Tag: PLPN

Categories
Campaign 2013 Mediawatch Politics

The PM & the Black Knight

Appreciators of that fine vein of British humour that is the Monty Python collection will surely be familiar with the persona of the Black Knight that makes a fleeting (and diminishing) appearance in the movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail“.  For the unfortunate few who are sadly unaware of the existence of such sublime sketches let me just say that the ridiculous Black Knight appears in a short sketch (see video below) in which he duels with other knights in order to fulfil his destiny ensuring that “None shall pass”.  While battling the hero of this epic (Arthur) he ends up losing limb after limb but insists on continuing to fight (“’tis but a scratch). Hopping on one leg, armless he still manages to yell “I’m invincible” – a state of absolute comic denial as to the reality of his hopeless situation.

I was reminded of this sketch this weekend when I heard the PM insist that there was no problem of governability in one of his meetings with the people. Crisis? What crisis? The government has survived all assaults on its position (read: votes of confidence in parliament) and therefore after 4 and a half years it will not accept any talk of crisis. The government, you see, is invincible. Now a   great philosopher had once mentioned something about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time and this quote has been doing the rounds in some Labour quarters for quite some time.

PM Gonzi need not bother with the weekly maquillage any longer. If anything, last nights summary termination of all things Franco within the PN should have (as if it was necessary) given the game away to any doubters. The government lost its position of being able to horsetrade away any possibility of surviving votes of confidence towards the end of the last parliamentary session. At that point, Dr Gonzi and his staff knew full well that the business of government was to be punched in on borrowed time. Come October (if we are to wait till then) there will not be much stretching and pulling left – and no amount of distractions such as half-baked civil union bills, sudden illuminations on the censorship issue that never was or even IVF roundabouts will be able to pull off any reprieve of governance.

The difference between the situation today and the situation, say, in May, is that while it is true that for a long time the main trouble with the system of government was that “provoked” by backbenchers, the government had found a way of compromising with the troublemakers : right up to the entente pas trop cordiale reached in the Cohabitation Pact with JPO. Such compromises allowed Gonzi’s government to try to promote a business as usual attitude against all odds. That possibility has now all but waned away.

The inclement weather of the past few days allowed for more of the gemgem and placing of blame at the government’s doorstep. We even had the Msida mayor calling for more funds from government to maintain two resrvoirs at the end of valley road and to clear the tappieri. We wonder why the country gets flooded every year around the same time with uncanny regularity that Arriva can only dream of when the real culprit is the national mentality of “I’m alright so f-you Jack” that leads to clogged arteries and escape routes for the water that will still come down from the sky no matter who is in government.

Here is your check list before the election becomes the here and now: 8th September festivities with accompanying press releases and exchanges of witticisms. 21st September celebrations with similar exchanges followed by 22nd September mass meeting by Labour on Il-Fosos. A short session of “my mass meeting was bigger than yours” chivalric beatings followed by the results of (a) Labour’s Congress about the Future and (b) PN’s budget projections/electoral document.

Then Bob’s your uncle. We’ve gone on record stating that “In this country we don’t solve problems, we nurture them”.

Either that… or we deny they exist.

ADDENDUM :

I had only just posted this on J’accuse when I checked the latest news on the papers. Here is the Times reporting that “PN sources” seem to believe that Gonzi is still eyeing an early 2013 election (do note that it is not an official position – just “sources” – another way of putting out feelers?). Meanwhile MaltaToday tells us that Debono is toying with the idea of a motion of no confidence against health minister Joe Cassar. As we could put it so succinctly in the vernacular: aħdimha! (Work it out!).

 

Categories
Uncategorized

The State of Our Unions

Chris Said must not be too happy with the reception that has been afforded the Civil Cohabitation Partnerships Bill. The MGRM and AD as well as the Civil Rights group Aditus have all slammed one aspect or another of the bill. It must be said that the greatest hype has been around the expectations that had been instilled among the gay community with regards to a move that would finally constitute the adoption of a gay marriage law in Malta. Not being an infallible sentient being I am not sure whether I am getting all the signs right but I do have more than a modicum of suspicion that there is more than a strong tinge of confusion in the matter from all parties concerned – either wilfully and in line with particular agendas or unwittingly and underlined by a particular level of ignorance of what the law is about.

On PACS and othe civil partnerships

Let us begin with the abstract – away from the hustle and bustle of what is the current line of thought in Malta. The first point that must be clearly established is that a law on civil partnerships and a law on gay marriage are two very different pieces of legislation. The fact that the former (a civil union law) could facilitate the life of gay couples (and that is an understatement) does not in any way make the two any less different. The clearest and most straightforward example is France and French law where thankfully the confusion that may be brought about by the religion inspired forms of marriage is virtually non-existent.

Since the 15th November 1999 France has what is called a PACS -translated in English as a civil solidarity pact. By definition it is an agreement between two adults (see: no mention of gender or blood relation) who enter such an agreement with the purpose of jointly organising and administering their lives. It changes their situation in the eyes of the law: couples are said to be pacsé on their status description and they stand to be considered as a unit in different situations such as fiscal calculations and entitlements as well as presumptions in the case of inheritance. PACS was introduced in France when marriage was on the downturn and was definitely not exclusively considered as a marriage solution for gay couples (in 2012, 94% of PACS were between opposite sex couples). It goesd without saying though that the concept of a civil union or a recognised cohabitation includes the possibility of same-sex couples.

PACS was never intended to replace or come close to the concept of marriage – the civil concept mind you. Most civil unions are intended in this manner.

Same-sex Marriage

Very different from PACS is the legislation of gay marriages. If we look at our Wikipedia fact machine we will see the following verbal venn diagram:

Currently 22 of the 51 countries in Europe recognize some type of same-sex unions, among them a majority of members of the European Union. Eight European countries legally recognize same-sex marriage, namely Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. An additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. San Marino only allows immigration and cohabitation of a citizen’s partner. Several countries are currently considering same-sex union recognition.

Do note the difference. 22 countries recognise some type of same-sex unions. Of these eight recognise same-sex marriage. The additional fourteen have a form of civil union or unregistered cohabitation. Malta’s Bill would add it to the latter fourteen. It has nothing to do with the formal recognition of gay marriages. Even after the Cohabitation Bill is passed we would still be aeons away from any form of legal sanction of marriage between same-sex couples.

So what’s happening in Malta?

I have it on quite a reliable source that on the eve of last election a deal was struck between a panicking Nationalist party and the MGRM. The deal was simple: MGRM would block vote for PN and PN would enact a cohabitation law. That got some uber necessary votes away from the PL (the hopeful vote) and the AD (the protest vote). Let’s call this the Xarabank deal for want of a better description. Now we know how the PN legislative agenda has been disrupted ever since the divorce surprise but the Bill had to be shoved through as promised otherwise the next election would find the PN with its pants down… and we don’t want any of that do we?

So we have a cohabitation bill being drafted at gunpoint so to speak and whatsmore – as Raphael Vassallo pointed out – being piloted by a former head honcho of the anti-divorce movement. What we end up with is a bill that seems to be blatantly discriminatory and fails to produce the goods insofar as the goal of a solid civil unions law is concerned. It’s the second (non-couple) part of the law that has drawn much attrition – mainly for what are being described as discriminatory conditions.

The bill fails to take into consideration the situation of siblings sharing the same household – failing to factor in recent ECJ case law in this regard. It also ignores completely the tax issues relating to the civil union – practically neutering one of the most important aspects of the law. These criticisms – and, if they are proven to be true, the criticisms aimed at the different time-frame for the recognition of civil unions depending on the type of union – are not only founded but very important if any bearing is to be had on the final version of the law.

There is though the issue of “family” and “gay marriage” that has been thrown into the discussion by most of the groups reacting to the bill. Such talk is highly misplaced. Fine tuning the Cohabitation Bill is not only good but imperative. The criticism and constructive suggestions should be confined to the declared aims and intentions of the bill. Same-sex marriages is definitely not one of them. Don’t get me wrong –  it will never be too soon for a discussion and process to be opened in order to have a same-sex marriage law in Malta. It is important to recognise the difference though and not to be drawn into facile conclusions.

The Cohabitation Partnerships Bill does seem to need more than a bit of fine tuning. It would be unfair and very underhand of all parties concerned should the remit of such a bill be extended to the introduction of same-sex unions. Such an introduction does not deserve to be made surreptitiously. Rather. It should be made openly, consciously and following an open national consultation – possibly including a vote (unless all our parties include the proposal in their next manifesto – in which case we will just be voting in the government that would turn the proposal to legislation).

If the country was deemed mature enough to debate, vote upon and ultimately enact a divorce law then there should be no reason why the same should not hold true of same-sex marriages. I for one believe it’s inevitable.

Change. You want it? Vote for it.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Propaganda Pay-As-You-Please

Just imagine. The tax collector comes round and you tell him “Dude, I’m experiencing cashflow problems, mind if I pay you later?” No need to get that extreme. Just imagine checking out at the till of your supermarket and when the uber-bored guy at the till robotically announces the amount (and points to the five million packs of free water that you have just “won”) you tell him “Righto, I’ll pack the water but I’ll pay you next month… if I find the cash”.

It’s not done is it? You rent a place to run a restaurant or a strip joint, whatever, and you are expected to cough up the rent. Pronto. No rent and you are evicted. You don’t pay your water and electricity bills and you find yourself showering at the neighbours (if they can tolerate the mess you leave behind).

Except of course if you’re a political party. Ever since the PLPN decreed that “pluralism” (whatever happened to that word that used to be uttered like some magic mantra) would be showered on the expectant peoples, and ever since the likes of 101, SuperOne, Net TV and OneTV were unleashed on us the parties have had the lion’s share of broadcasting on the islands.

It is no secret that quality wise this increase in “competition” has been of no benefit whatsoever to the consumer. Given the talent gene pool limitations it would be hardly surprising should this island sustain one good quality TV structure (broadcasting corporation) branching out into specialised channels. Instead we have the two political channels lording it out and churning out Malta’s worst – thankfully in a language that is only intelligible to the island’s converted insiders.

Now we have the Malta Broadcasting Authority openly admitting that: “over the years, the Authority has taken cognisance of the fact that most national broadcasting stations face cash flow problems – from time to time situations have arisen on certain occasions where stations have fallen behind in their payments.”. Which is quite a polite way of saying that more often than not the public secret ends up being the factual truth: our political parties couldn’t give a flying armadillo whether or not they afford to pay the €15,000 or so needed annually for a broadcasting licence.

Why should they? Who will have the guts to shut them and their operations down? This is a country that constitutionally takes the existence of a bi-party system for granted. It encourages the obvious inefficiencies of an inexistent competition – and this battle for the mediocre ground spreads from values, to business, to ideas and creativity to markets.

As I said in a previous post – and I think this will be J’accuse’s seasonal motto:

In this country we do not solve problems. We nurture them.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The joke’s on you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

 

 

 

Categories
Politics

Summer siestas

It’s sizzling hot (apparently). August’s heat approaches with the certainty of a sunrise and the last events of the political season are being played out. Let’s not fool ourselves. There is going to be a break – a pause – as the politicians scramble to the safety of the seaside… or like mercenaries they will find some earthly form of hell where to regroup. In the meantime though the last notes of this particular act are being played out.

As I blogged earlier today, the Nationalist party is keen to have the last word on all things leak and Mistra. It’s not about Mistra they will tell you but about Joseph Muscat being a blabberer – a peċluq – as we would have it in the vernacular. The Labour party rightly retorts by focusing on a totally different point and reminding “GonziPN” that Dr Sant was right about the geezer who favours Earl Grey. That geezer marched off for his summer holidays in a huff having notified the PN that he is no longer one of their own (like they needed it in writing) and having informed the Speaker of the House that he is henceforth to be considered as an Independent. His cohabitation having been clarified he will now apparently be off and wed so, unless he takes the matter of wedlock lightly, that should keep him out of the news for a while.

The grumbling has started. It’s become a catchphrase of sorts now. “Oh how they have bored us.”, “Enough already”, “Why don’t they just resign and call an election”… and more of the same. You cannot really blame the electorate for having sussed out that most of these theatricals are to nobody’s benefit and that they can be more boring than spending an evening watching Musumeci Robert put up aphorism after aphorism on Facebook. Then again I have the niggling feeling that this is the usual thinking “sal-ponta ta’ l-imnieħer” as the vernacular would also put it.

Why? Because while it has become stylish to feign a lack of interest and to sing-a-long to the “bored with politics” and the “politicos” (a new word that, that has entered the collective vocab) few seem to understand what actually lies behind the corner. While everybody claims to no longer be intrigued by the squeakings of officials and spinmasters the truth is that their urge to “call an election” and get it over and done with turns out to be more of an emotional impulse than a thought out reflection.

And the reason is simple. When the curtain finally falls and the electoral campaign is in full swing we should be finally seeing two parties displaying their wares and what they have to offer in terms of governance for the new season. Mr Voter would be choosing from among these wares and therefore should be expecting to see a bit more than slogans and mud. Are the parties ready for that?

I have a strong feeling that the timing of PN strategy until now points clearly to a summer of preparation for an election. As I type slogans are being hatched (or copied from French campaigns), manifestos are being hurriedly beefed up and a strategy based on what the party can offer (and what new guarantees it can promise) is probably being brewed. The PN elected in 2008 is split and a good target for derisory facebook statuses or smartass expressions of surprise. The PN2012 team will be making damn sure that the new team has none of that.

And Labour? Well, once Muscat has recovered from the spumante he will return to the island to find that his provision of ammo is running dry. He has spent the last nine months honeymooning with the man who he now calls the second Prime Minister and has concentrated exclusively on the “iggranfat mal-poter” theorem. Once the relevance of that whole issue is officially declared passé, Muscat will find that he has very little time to reinvent a machine that he has groomed to produce more of the same old comatose opposition by default. It may be too late.

Four to five  weeks. That’s approximately how much time the parties have to get it together and regroup. I’m betting that the PN will attempt to use the summer pause for a Janus effect. One face looking back and another decisively forward. Will Labour manage to do anything other than the obvious and the predictable?

More importantly will the electorate prove to be a sucker for cosmetics one more time?

Categories
Mediawatch

Cohabitation stupid.

Over at the Runs there seems to be some backtracking about whether or not the JPO-PN arrangement is actually a coalition. It would seem that someone more competent than Daphne wrote a guest-post upon invitation clarifying why the JPO and PN arrangement is not a coalition: An Independent-Nationalist, not a ‘coalition’. Well there’s nothing new there that we have not been saying before (More Lessons in Irrelevance – 19/07/12)) or that has not been said clearly by James Debono (This is not a coalition – 20/07/12).

There is an effort though to shoot down the term cohabitation:

So, please, let’s use political terms properly and correctly. ‘Cohabitation’ has also been floating around on the internet. But that only happens in France – and the United States, without the term being used as such – when a president with executive powers does not enjoy the support of the majority in the National Assembly, or in the case of the United Staes, of Congress.

Which is stretching things a little bit isn’t it? The anonymous guest poster does point to the UK example of a Conservative MP resigning the party whip and being called an Independent-Conservative. Bollocks. That’s not true. They are called nothing of the sort. They either resign the party whip and become independent or resign the party whip and cross the floor. Here is a list of British politicians who have done so since (hold your breath) 1698. There’s no such nonsense as an Independent-Conservative as there is no such nonsense as an Independent-Nationalist.

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando famously “felt liberated” after resigning from the Nationalist Party. He is no longer a member. He is not an Independent-Nationalist. He is an independent MP who has opted for cohabitation with the nationalist MPs on the strength of a number of terms. His vote is conditional on the PN adhering to the electoral manifesto.

He reiterated that he would continue to collaborate with the government on the points listed in the electoral programme but said it would be a mistake by the prime minister if he did not consult him on a one-on-one basis as agreed, on matters which were not specifically mentioned in the electoral programme. This also included the Budget.

There you go. It’s not a coalition. He is not an independent-nationalist.

It’s cohabitation, stupid.

How’s that for a snazzy t-shirt?