who ignore these basic principles. It also appears that our two main parties who are the paladins and guardians of our democratic process are quite happy to nurture this ignorance. You need another reason to vote AD? Seriously?

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Voting like it’s 1992

What follows is a strange kind of guest post. It comes to J’accuse via a serendipitous trip through time and space. It’s the kind of post that has been just been waiting to surface and I cannot agree more with the argument being made by the guest writer whom I shall call DeLorean. It is an impassioned argument set out against the constitutional provisions that were framed in 1991 to keep the PLPN system working. It’s not pro-ad, it’s pro-democracy, representation and choice. Read it. It’s important – for you and for future generations.

The argument

Many people have been misguided into thinking that the fight over [the electoral laws] has something to do with Alternattiva Demokratika. It does not. It has everything to do with resisting the entrenchment of the two-party system.

During a discussion on broadcasting […], one prominent government minister (that was gratuitous… all ministers are prominent) remarked that he “firmly believed” in the two-party system “because this makes the country more governable”. It was all I could do to fight the urge to throw my handbag at him, and point out that, following his line of argument, the most governable countries of all should be those with one party. But that, as we all know, has failed.

Belief in a two-party state is belief in a form of totalitarianism masquerading as democracy. All we have now is a political see-saw, with a fat Nationalist boy sitting on one end, and a pudgy Socialist boy on the other. First one goes up, then the other. Is this a wonderful state of affairs, to be preserved at all costs? Should governability enter the argument at all? Who cares about governability, if in ensuring governability we strangle the democratic process? Governability is not the Holy Grail, and we should not allow the government to sell it to us as such.

Individual members of both the government and the opposition have expressed their delight in the two-party system. They have not dared express their real longing: for a one-party system. When a party believes that it fulfils all the needs of all the Maltese people – how dare anyone claim to do so, and still they do – the next step is to claim that it should govern ad aeternum. Why not, once it is so damn perfect?

Third parties cannot be created out of nothing. They must grow, and their growth must be spawned by a real need within the people. Even if this need exists – and there is no doubt at all, it does – all growth will be warped by Malta’s all-pervasive fear and ignorance, which has effects similar to that of radiation on a growing foetus. Through this fear and ignorance, the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party survive, thrive and continue to grow.

Meanwhile the Maltese population lives in an atmosphere of political instability. I define political instability as not knowing what life holds for one after each election, of the necessity of mapping one’s life in a series of five-year plans.

Austin Gatt is right: on paper, the [constitutional electoral provisions] favour the small parties. In practice, they mostly do not. It is practice that concerns us here, and not theory. Dr. Gatt is almost certainly unable to stand up and say, with his hand on his heart, that the [constitutional provisions] will not, in practice adversely affect any small party. They will be a death knell. They will also discourage the growth of political parties in the future, which is a cause for grave concern.

Alternattiva is not the crux of the problem. The hypothetical small party is. Many people might disapprove of Alternattiva, but they should not be so shortsighted as to assume that they will disapprove of any other political party that might grow out of unrest and discontent over the next two or three generations. We must be unselfish enough to think beyond the next two or three generations.

We must be honest enough to admit that we do not want our children to live their adult lives as we are now living ours. We must stop thinking in terms of our immediate future, because many of us will live for a great deal longer than that, certainly longer than most of the politicians [who are now readying themselves to vote, using a hammer and chisel, on amendments to our Constitution].

What if we find ourselves, in 20 years’ time with the choice of two absolutely disreputable political parties? What if the Nationalist Party disintegrates into the kind of sagging, soggy, useless mess of the Sixties… a heap that gave rise to the joke “Tgħajjatx għax tqajjem il-gvern!”? What is a traditionally Nationalist supporter supposed to do… vote for the Labour Party, vote for a mess, or not vote at all?

[… fragments lost]

This article originally appeared in The Sunday Times of Malta on the 3rd November 1991.

 

(To understand the future, we have to go back in time).

 

 

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

The Barrel’s Bottom

Did you ever wonder where we got the expression “scraping the bottom of the barrel”? Why the barrel? What’s wrong with the bottom? Well it comes from the time when fruit – apples for example – were stored in barrels and the apples that would be left at the bottom of the barrel would be bruised and not the best quality. Hence “scraping the bottom of the barrel” or choosing from what is left. Choosing from among the worst because you have no other choice. Yep, you can see where I am going with this but I cannot help it can I?

Here we are getting ever closer to E-day (that’s election not ecstasy) and the level of political discourse has descended into predictable levels of exchanges of circum tauri (that’s bullshit in the vernacular). Do you remember those early halcyon days when we all yearned for political programmes/manifestos to be published so as to see what the parties have to offer or criticise? Well they came and went in a flurry of billboards, buzzwords and bull. We are now left with the dark side of politics doing the works.

The gullibility gene is not very common in my family and therefore I insist on looking at what  the parties have to offer with a critical eye that is above any partisan impulse – much to either side’s chagrin of course. So, at this point, what do the parties have to offer to the arms-length observer? Nothing. Well, not nothing really but an exchange of accusations and finger-pointing that are meant to point out to us that “the other side” is up to its neck in corruption.

Joseph’s Labour is high on a wave of enthusiasm. It has mastered the “unity” con to perfection. Hi party spent five years spinning the yarn that Malta is the pits and practically in need of salvation with half the country (or more) living in appalling conditions and who cannot afford the slightest bit of distraction let alone luxury. Built on the platform of the expensive utilities, wrought around the eccentricities of Franco Debono’s earthquakes and decorated with the stucco of “the face of change” complete with new logo and the  practical disapparition of the political party, Joseph’s movement spun it’s own fairytale where the inevitable conclusion would be a brighter future under what would supposedly be a government for all.

Underneath all the rhetoric lie a ramshackle set of populist measures and a team that is far from promising for the future. Yet the plan sells. It sells mainly because the build up fed what Maltese know how to do best and that is be generally dissatisfied and grumble. It also sells because the other lot have proceeded down the slippery slope to mediocrity and have become an easier target than ever.

In fact, speaking of the other lot, what were they thinking? The blue and red faces from the latest billboard must win the prize for the worst premeditated electoral gaffe ever. The nationalist don’t only seem to have lost it but they are also forming committees trying hard to find out what “it” is and how to possibly bring “it” back. For one time too many they have fallen in this false trap laid by Joseph’s minions – playing into the role of “evil divisive party”. They don’t even seem to understand the fallout of this “blue or red face” business in real terms. “Look beyond the rhetoric” they tell us. Sure. We’re trying but there’s nothing, nowhere.

The truth is out there but nobody seems to be bothering to look for it. The panem et circenses of the parties’ criminal spin has reached new heights of popularity. Labour are trying their damnedest to link the PN (and particularly Minister Gatt) to the oil scandals. Joseph keeps dropping hints that are supposed to “raise eyebrows” but end up being intellectual demi-farts that can only be fawned upon by a journalistic class that has been trained to ask “How high?” whenever he says “jump”. Truth is there is nothing linking the PN or government to the oil commissions. It is definitely a corrupt web that has been uncovered but a web that could have existed under any government.

Then the PN comes along and brings out its undercover recordings. Sure we have documented evidence of dirty business in party clubs being covered up by high level party members – a deputy leader and now possibly a leader to boot. It’s bad. Very bad. But something tells me that party clubs across the island are not exactly hosting M.U.S.E.U.M. meetings as the nationalist party pole dancing club proved back in 2010. Then again there’s another point to be made here. Why did the PN bring out 2010 recordings now? Was it ok to sit on them for so long?

The tired spin is now going to extremes. We are in what I call a Magritte moment – you are slammed with a pipe right in front of you and then you are told “This is not a pipe”. What I find is that the more time passes the more the enthusiastic carcading voters are willing to believe the words that are being channelled into their head and not the big picture that is being painted so clearly before them.

In a normal world the picture would tell them a very clear message: that not everything (if anything) is right in both the houses. Yes, I will take the arrogant position and judge voters by accusing them of ignoring the possibility of an alternative vote. While both parties scrape the bottom of the barrel we should be dismissing them as an option. At least those of us who refuse to have our intelligence insulted. We should not be carried away by the simple puerile motivation of “they’ve been too long in power” or “they haven’t changed one bit”. Instead of letting the filth cancel each other out and returning to our instinctive partisan bias we should be rejecting the idea of abetting the return of the PLPN hegemony to power one more time.

There are no more excuses not to vote different. No amount of baseless accusations about “wasted vote” or “responsible voting” should stand in the way of a nation that desperately deserves much more than this barrel-bottom politics that it so gullibly accepts every five years or so.

This time round you could really make the difference. It’s either that or more of the usual shit guaranteed.

 

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Truth be told

The Eagle Party held a mass meeting this morning in Zabbar and it turns out that there were more than a handful of people who were willing to go along with the farce. I wouldn’t worry much about all these people voting for Nazzareno when push comes to shove, they were just there for the fun of the outing and for doing what Maltese do best: make fun of the village idiots. Tomorrow the village idiots will be out in force at the respective mass meetings of the two parties who are currently embroiled in a battle of scandals and finger pointing.

Which is where we left them. The parties I mean. In my last post I complained about the surreal obscenity of the fact that every election campaign will peter out into a series of scandals and counter-scandals. All that promise at the start of this campaign what with saving money on energy bills and tablets for all soon changed into mud-slinging of the highest order. The charade unfolds as I type and it’s like seeing the Emperor’s New Clothes – only this is the whole political establishment prancing around naked and ugly for all to see. Recordings? Ministerial Swiss accounts? Oil? Enough. Really. Enough. And here’s why.

Truth be told I still believe that Austin Gatt did not touch a penny of whatever was  going on in the procurement business. Truth be told I believe that there really is a web of corruption surrounding the oil procurement but I also believe that this was a group of persons taking advantage of a loophole  in supervision that was as wide as a house. Truth be told I believe that the Labour party knows that and does not want to admit it because it is politically convenient to “raise eyebrows” about Gatt’s involvement.

Truth be told I cannot digest Austin Gatt’s excuse that he “forgot” to declare his family accounts in Switzerland since 2005 – inherited or not. Truth be told I find the double standards in this respect to be glaring when contrasted to the treatment of AD’s chairperson in 2008 for having forgotten to pay some VAT dues over a defunct company.

Truth be told I find Joseph Muscat’s ridiculous throwing of “leads” to his former work colleagues with regards to a Minister who supposedly freed someone from a chip or a lock up disgusting. Truth be told I would prefer that if  he had such information he would be the one to bring it out. Truth be told it turns out that the alleged act was never done by a person qua Minister but earlier in his career – which means that Joseph Muscat was lying when he implied that a Minister used his powers to free someone from the lockup (also not necessarily from prison). Truth be told this is not the first time that Muscat has been economical with a lie in order to imply an inexistent truth.

Truth be told I find the nationalist party’s assault on Toni Abela yawn-inducing and so blatantly a diversive tactic from its moment of panic. Truth be told I do agree that Abela should be responsible for his actions, particularly covering up of illicit activity in Labour’s kazini much the same way as I expect those responsible in the nationalist party to take the hit for any illicit activity in their kazini. Truth be told I still ask the most important question with regard to the PN’s recordings: Why now? Truth be told the nationalist party sat on this information for three whole years and only now felt sufficiently indignant to do anything about it.

Truth be told I have had enough of watching valuable pre-electoral debate time wasted in this battle of “your scandal is bigger than mine” or “oil purchasing is more important than drug trafficking” when it is blatantly obvious to anyone strong enough to wash off partisan blinkers that our supposed political elite is one big mess that is long past its sell-by date. Truth be told I have had enough of hearing snide comments about the hard-working folk at AD who can never yell about their presence loud enough so long as the village idiots are busy with their partisan banging and yelling about the inadequacy of the other side.

Truth be told this campaign is now expecting its final “election bomb”. It will be another “scandal” from each side announced close enough to the election date in order to hinder any possibility of throwing light and clarity on what it really is all about. It will be the mother of all messy mudballs slung by the mother of all slingshots. It will be as useful to our informed election of a proportionally representative parliament as a swimsuit in Alaska and yet the village idiots will indulge the parties with their Oohs, their Aahs and their chest beating.

Truth is, truth will never be told.

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Snapshot # 3: The voters anonymous

The noise from the election campaign is becoming just that. It’s just like listening in to a mass meeting by a storm of locusts – noisy as ever but rarely makes sense. It happens every election. We kick off hoping to discuss issues, plans, projects and directions for the economy and society but more often than not we end up discussing scandals, allegations, ad hominem accusation and more such filth. This time round there is no shortage of finger pointing: amateur sleuths, wannabe lawyers and born-again-doubters are suddenly all into scandals and -gates. I’d pinpoint the genesis of this particularly heavy wave to the moment when the Sliema Local Council began to fall apart.

Now we have Oil Procurement gate replete with presidential pardons and alleged implications at ministerial level. We have Abela-gate with secret recordings allegedly uncovering a politician openly admitting what could amount to influencing the police force. We have the double edged sword of Zarb-gate: on the one hand a union caught trading in influence and on the other hand an alleged collusion between the businessman involved and the nationalist party. Meanwhile serious accusations of suspect funding to both parties have been swept under the carpet conveniently as each party prefers to concentrate on its scandal of choice – leaving questions about how millionaire campaigns are funded suspended in thin air.

This post can easily be misconstrued as being an attempt at minimising the importance of having an efficient system that uncovers any kind of fraudulent activity. It is not my intention to do so. What I intend to point out though is that much of this caravan and circus will eventually peter out come the 10th March. The horror, the shock and the awe that some politicians feign when confronted with proof (as demonstrative a proof as is available) will soon be relegated to the general “forget-me” bin only to be recycled five years down the line. Honestly. Do you remember the fuss and fantasy generated by Mistragate last time round? What of it?

The truth is that such shenanigans and uncovering of modus operandi of politicians and friends of politicians only SEEM to have become nastier. In reality our political system is geared to co-exist with the circles of power that surround it. Whether it is the police, the legal system, the big business or the unions, alliances are made and broken and fool you are if you think that any of the lot is innocent of such tomfoolery. The charade of investigations and holier-than-thou pronouncements (or as Toni Abela would have it… my banana is cleaner than yours) is just that.

My question and next point is how much does that influence the voter. All these theatricals are for the voter’s inconvenience in the end. They are meant to point out the inadequacy of the other side because the other side is Corrupt/Hapless/Undisciplined (take your pick). Does the voter care? Reading Roberto Saviano on La Repubblica I had a chance to confirm what could be a Mediterranean or even a European trait. Oftentimes the voter is just as enmeshed in the power circles that are at work. The difference in the voter’s case is that he falls further down the line of enjoyment but still feels the compulsion to confirm his participation and thus develop a legitimate expectation. It’s all about a job, a sick relative or a parking space.

Yes. Often the voters’ priority (beyond the obvious partisan impulse) is based purely on one particular service (or inversely is the result of one particular disservice). Is it a refused MEPA permit for altering one’s balcony? Is it a refused rebate on a taxed imported car? Is it a refused access into a school? When you hear the opposition complaining about the “power of incumbency” what they are complaining about is the fact that they have less clout in this not so covert black market where promises to fill gaps in voters’ needs are traded. Do not be deceived. The trading is across the board – opposition or government. The promises are there for everyone. Because Malta Taghna Lkoll is really a euphemism for the politician’s position in the system of cogs and wheels that gets this republic going. It’s not just Labour’s slogan. It’s everybody’s.

Voters will not really be impressed by the many -gates. They either had made their mind up before the scandals surfaced or had their ideas confirmed by the plethora of accusations. In some quarters pundits will try to sell the idea of a “responsible” vote one that supposedly is made in the best interests of the country. It’s a load of bull really. Those very pundits are motivated by the cogs and wheels that get this country going. Knowingly or unknowingly their vote is pre-conditioned by this state of affairs.

A responsible vote is one that tries its damn best to change the system. It is one that requires at least 2000 anonymous voters in one district voting on the basis of what the nation needs and not on the idea that they will get some form of personal reward. Sadly the power of incumbency of the old style politicians will probably mean that the responsible voter loses out. Again.