Tag: PLPN

Categories
Campaign 2013

Funding Fundamentals

For my sins and for want of anything better to do in this snowstorm ridden evening I watched tonight’s edition of Bondi+. It’s been harder than usual getting down to write posts at the usual pace . There’s something about this campaign that is mind-numbing and I think that it is a combination of campaign fatigue and the shock of being constantly barraged with quips and propaganda that insult the average man’s intelligence.

I don’t know what Beppe (Fenech Adami) and Chris (Cardona) were supposed to be talking about and I suspect that Lou Bondi more than half hoped that the programme would be juicily concentrated on that new Nationalist protege and star Anglu Farrugia. Poor Anglu cannot help still being a political football and his repartees at Joseph Muscat have provided new fodder to the cliche-ridden PN campaign insofar as jibes at the Labour camp are concerned. What the two (and later three with the arrival of Arnold) did end up talking about was party financing and the links that each party has to big business.

Idiots – that’s you the voters – are supposed to be carefully measuring the different proofs of liaisons that each party has with big business and throwing onto their homemade scales the various calculations as to who spent how much and where the money has come. Idiots (that’s still you) will then be expected to vote for the lesser evil. That, I guess (but I’m no idiot myself), will be the one with less ties to business and less I.O.U.’s hanging around in the pockets of various contractors and other men who can practically foot a blank cheque in times of need.

You do have to be an idiot though not to see past the protestations of both parties. On the one hand you have the ridiculous nationalist party “barter” concept. You see, the PN barters with companies like MFCC and in return for the use of their tents it gives them…. erm… See I’m stuck there. What the hell could the PN be offering to barter? It’s not like air time on its debt-ridden stations is free? Allocating a million euros of air time (in exchange for a tent) would mean perforce that that air time is lost from other who might have actually paid for the service.  Cardona also presented Beppe with a court case – Europrint vs MediaLink. Now that’s sweet. MediaLink owes Europrint half a million. Where will they get that from?

Labour on the other hand also have a hunch that we are all idiots. Their campaign CANNOT have been funded by the telethons. Igloos don’t grow on  trees Chris and you can have many many volunteers with ideas that you think are great but you cannot barter ideas for material in much the same way that Borg Olivier is not bartering ideas for tents. And while we are at it enough with this bullshit about the parties publishing their accounts. First of all Labour walked out of the committee for democratic reform that not only put an end to the hope of electoral reform but also to any issue on party financing.

If you really believe that either the PL or PN will ever actually enact a law that shoots both of them in the foot then you are a prime idiot. Lawrence Gonzi was unable to answer questions about Paul Borg Olivier’s barter methods – it might after all be a trade secret you know. Labour has been known to hide behind sensitive commercial interests too. As for publishing expense accounts – how about we don’t wait till the end of this election and simply ask the PN to publish the expenses of each candidate for the European Parliament elections. They actually swore about that on oath you know…. and some candidates went on record about how ridiculous the whole business was (was it Georg Sapiano? – it’s a genuine query).

Which brings me to the matter that Arnold Cassola brought up. We had been regaled with a crossfire of bull between exponents of the two parties and an impartial show host then Arnold asked a simple question about something they could not really wriggle out of with lies. He asked a question about our money. My money. Your money. Everybody’s money. Taghna Lkoll as some would fart out robotically. He asked how the whole parliament – that’s 67 members from both sides –  unanimously approved a land concession to Nazzareno Vassallo’s MFCC while removing a guarantee clause that amounted to over one million euro. That’s your money. My money. Everybody’s money.

They voted it away. Vanished it. To help a businessman. They are the parties who either barter or spend their way to kingdom come safe in the knowledge that they cannot be caught by the laws they refuse to write. Safe in the knowledge that they will be back whether in government or in opposition.

Why will they be back? Because they count on a bunch of idiots voting them into parliament after having paid their bills to get in there.

Reap. Sow. As the hilarious Times headline went – PL/PN to give the people what they deserve. (I added PN for par condicio).

Categories
Campaign 2013

Jeħduh f’sormhom

Forsi din ma hix espressioni li l-grupp tal-facebook Kelma Kelma se jittratta b’daqstant faċilita. Mhux għax ma ħaqqhiex. Anzi. Naħseb li tikkwalifika sew bħala espressjoni mill-iprem fl-użu kurrenti tal-poplu Malti. In-natura ipokrita tal-Malti (il-bniedem mhux l-ilsien, jaħasra) ma tippermettix pero li titkellem dwar il-kurrenti u l-magħruf jekk il-kurrenti u l-magħruf huwa – kif isejħulu is-soċjologi – taboo. U s-sorm, kif kullħadd jaf, diġa huwa taboo minnu – aħseb u ara l-espressjoni li timplika teħid ta’ oġġetti mhux neċesarjament speċifikati fil-warrani.

F’kampanja elettorali bħal ma hi din is-sorm jispikka b’mod ubikwu mingħajr qatt ma jissemma. Filwaqt li fuq il-mezzi tax-xandir jagħmlu l-għolmu tagħhom biex jagħtu xejra ta’ diċenza u (għaliex le) serjeta professjonali f’kull dibattitu mimli retorika propagandistika, huwa fl-analiżi odjerna li ssir għand tal-grocer (kif xtaq Simon) li joħroġ veru l-ispirtu razzjonali tal-votant Malti u jissemma bil-bosta s-sorm (kif forsi ma xtaqx Simon).

“Smajtu lit-tali ilbieraħ? Ma felaħx jitkellem iktar minn sormu”. Kliem espliċitu, vera, imma indikazzjoni ċara tal-andament tal-affarijiet. L-apprezzament jaf ikun partiġġjan u jaf ikun diżilluż pero is-sorm hemm jibqa’. Tista’ ukoll taqa fir-redikolu venjali – l-isplapstick tas-satira – u tgħid li bilfors dak il-kliem kollu dwar il-gass minn x’imkien kellu joħroġ.

“Kemm se jdumu jeħduħ f’sormhom (bija – suġġettiv, bina – ġeneriku)?” Il-bżar fl-għajnejn, it-tlellix u x-xinxilli, iċ-ċejċa, il-propaganda u l-ispinn. Din l-espressjoni hija l-oażi ta’ rifuġju għal min xebgħa sal-ponta ta’ imnieħru bir-retorika antika, bil-wiegħdiet foloz u bir-riżma insulti għall intelliġenza. L-irkant tal-wiegħdiet forsi jaf jingħata post speċjali fil-mezzi tax-xandir – taf int, għal għajn in-nies – imma fil-privat il-proxxmu jiżżarma minn kull ewfemiżmu inutli u jfaqqa’ verżjoni mundana ta’ “Kemm se jdumu jeħduh f’għajnhom”.

Għax iva. L-għajn hija ewfemiżmu ukoll u tfakkar wisq fl-għajn bħala fonti jew sors li f’dal każ jissarraf biss f’sors ta’ inutilta … l-anti-google. Bħal meta tisma’, biex nagħti eżempju konkret, dik il-gidba dwar “id-dekriminalizzazzjoni tal-omosesswalita“. Ma nafx int imma demmi jibda jbqabaq. Bħal dak li qallhom kien krimini qabel l-1974 li tkun omosesswali. Mhux vera. Qed jieħduh f’sormhom bik meta jgħidulek hekk.

Il-krimini kien li proprja tieħdu f’sormok. Litteralment. U li tagħtih ukoll. L-orjentazzjoni sesswali kienet irrilevanti f’għajnejn il-leġiżlatur. Kien biss l-att – magħruf teknikament bħala sodomija – li kien illegali. Biex niftehmu sas-74 il-pufti (kif kellhom tendenza kerha isejħu lill-omosesswali dak iż-żmien) setgħu ikunu pufti kemm iridu. Li ma setgħux jagħmlu  kien l-att as-sodomoija. U mhux huma biss – għax teknikament jekk kont tinqabad fl-att ma kienx se joqgħod jistaqsi jekk intix pufta jew le. Ftakar li il-fetiċċju li tieħdu f’sormok jaf ma kienx limitat għall-irġiel biss. U le il-ktieb ma jismux “50 Shades of Gay“.

Illum għal grazzja kbira m’għadniex nużaw it-terminu pufta avolja li għal żmien twil wara’ kienu l-istess psewdo-liberali ta’ nofs is-sebgħinijiet li baqgħu jużawha bħala insult – insult li jsib il-benniena tiegħu fil-biża u fl-injuranza. Pero ftakar. Meta jgħidulek li iddekriminalizzaw l-omosesswalita ma jkunu qed jagħmlu xejn ħlief jeħduh f’sormhom. Bik. Għax issa legali hux.

Ħabib tiegħi jirrakkonta storja li taf tkun apokrifa dwar Duminku Mintoff. Meta kien ikun irrabjat b’xi problema kien jgħid “Min se jiġi ineħħili dan iż-ż* minn sormi u jsibli sorm ieħor fejn nitfgħu?” Inkredibbli. Mhux talli l-lingwaġġ huwa popolari u ġenwin iżda huwa anki rikonoxximent tal-irwol importanti tal-warrani fejn jidħlu problemi u soluzzjonijiet. Jispikka ukoll l-altruwiżmu ta’ Dear Dom li ma kienx se jħalli xi ż* jiġri mas-saqajn.

“Naħseb kien b’sormha meta ħareġ biha”. Għax il-kelma għandha mitt użu u l-għodda t-tajba tiswa mitqla deheb f’idejn l-imgħallem. B’sormha… għal darb’ oħra insibu ġustifikazzjoni għan-nuqqas ta’ sens. Għax jekk mhux qed jeħduh f’sormhom bik bi ħsieb allura forsi qed jiżbaljaw għax ħadu grokk żejjed il-każin.

Hemm qiegħdin. Wasalna f’punt fil-kampanja fejn iċ-ċittadin qed jirrikorri għall-espressjonijiet vernakulari iktar u iktar kull ma jmur. Iktar milli xebgħa huwa għajjien. Strafinit. Dak li jiġrilu. Jħalli lil min iħaddmu bi storbju, b’muntanja wiegħdiet u beżgħat. Minkejja li jaf x’qed jagħmlulu iħalli lil min jieħdu f’sormu bih.

U dakinhar tal-vot imur u jagħtihulhom… qisu qatt ma kien xejn. Ħasra. Għax bir-rata li għaddejin biha x’iktarx li naqgħu għal sormna.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Show me the tablet

Our country does not lie on a vast oil deposit. If it does have one then we either haven’t found it or somebody is very good at keeping it well hidden. We do not export massive amounts of goods and notwithstanding all the talk about the gaming industry and tourism there is only so much you can “earn” to justify spending. We are not even a diligent country in the fashion of Norway that invests most of the money it gets from its oil deposits into a fund for future generations. Inevitably when elections come round even though we may be completely drunk with partisan euphoria the crux of the matter will (or should) always be the same: “Show me the money”.

The tablet wars late last week had a strange effect on me. It was one thing having pointed out for a very long time the atrocious “race to the bottom” that the PLPN dichotomy signifies. It was another to see the manner in which this tongue-in-cheek brazen approach to having a go at insulting the voter’s intelligence has been developed. All the elements coincided – you had the auction of promises and the typical partisan reaction from both sides of our Lilliputian gap. Without batting an eyelid both parties had promised millions of euros of electronic equipment to our younger generations and both parties claimed a monopoly on this move being part of some wider education plan.

Wider plan my foot. Suffice it to say that the Malta Union of Teachers was far from impressed by this tomfoolery. How bloody typical. Remember this is the government that followed our decision to get into the EU but that failed to factor a course for translators and interpreters at University in the run up to membership. How is that relevant? It’s relevant because it is one thing to shoot ambitious plans off the cuff and another thing to actually be in a position to implement them. Ask Manuel Delia.

Before you run away with some twisted idea, this is not an amish attack on all things technological. Of course technology is the future but that is not the point. The point is that both parties very evidently treat this tablet business superficially. Rent-a-pundits will link to a single article in a Microsoft Public Network magazine and will tell you that this is proof that the PN’s tablet proposal has concrete background. Sure. With all due respect to the Mark Azzopardi who has been interviewed in the article I have my doubts how much a Miss World style wish at the end of an article in a Microsoft promotional e-zine to boot can be taken as “background to a government policy” costing 25€ million of taxpayers’ money.

Not to mention of course the fact that if this were really the background then I would begin to worry about how the government already is looking into one particular company (Microsoft) and then I would begin to ask more questions – specifically who represents Microsoft in Malta and who would stand to gain from a deal that puts Microsoft’s learning programme in every school?

As for Labour. Don’t get me started. Their approach is even more bungled and transparent when it comes to the lack of planning. We are lumped with another “remedial class”. Do you remember all the bla bla about consultation with social partners? Do you remember how open Labour is even on the social networks? Well, have I got news from you. They were not listening. Had they been listening to the educators of this country they would have known the immense logistical mountain that faces the schools should the tablet in every hand become a reality. What of LSAs and teachers who suddenly have four or five kids in class with some error on their tablet? Does Labour know that there is no logisitical IT support for every school? From what I am told even LSA coordination is bad enough with government schools having one coordinator for ten schools. That’s without the tablets.

This is not a case of a country not being ready for development and progress. This is a case of a country not affording the truckloads of bullshit that are being heaped upon it daily in this election. The worst thing about it all is not that “Everybody lies” but rather that “everybody is eager to swallow the lies” so long as it’s their party feeding them the bull.

J’accuse challenges both parties to admit that their tablet promise is the result of the drunken euphoria and passion that this election has brought about. We challenge both parties to take back their empty promise and instead to promise a planned introduction of a proper IT project – one that takes into account all participants in the equation, all cogs in the wheel – like teachers for example.

Tablets for all? Thanks, but no thanks.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Your politics are ruining my country (and its future)

“Futur fis-sod” they say, or “Malta taghna lkoll”. Slogans, they’re strong and they’re loud. They get repeated like some mantra gone wrong and woe betide anybody who dare criticise any of their darlings because you are immediately tagged as an undercover agent for “the other side”. Malta’s very own version of McCarthyism has now polluted the airwaves and the ether. We’re only a few days in the campaign and quite frankly the debate between dumb and dumber has only made us numb and number.

I dared praise Ranier Fsadni’s article in the Times only to find my status host to a mass of foam mouthed angry mob stirrers – angry because apparently Ranier has not been equally magnanimous in his criticism of the way things are done. Quite frankly I do not believe that I need to defend Ranier but I rather like the point he made – which remains a good point independently of Ranier. His point was simply that the media should be more demanding of our politicians. The sly fox did not come down in favour of one party or another – he simply put it to the reader that “trust” is not enough in these matters.

Raphael Vassallo plastered line after line of research that he came across in his line of investigation. Which is fine. What I cannot understand is how some of the flaws that people like Raphael point out suddenly become ok because, you know what, even the nationalists have been guilty of committing them. So that’s all right isn’t it? Fast tracking EIA plans? Can be done because MEPA does it already. Oh goody goody.

I don’t know where to start any more. The parties have even got a monopoly on how they roll out their plans and projects. I criticised Labour for being too shallow on Gozo – and praised the PN for having concrete proposals. Apparently Labour’s proposals on Gozo are pleasures yet to come. Who cares if the plan for the elections means that you will only know what Joseph Muscat will do to create jobs on the sister island come the last week of campaigning? Which is a load of bollocks. AD are supposed to roll out their FULL ELECTION PROPOSALS tomorrow. Do we really have to wait for the PLPN to drip their electoral proposals slowly like some form of chinese torture?

And one final thing. There are way too many sudden declarations in favour of this policy or that for my liking. The parties have to make their mind up on that one too. Either their policies are a well thought of step by step process built within a holistic framework or they are just being invented as the campaign unfurls.

Which also leads me to this sudden discovery by other pundits of our greatest sickness. I saw that Daphne Caruana Galizia the other day was complaining about the Maltese mentality that “having an opinion automatically means that it’s right”. Well thank Jupiter that the message that we have been drilling from these columns for aeons is finally coming through. Maltese relativism combined with this dumbing down of the nation is a direct by product of the PLPN vision of politics. Joseph Muscat has put this development on a fast track with his “m’hemmx ilwien u kuluri” , and “il-Malti jahdem u jistinka allura bilfors il-progetti jirnexxu”. It’s a project, it’s Maltese and it will create work because he says so. No questions asked.

This is the Brave New Political world for which various rent-a-pundits and sudden activists are suddenly foaming at the mouth. There are those who will take whatever their party says like it’s the bible truth. Others are just rabidly egging on the team that has to get into power if only because twenty-five years have hurt and you cannot trust the conniggling bastards in blue. The world begins and ends at the feet of Norman Vella and Peppi Azzopardi and the ridiculously sterile BA guidelines. And if the leader bows out of a Xarabank appointment then let’s make a fuss of it… because Xarabank taghna lkoll.

Their politics is ruining the prospects of this country and its future.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Resigned to reason

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.

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

That inexistent opposition

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.