Tag: the Runs

Categories
Campaign 2013

The Coalition Lie

As I said, it was inevitable that the attacks on Alternattiva would take a turn for the worse as the election got closer. The inevitability is also the result of two particular traits of the main parties. The Nationalist party thrives on the belief of being the “obvious” choice and therefore that most voters voting AD (who are somehow intelligent but not intelligent enough) are lost votes. Labour on the other hand still believes that everyone is against it and that every vote has to be “won” from elsewhere. In short the Nationalist party wins elections if it does not lose votes, Labour wins them if it gains them – at least by their reasoning where votes are “owned” from the start.

The latest attacks on AD come in the form of the “governance vs coalition” and at least they spare us the insult of considering a vote for AD as a lost or wasted vote. What they do instead is remind the voter of the total and absolute flop of the last PN government insofar as infighting was concerned and what that did to the stability of government. Well here’s the hitch… or more than one…

It’s not a coalition, stupid.

We dealt with this and nipped it in the bud. The PN machine tried all that it could to call the PN-JPO settlement a coalition. It was anything but that. Neither was the uncomfortable entente moins que cordiale with Franco Debono. You’d have to be stupid, blinkered or partisan to call it a coalition. It was a cohabitation of sorts. The main reason is simple – JPO, Debono and the rest of the PN members ran on the same party ticket. When Lawrence Gonzi went to the President with the confident assertion that he could form a majority (relative majority) government in parliament he went with the knowledge that a majority of parliamentarians had run on the same ticket with the same promises and the same projects in mind. You cannot form a coalition with yourself. Simples. You can call it a coalition. You can illude yourself with the terminology but the truth is that Debono and JPO came through last elections with the full backing and support of the PN vote winning machine. Your party, your members, your problem. Do not dare compare them to a fledgling party with clear and precise policies and conditions for a coalition.

How real coalitions are built.

First of all it’s an interesting sign that neither Gonzi nor Muscat dared deny the possibility of a coalition – 11 days before the election. I don’t believe them one bit. Neither of them. But publicly they cannot afford to seem intransigent with a potential third party in parliament before the eggs are hatched. In practice though they will unleash the negative campaign because they cannot afford to share their precioussss with someone else. Which is ridiculous.

Coalitions are not a zero-sum game. They are built on compromise. An interesting question that has not been asked (but should be asked) of Michael Briguglio is what part of the Alternattiva Demokratika manifesto is not subject to discussion. As in which part of the AD manifesto would be a deal-breaker in the eventual discussions for the setting up of a coalition? Would AD insist on gay marriages or nothing for example? Are there parts of the PN/PL manifestos that AD would be intransigent on – as in they would not accept to be part of the government vote in those cases? There are multiple solutions. A coalition could agree to a free vote on the more controversial aspects of legislation – thus the coalition partners can vote in accordance to their manifesto.

Mike Briguglio will not need to stamp his feet, fake a sickie in bed or call press conferences from a field with a tea cup in hand. He will negotiate a reasonable coalition roadmap with whichever party is mature enough to listen. With luck they’ll last the full five years.

The thing is that this is a matter of negotiation based on votes and principles found in the respective manifestos – it is representative democracy in action. It is nothing like the whims and fancies of renegade PN elected members of parliament where we had power for power’s sake being at stake. Don’t swallow the lies of the Daphnes of this world who would love to atone for their sins of voting in irresponsible representatives by spreading the curse to the small party with a big heart.

And another thing. They say coalitions don’t work. I would not be surprised if a coalition with the PN or PL does not work but not for the reasons that they try to scare you with. It’s simpler. From day one the PL or PN would do their damnedest to see that the coalition does not work in the hope of forcing a new vote and winning the preciousss all for themselves. It’s in their nature. It’s in their instinct for survival.

The Anti-politics Instinct

Finally AD is not an antipolitical movement like Grillo’s M5S. It is a completely different reality. True, it can and will be used as a vehicle in Malta for those votes that are fed up with the old style politics that gives you “coalitions” with JPO but that is not the be all and end all of Malta’s green movement. AD has shown to have clear policies which are based on the citizen’s interest and not polluted with the interests of circles of power and businessmen. That alone should suffice as an incentive to vote for change and go for the AD coalition.

This election is not about choosing between the PL and PN. It’s about voting for a better, more representative parliament. This election you can be part of the vote for change.

It’s not a vote for PN or PL.

It’s a vote that’s a part of the change, stupid.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Ex post – Elephants and the constitution

A couple of days back (28th November) I had uploaded a post discussing “the elephant in the room” that would be so conspicuous during the budget debate. The elephant in question is of course Franco Debono’s not too veiled threat to vote against the budget and thus bring about the end of GonziPN’s term in office. Having seen his last hopes of reconciliation fritter away with Simon Busuttil’s volte face on the matter Franco has been in Armageddon mode ever since.

One of the arguments I made in that post referred to the position(s) taken by Joseph Muscat – and this was before his jaw-dropping post-budget assertion that Labour is the best party to put Tonio Fenech’s budget into practice. Muscat’s appropriation of the PN government’s financial plans was to me the final straw that definitely ruled out any vote for Labour (not that there was much hope there but I had left an open door waiting for a very, very convincing argument in that respect – needless to say that argument never turned up). Muscat’s actual position on the budget notwithstanding I had stated:

If Muscat were half the statesman he wishes to be then he would be operating differently. The interest of governance and governability would trump his greed for getting into government. He should not be reinforcing Franco Debono and that parliamentarian’s hara-kiri. At the end of the day the election is months away in any case – budget or no budget. Muscat could use this opportunity to pull the carpet from under Franco’s legs and be in command of his own party’s destiny. His best move would be to instruct two or more of his MPs (how many are necessary) to abstain in the budget vote. The budget would pass, without the vote of labour who would go on record as having voted against.

As far as I know (and I’m not particularly keen on this calling dibs business) this was the first time that this theoretical approach was mentioned in the media (printed or otherwise). Last night though a “Guest Post” was up on the Runs discussing the very idea though it was presented as “A rather bizarre rumour is doing the rounds.” The abstention, according to the rumour, would no longer be from one or two of Muscat’s MPs but Joseph Muscat himself. Guestposterontheruns proceeded to rubbish the idea:

Should this scenario come to pass, Labour would once again show that it has turned inconsistency and lack of principle into an art. How can a prospective prime minister and party leader vote one way while his entire party vote for its antithesis on what is essentially a vote of confidence in this government? How can the entire Opposition vote to bring down the government while its leader votes to keep it in place? How can the party leader himself vote against the party whip?

The anonymous writer – presumably fearful of showing her name lest she loses her day job for having an opinion (you know given these oppressive times we live in) – goes on to explain that “Unlike the case of divorce, a budgetary vote is not, and cannot be, a matter of conscience. There is no free vote on the matter and there cannot be, under any circumstance.” Which might make for quite a convincing argument. In a vacuum. All other things being equal (as Labourites apparently tend to think).

What guestposterontheruns fails to notice is the constitutional underpinning of the original theoretical scenario. While it may be argued that the value of the budgetary vote is a political vote that is not tied to conscience or free votes, its value is grounded in the fact that a budgetary vote is also an implied vote of confidence in government. A budgetary vote therefore is all about the stability of government and governance.

Should Joseph Muscat take up the J’accuse suggestion and use his vote in order to undermine Franco Debono’s efforts to vote against the budget irrespective of its content then Muscat would be acting in order to guarantee the very principle of governmental stability that underpins our constitutional provisions. The message and precedent set would be of extreme importance, not just for the government of the day (whose days are counted anyway) but also for future governments and their MPs. A renegade MP linking a budgetary vote to a personal issue (Austin Gatt) will not be seconded in his actions by the opposition.

This point is valid irrespectively of the inherent contradiction of the Labour party’s political position on the budget itself (we like it, we adopt it but we will vote against it). The arguments made by guestposterontheruns are short-sighted in that they tackle Muscat as the Labour leader within the current electoral campaign and scenario. The theoretical scenario I originally posted is neutral of current events and could be applied to any future scenario where a renegade MP abuses of his position.

That is what the “statesman” business is all about. Constitutionally, the need to establish a clear precedent for our two-party system and that states that renegade MP shenanigans will not be seconded in order to cause unnecessary instability, trumps by far the usual customary rules with regard to budgetary votes (whip, free vote etc).

The “rumour” might after all not turn out to be true (or simply sourced from a careful reader of this blog). I also have my doubts about how much Muscat and his team would understand the true value of the strategy I outlined. Even in short-term political terms it would be quite a winner for Labour. To be seen as not wanting power at all costs, to pull the carpet from under Franco’s feet and to simply wait a few more months (two?) for the government to run its natural course would be a boost for a party still reeling from its mishandling of the early post-budget.

I suspect that the very fact of the danger that Muscat might actually contemplate such a scenario that runs havoc with the PNs electoral plans is what must have prompted guestposterontheruns  to write about the “rumour” in the first place. Always if the rumour turns out to be true, that is.

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?

Categories
Local Councils Politics

Don't Believe the Hype

Fascinating. There’s only one way to describe the PN handling of the Arrigo spinoff of DimechGate. Fascinating and of course, unbelievable. Literally unbelievable. DimechGate included allegations of improper behaviour (let’s settle on that term) by Nationalist MP Arrigo, implying that he threw his weight around the Sliema Local Council quite a bit. Notwithstanding the pooh-poohing of columnists engaged in other important matters (footnote – 1) who tried to hide the glaring wart on PLPN politics that is the Sliema Local Council there was much there that merited consideration – and no it’s not Lilliputian, it’s the face and result of the “responsible voting” that went on last election (remember the accusations at those who urged for a vote for change?).

So Arrigo is under the microscope and this because, among other things, councillor Yves (Bobby) Cali went on record with the Times pointing his finger at Arrigo’s bravado actions in the council. He subsequently denied having actually said that so the Times published the transcript of what he said (footnote – 2). Then we have a PN MP accused of impropriety (“another one?” I hear you say). Which prompts the service of the PN disciplinarian bodies into action. The question is do they (A – not a footnote) Use the heavy hand of Paul and come down on the MP like a ton of righteous christian democrats and expect such punishments as “immediate resignations” et cetera et cetera? or do they (B – also not a footnote) Do the “Stand by Your man” tactic reserved for such elite politicians as PBO (VAT) and Tonio Fenech (VAT/Stamp Duty)?

It turns out that parliamentary considerations of a numerical kind – better known as the fictitive extra seat obtained thanks to a relative majority of seats thanks to the PLPN amendments – force the PN to deny the known truth. You see, the PN cannot and will not afford to toy with its one-man majority that can bring Humpty Dumpty, all the kings men, all his horses and all his disgruntled backbenchers tumbling down. Which is why when faced with a TRANSCRIPT of factual statements recorded by a journalist and a subsequent denial by the same person who uttered the transcribed words here is what the PN smart machine churned out:

The general secretary stood by the party’s declaration earlier this week when it took Mr Calì’s word that he never made the allegations, insisting that the transcript published by this newspaper was “not faithful to the statement of clarification made by Mr Calì”.

Lordy, lordy.  Do they actually read what they are saying? A transcript of a recorded conversation was not faithful to a statement of clarification. “He said that but he did not mean it… and we choose to believe what he meant not what he said”. Which is why PBO is still secretary general of the party. Because he is a medium and voyant and he can read the minds of his party members better than any other. Funny how the very same party chihuahas who described the attention afforded to the Sliema Council affair as watching “trouble in lilliput” barked (or should I say yapped?) this about Arrigo:

As Robert Arrigo tries to wriggle out of the Nikki Dimech/cocaine addiction/patronage/bribery mess down in Sliema, he must know that his chances of persuading the prime minister, against his wisdom, to make him part of his cabinet are now shot to hell. (…)

The party hierarchy, however, lost the battle to stop him standing for election to the Sliema council on its ticket in 1994, and he contested every Sliema council election after that until 2003, when the party finally relented and allowed him to stand on the PN ticket in the 2003 general election, no doubt because of the ‘all hands on deck’ nature of that election which would decide on Malta’s EU membership.

Because he was allowed to contest then and brought in enough votes to allow him to throw his weight around, he was selected for the PN ticket again in 2008.

– (Robert Arrigo: What a mistake that was – the Runs)

And now the party of values that confirmed the “all hands on deck” approach thru 2008 is having to back Arrigo come rain or shine as trouble is afoot in Lilliput. You know what they say … if you’ve got Lilliputian values don’t cry if you get Lilliputian politicians.

And Paul Borg Olivier ends up denying the hype…. you heard it first from Public Enemy….

The Footnotes
(1) Such as convincing the world that since the law on VAT and income tax makes no sense with regards to maids/cleaners/whateva then we are free to break it at will until a more sensible law is in place. Go figure – you’d actually think these people are experts on VAT (and its payment).
(2) and boo to you conspiracy theorists – the Times DO have priorities and this shows clearly that the moment they are backs against the wall being accused of lying they will forget their other loyalties

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch

Tips from the Tip (updated)

The Runs has advice for J’accuse (indirectly of course). We’re in a good mood so we dispense some “tips” of our own. Warning: the contents of this blog have been known to confuse intellectually inferior beings – idiots should proceed under adult supervision.

Here’s the original tip from the tip in answer to (an obviously provocative) comment by Kev.

Kev

I think Mr Crawford is hyping it up himself by being overtly touchy over a few nonsensical blog comments. Otherwise, the Maltastar ‘exclusive’ has long been buried and it’s not like the whole island is buzzing with his name.

(Excerpt from my comment on Jacques’ blog – http://www.akkuza.com/2010/04/30/netiquette-no-longer-the-stuff-of-bitching/comment-page-1/#comment-3125 after visiting Mr Crawford’s whinery… or is it whingery? Pity the words don’t exist.)

[Daphne – The strange thing, Kevin Ellul Bonici, is that you and Jacques both like to think of yourselves as intellectually superior beings who condescend to pop in here once in a while, but the reason that you do is because this is where the action is. The alternative is talking to the few people who hang around your own spaces or mixing with the ghastly subliterate nutcases (and I mean nutcases) on sites set up by fixated bunny-boilers for the express purpose of vilifying me (and how obsessed do you have to be to do that?). Jacques just can’t get over the fact that nobody reads his blog because it’s so damned boring and irrelevant, and likes to make out (and kid himself) that the reason people read this is because it’s trashy. I guess it’s too tough to admit that I know how to do my job – communication – and he doesn’t. Here’s a tip, Jacques: try writing things that people want to read. If you haven’t got yourself an audience in five years, I’d say it’s time to give up.]

Well, I’m sure the bait is all there for us to fall for and here is how we would engage if it was worth engaging in the mud slinging game that attracts the flies and dead carcasses:

So to all you nobodies out there: stop reading this boring and irrelevant (or as David’s synonym would be: marginalised) blog. They’ll keep selling you the idea that it is irrelevant. Dive into the trash from the tip instead. I’m sure it’s worth it. I won’t be asking for an apology because (a) I don’t need one and (b) I won’t get one because I’m not Charles Crawford.There’s nothing tough to admit : trash = sensational = popular. I don’t need to admit it. It’s there for all to see. I don’t “write things that people want to read” because I am not into PR and cheap marketing, I am into substance and content. Results driven? Bah. What a load of absolute, PR and marketing drivvel.

And Daphne, I don’t think I am intellectually superior to a PR busybody when it comes to 99% of the subjects under the sun.

I know it.

Now for some serious points that would never come to the mind of someone whose only style of argument is aggressive behaviour:

1. Blogs cost no money to read – their readership is not mutually exclusive. People read more than one blog and that is how it should be. My argument remains that sensational blogs will perforce attract a larger, wider audience than the standard blog reading audience- and unlike Daphne I have no problem with that.

2. A reminder: linking in blogs is normal procedure when quoting huge chunks off someone else. Judging by Daphne’s double-standards in the event of being informed that it it is not done to quote without linking (a marketing person should know that no? – she lives and breathes communications)  it is hard to take tips about blogging from that same person. It’s actually not hard – just plain stupid.

3. If marginalised means that certain interlocutors ignore questions brought up by this blog because they are embarrassing well yes we are irrelevant. Daphne, because I know you are reading this, how come you have not come clean on the simple, very simple question: WHY NOW? Your whole Plategate furore was motivated/triggered off by one factor – revenge. You still have to explain why you chose to raise certain issues that you had known of long before Plategate only after your taste for revenge got triggered. That is NOT journalism. That is not QUALITY reporting. That is plain and simple PR dirt for personal needs. And the people love it. Oh yes they do. Ask Lou – whose fall in ratings has probably justified the rescuscitation of  the ghost of Norman Lowell.

4. Finally, try as you may you will never manage to equate this blog with TYOM. We have expressed our disagreement with the style and method of both that blog and of the blog that provoked it. The only applause they would get is in the choice of name. It is so apt. You may want to see the level of popularity enjoyed by TYOM when revising your theory on cheap content vs quality. There MUST be something behind their rapid rise on the blogging scene – hmm let me see – sensational bullshit? Yep. Same, same but different.

Sad, but true (even though THAT should be hard to admit) but the Manuel Cuschieri of the nationalist elite has found her ugly alter ego.
***

UPDATE: Timesonline has listed 40 bloggers who really count and weirdly enough the Runs does not figure in the list. We did discover that in the UK Magistrates have anonymous blogs of their own – like this one.

***
UPDATE
More intellectual commentary on the Runs. Daphne posts some observation about the police and the letter of the law and her accolytes jump at the opportunity to somehow debate J’accuse:

H.P. Baxxter says:
Tuesday, 4 May at 1505hrs

Pajjiz ta’ Jacques Réné Zammits.

Cannot Resist Anymore! says:
Tuesday, 4 May at 1532hrs

@H.P. Baxxter

He is of Gozitan extraction and what he says must not offend the Opposition because he may need them some day. But he feels very free to attack Daphne because that makes him look good in their eyes.

Daphne once told me that if I can dish it out then surely I can take it. Here is the reply we’d add on the Runs if it was worth commenting on:

Now,now Daphne letting your fans “do the dishing” for you? (Well it’s safe so long as the dishes stay away from your hands I guess).

@Baxxter – there’s only one accent in René as in Descartes you intellectually inferior buffoon.

@cannotresist- “extraction?” have we been watching too much Lowell lately? Can’t blame you – not much more on offer these days is there?

I almost wrote a treatise in my defence (an apologia) but then I remembered I had to write what the daphne-lytes can read. Hope this is simple enough.

Looking forward to the next flurry of smart and witty comments – bring it on Dee Cee Gee.

We resisted the temptation… an act of mercy. But you just have to love these people. Personal grudges and “min mhux maghna kontra taghna” mentality – 80s labour revisited indeed.

Categories
Mediawatch

Netiquette – no longer the stuff of bitching

Where we point out DCG’s sudden U-turn on matters of blogging and netiquette. Cheers Charles!

Continue reading “Netiquette – no longer the stuff of bitching”