We’re led by idiots

Razzie's bedtime reading book for tonight

As you may be very well aware by now, I am not a fan of Josef Ratzinger detto “Nazinger”. Neither I am fond of the institution he represents. Having said that, I respect him as a Head of State, and as a religious leader of millions of people.

I think that by now, he must have been pinching himself incessantly, and he must have been asking his closest aides to slap him hard in the face to make sure that what he witnessed so far is real. In other words, he would want to confirm that he is not dreaming.

‘m more than sure that he must be thinking to himself that he was transported to the zone where normal things don’t happen very often.

When he met PM Gonzi earlier this evening, the Head of Government cracked the silliest of jokes. He said that “he hoped that the ash cloud currently causing air traffic chaos in Europe would delay his departure tomorrow, thus giving him the time to go to Gozo.” Acording to The Times online ” The joke was made during a private meeting at the Palace in Valletta before an exchange of gifts. The Pope smiled, but did not reply” – which is a clear indication that he was not amused. Let’s face it: this is the mother of all bad taste jokes. It’s a joke that one would crack with a friend or relative, or maybe (just maybe) an acquaintance, but not a dignitary. It sounds like a typical comment a classical nerd would pass to the gorgeous chick whom he has a big crush on.

But the best is yet to come. It seems to me that the two political leaders are challenging each other for the Twat of the Day Award. Joseph and Michelle Muscat were carrying their children while they went to meet the Pope. Worse still, Maltastar‘s bid to control the damage is even more ridiculous than their boss’s antics: “Commenting on the meeting, Dr Muscat said that he really appreciated the way the Pope treated and appreciated the presence of his children.” Where in the world would you see this? Not even Gaddafi or any like-minded eccentric idiot would do such a thing? I wonder whether this was a case of Nazinger passed a snide remark about the kids in the room, and the Muscats actually thinking that he was actually complimenting them for their innovative ideas. This is the sort of incident where a polite person would say: “ah! You brought your children. That’s interesting!”

This whole debacle looks like a typical scene out of Blackadder where Joey Baldrick pulls up a stunt to outdo his archrival after coming up with “a cunning plan”  following the news that that Lorry Blackadder made an utter fool out of himself. They truly are dumb and dumber.

As Sir Alan Sugar would tell his (The Apprentice) candidates: “you’re a bloody disaster . . . . .”

Dangerous liaisons

Now we know how the failed coup was born

A friend of mine suggested to watch last Monday’s edition of Bondiplus because he found Tony Zarb’s antics quite entertaining. I didn’t.

Beyond his childish misdemeanour, I was shocked to find out that the GWU in tandem with the anonymous Movement For All And Sundry in Opposition were banking on some disgruntled PN backbencher(s) to vote in favour of Joe Muscat’s motion on the electricity tariffs. Tony Zarb actually claimed that he had just assisted for a “betrayal of the people” while, a few minutes earlier, Hon Charles Mangion claimed that his Movement/Party was not surprised at the vote.  I don’t believe him. They may have not been surprise last Monday, but the main reason behind Muscat’s motion was to get a PN backbencher take revenge on Gonzi.

Anyone who thinks that Muscat’s motion was intended to stir a debate in Parliament that would have been translated into lower charges for us must believe that the pretty girl next door is the tooth fairy. Muscat was hoping for a 1996 re-run. They planned to raise their supporters’ morale and get them all emotionally charged up for election on the day before the vote by organising a ‘national protest’.

This is no conspiracy theory. If one considers the following points, he or she will start to see a very dark and scary picture forming in front of him or her:

• a number of PN back benchers are (or were) angry at their Party leadership
• Franco Debono already pulled a stunt and others supported his behaviour (overtly and covertly)
• MP Jean Pierre Farrugia already hinted that he may vote against the Government – although on a different issue
• the people who attended the protest were given the impression that there’s a national front against the Government
• this mirrors the united front of all the constituted bodies bar one (accidentally, it was the GWU, remember?) who openly supported the Government’s call for a YES vote in the EU referendum
• the day after, the Opposition’s motion is approved by Parliament after one or more PN MPs vote against the party he or she represents
• there is no option for the Prime Minister but to take some action
• the Movement’s supporters are all hyped up and they’re calling for an early election
• polls show that the PN popularity is at an all time low
• the GWU called its supporters to accompany its officials on Monday – the day Parliament will be taking a vote – all the way to Parliament

However, things did not go according to plan and this grand scheme crumbled. Zarb’s language on TV – both non-verbal and verbal – gave me the impression that he was utterly and bitterly disappointed at the vote. He also went as far as hinting that one or more Nationalist MPs was going to endorse Muscat’s motion.

The day before, he used harsh language during his protest address a priori on those who would eventually vote against the motion. Did he actually think that PN MPs would be peeing in their pants because he called them traitors? Let’s face it, judging by his track record, whenever Tony Zarb berates someone it should actually be taken as a compliment. Common sense tells you that you should be very concerned if someone who consistently gets it wrong, and who furthermore is a blatant mindless puppet on a string, praises you. His compliment should ring alarm bells as you would have – almost certainly – screwed up big time. I will gladly pay for a cruise around Alaska (for 2 people on full board) to award the first person who and manages to find one single measly achievement in Tony Zarb’s record. Zarb’s contribution to the country is way worse than zilch.

The very principle of organising a protest in the current economic climate shows how irresponsible both the GWU (and the anonymous Movement that pulls its strings) are. While I agree that the Government could have and should have handled the energy issue better, this is not the right time for public shenanigans.

Additionally, the anonymous Movement is supposed to be in the middle of a “political earthquake” that marked un bel zero on the Richter Magnitude Scale. They’re obviously not ready to govern – especially at this point in time. This so-called Movement is supposed to be discussing and formulating it new policies. If they were true professionals, a general election at this point will actually be bad news for them.

It was very clear on Monday evening that the plan was to get a MP from the PN’s side to approve the motion thus giving the Prime Minister no option but to resign or go to the polls. I reiterate that this is sheer irresponsibility. On second thoughts, I’ll go one step further. This is sheer madness.

Muscat is trying hard to convince us that he’s business friendly, he’s moderate and progressive at the same time, that he has the business interest at heart. In so doing, he hopes to gain respect of the middle class. This move exposes him and his posse of mustaccuni for what they really are: a bunch of disillusioned power mongers with a massive chip on their shoulder who want to ride on people’s back to reach the forbidden fruit. You know what? This kind of behaviour makes the forbidden fruit even more inaccessible. They’re nowhere near grasping the meaning of Aesop’s story where a greedy couple kills the goose that lays golden eggs.

These are the same people who have been consistently on the wrong side of history for the past thirty years. That includes Muscat rallying for Mintoff while holding his granny’s skirt. If they wanted to turn their anonymous Movement into a true government-in-waiting in order to convince those who never trusted them to make an exception, they should have taken a different approach.

It would have been much wiser from their end to come up with concrete proposals on economic recovery, present them to the public and us decide on who has the better ideas. We have a brain, you know. We can actually think – unlike the mob who clinches any possible occasion to hurl insults at “the enemy”. From a neutral standpoint, I understand them. They have to vent their frustrations – especially after last election where they were fed false hopes.

The Opposition could have scored big brownie points by using its clout and contacts to attract more business on the basis of our political stability and good labour force. This would have created wealth and we would have admired them for doing so.

We would have even been motivated to give them the opportunity to create further wealth in three years’ time by lending them our support – and I use the word lending purposely as we lend our support to politicians. Instead, they chose to do what they know best: shoot themselves in the foot and then proceed to hang themselves.

Worse still, these are the very same people who claim to have the workers’ interest at heart. BULLSHIT. The only thing they have at heart is that forbidden office at the far-away land of Castille.

Gonzi and his Government are no shining stars but like thousands of other people, I prefer to have arrogant gits for Ministers than spiteful assholes who don’t give a hoot about the consequences of their actions as long as they satisfy their glut – at my (and your) expense.

The value of foresight

The car has nothing to do with the mob, but the caption is extremely apt for Bencini & Co

On the 17 April 2009, I posted an article on this blog called Parrots on a string where I explained how in my opinion, our self-claimed high standard of education is nothing but a myth.

When I wrote that piece, I only focused on academic grounds. I will now take it one step further to include civic education. The good news is that there are no self delusions here. It seems to me that it is generally accepted by the Rockers that the vast majority of them lack a basic sense of civic education. The bad news is that while many people seem to be aware of this, very few – if any – seem to be willing to do something about it. I think that many people have accepted the fact that there’s a huge lack of civic education, and that this is now our way of life: take it or leave it.

I’m truly baffled by the way these same people don’t realise that in order for a person to be considered “educated” he or she needs to have – at least- a basic awareness of civic education. One only has to spend 15 minutes in a crowded place to understand how deep the abysmal level of roughness and redneck attitude is.

To many, courtesy is nothing but a corrupted version of the surname a 1950s American actor named Tony. Manners and etiquette seem to be two abstract concepts that very few learned people are able to decipher. They’re possibly at par with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.  Respect (for diversity) is only a UEFA slogan printed on players’ shirts and like many other things, it has no place here as “haw’ mhux bhal barra . . . . .”

It is precisely respect that I would like to comment on. The Times Online carries a story that “The Ghaqda Trade Unions Maltin this morning condemned the insults hurled at the Prime Minister and Nationalist MPs yesterday during the tariffs protests…….Late yesterday, MUT President John Bencini also condemned the insults……”

How could a teacher and other trade union leaders, out of all people, be such a poor judges of character?  What were they expecting? At the end of the day, they organised an event knowing full well that it will definitely attract the same (kind of) people who adulated Mintoff (or people who were brought up in a home where Mintoff’s photo was adorned with flowers and candles). Now Mintoff is that same guy who amongst other things, is known for his crassness, sheer and utter  rudeness and complete disregard for respect towards everyone but himself. This tin-pot dictator is that same person who gave the Chief of Protocol an unforgettable introductory lesson in Aristotelian logic by arguing that “Protocol hu nejk, mela inti Chief tan-Nejk“. The mob that attended the so-called national protest was mainly made of people who used to be entertained by Mintoff’s sexual innuendos when addressing them during mass meetings.

They were probably the very same individuals who wanted to vote KMB back to Castille in 1987 and 1992, and who cheered at Alfred Sant’s  unforgettable “Gooooooooooooonzi”. Most probably, these are the very same people who partied in front of the Super One studios in Marsa when Sant claimed that “il-Partnership rebah ir-referendum”. Undoubtedly, the crowd included some – if not most – of those individuals who chose Joe Muscat over George Abela.

All the protest organisers needed to do was watch Xarajunk to see how these troglodytes address public officials, including the Prime Minister when they strive to ask a question or try to make a point. They shout and point fingers at the person they’re addressing showing total disrespect towards the position occupied by these public officials.

I’m anything but Gonzi’s biggest fan, but if I had to address him (both publicly and privately), the least I would do is show respect towards the position he holds – no matter how much I would want to argue with him, and to explain my opposition to (some of) his beliefs.

Who are they trying to fool? Didn’t they know that this was a perfect opportunity for hardcore labourites to denigrate the government? Wasn’t it obvious that this was a good opportunity to let off all the accumulated steam following 20 years in opposition and an unforgettable electoral fiasco in 2008?  It’s a simple equation:

• Rockers are people who generally show no signs of civic respect
• A protest organised by the GWU will certainly attract people who abhor the government
• The vast majority of these people adored Mintoff precisely for his lack of respect towards people who stood in his way
• In true macho fashion, they thought he “had eggs” . .. errm balls
• They followed Sant in the same way that Branch Davidians followed Koresh (and if they would have had it their way, we would all have had the same ending:  self-destruction)
• These are the same people who think that their Party Leader is hip because of his total disregard towards Protocol (Mintoff revisited)
• Therefore this protest will definitely degenerate into a big hamallata where respect and decency are complete anathema

You don’t need to be a first class Anthropologist to realise that these kind of manifestations (in contrast with the Front Kontra c-Censura protest) attract people from the same Lidl stampede demographic. It’s not rocket science. If these people lack the common sense and  foresight to predict something so obvious, then they’re not fit to be union leaders?

Just give us concrete proposals . . . . not fluffy titles

I'm progressive . . . . even my t-shirt says it

Joseph Muscat is constantly harping about this new movement for progressives and moderates, but to me it seems to be millions of light years away what is considered as being normal in the developed world.

A cursory look at the co-pilot is enough. Anglu Farrugia is the embodiment of anything that is diametrically opposed to progressive AND moderate. He’s an ex long serving cop (can cops ever strike anyone as being moderate or progressive?) and, worse still, he was on the forefront in the Force during the dreadful Mintoff / KMB years. And how can we forget his shenanigans immediately after the electoral was announced in the last election? His reaction was puerile for want of a better word.

The same applies to Alex Sceberras Trigona. His long flirtations with totalitarian regimes in the dreadful ’80s don’t exactly make him an eligible candidate for Mr Progressive or the Nobel Prize for Moderate people.

So if he really wants to gain credibility, Muscat has no other option but to produce a Jason Micallef sequel and replace Farrugia with a decent and truly moderate chap like Gavin Gulia. Ditto for  Sceberras Trigona who has to be replaced by someone who is truly moderate and has no skeletons in the closet.

But the buck doesn’t stop there. That’s just the beginning. Political parties and movements are all about policy. I is the movement’s policy that dictates whether it is truly progressive, not slogans  and self flattery.  Unless Joe Muscat comes up with concrete proposals to be implemented when in government, then this movement is as virtual as my avatar in Second Life.

If Muscat really wants to lead the progressives to the promised land, it is fair to expect that the electoral manifesto in a few years’ time would include the following proposals:

• the introduction of divorce (a concrete proposal instead of his current gimmick )
• a legislation in favour of same gender marriages – the formation of a LGBT group is not enough to eradicate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; it’s yet another empyu gimmick
• the total abolition of censorship on any form of art
• the total abolition of archaic laws regulating political and religious satire, and carnival attire
• a legislation that regulates prostitution so as to protect the prostitutes from their pimps, and their clients from an increased risk of STDs
• the total removal of censorship on media on the basis that whoever wants to broadcast  and/or distribute pornographic material can do so through dedicated channels with the necessary parental control and anti-paedophile procedures in place
• a law that allows private establishments to apply for special licenses that will make it possible for them to operate as strip clubs – at the moment we have a typical Rocker watered down version of these clubs and it is absolutely ridiculous
• the decriminalisation of possession of soft drugs for personal use
• a law that allows for abortion to take place in the following cases: rape; where there is strong scientific evidence that the baby will be born in a vegetative state; where complications caused by the pregnancy endanger the mother’s life
• the removal of any restrictions on shop opening hours; if the owner of the grocer shop  down the road wants to operate his business on a 24 x 7 basis, then he should be allowed to do so

By the standards of our European cousins, most of the above points are not progressive at all. If anything, they’re moderately progressive. They’re akin to our big achievement of freedom of speech in 1987 when the whole of the developed world had been enjoying this right for decades.

I can write reams about each and every point mentioned above to explain and justify how it is high time to give the inhabitants of this rock a push towards normality. The claim that EU membership is not a la carte should not only be applied to economic principles. There’s a social dimension to it, as it has a direct impact on the way we lead our lives.

It is so easy to come up with slogans and to give yourself fancy titles. I can call myself superman, but that won’t give me the faculty to fly at the speed of light. The essence lies in actions not words.

What took you so long?

As my great mentor alfred Sant put it: "NO REGRETS"

Can someone give me a tranquiliser please? I’m suffering an adrenaline rush and my testosterone levels have gone up to dangerous levels. My blood pressure is soaring and I’m feeling dizzy. I’m angry. No, I’m actually livid. I’m trembling, I’m sweating, I’m foaming, and my pupils are dilating. Somebody stop me.

I just read the news that Mr Issa Daqshekk has finally admitted that EU membership wasn’t such a bad idea after all. This silly fools antics could have jeopardised all the advantages that he himself mentioned yesterday while he was presenting the union’s proposals to prospective MEPs.

In other places where normal things happen quite often, people would do the right thing and resign as a form of apology for the prospective damage they would have caused. If it were up to Tony Zarb, Alfred Sant, Joey Muscat, and their lackeys, we wouldn’t be an EU member state now. We would be some isolated banana republic somewhere at the bottom of the old continent. If these ‘visionaries’ would have had it their way, we would have been terribly hit by the current economic climate. And they call themselves “the workers’ shield”. Yeah, and I’m Gandhi.

How do these people have the gall to face us with a straight face? Worse still, how can they claim to have no regrets about their actions? They’re so misguided. Do they think that we’re goldfish in a bowl with a memory that’s as short as Alfred Sant’s term in government?

This is not a shirt colour we’re talking about (oh yes honey, you were right, that colour actually looks good on you; sorry, I was wrong). The GWU had a number of reports claiming that EU membership is actually beneficial for the country and especially for the gainfully employed, but since Alfred Sant was against it, then the union decided to dance to his tune. Political loyalty took precedence over workers’ interest. We should thank our lucky stars that the majority of people didn’t buy into their hallucination.

I would like to ask Tony Zarb whether he would be saying the same thing had Labour retained its obstinate position on the EU. Worse still, if the new Labour leader decided not to pose in front of the EU flag for his official photo, and promise to take the country out of the bloc instead. I somehow think that it may just be quite different.

Tony Zarb and his sycophants wilfully deceived thousands of individuals by preaching doom and gloom for years before the referendum.

The real question is: did it take him five years to realise that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, or did it take him five years to publicly admit that he was wrong?

On guard

Is it lack of self-awarenss, or compulsive delusional behaviour?

In her bid to promote herself on Facebook, Labour EP candidate Claudette Abela Baldacchino, posted an abstract of what Alfred Sant had to say about her on Illum.

Someone pointed out that this is not the best of endorsements since it’s coming from Malta’s ‘number one eurosceptic’. This comment prompted a strange reaction from someone else asking whether we’re democratic. Democratic? What does democracy have to do with this? If anything, it’s more an issue of tolerance.

I joined in by leaving the following message: “Honestly, and objectively speaking, I don’t think that an Alfred Sant endorsement is a wise marketing move. Your choice.” This further developed into a whole discussion, and since the Facebook wall is quite limited in space and it’s not the right place, I said that I will dedicate today’s blog to this topic. If you’re interested in how this issue developed, you can follow the whole conversation on Claudette Abela Badacchino’s main page.

I would like to start by stating the facts. This is irrefutable data, and it is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. Then, it is up to the individual to give one’s own interpretation as to why things happened that way.

The facts are these:

• Labour failed to gain the majority of votes in 6 out of the last 7 election

• When it won the general elections in 1996, it suffered another huge loss after only 22 month

• Pre and post 1996, Labour failed to gain the majority of votes for three consecutive elections

• Additionally, Labour suffered a relatively huge loss in a crucial Referendum in 2003

In order to understand politics better, I like to compare it to business management. After all, they are actually the same thing: one is about running a business, and the other is about running the country. Furthermore, basic business principles are universal in that they apply to all companies irrespective of location, size, and turnover.

Any company, whether it has an annual turnover of ten thousand or ten trillion Euro, has to make a profit to survive. Any company has to take care of its customers and staff in order to thrive. Any company needs to keep itself updated with current trends and technologies in order to be competitive. Is there anything here that doesn’t apply the way a country is managed?

So let’s compare Labour to a private entity that is trying to sell a particular product. Do you think that a private entity would survive if its product were to be consistently rejected by the market over a period of time? Would this company just try to repackage its product and re-launch it into the market for a number of times? Don’t you think that this company would try to understand its market better, and learn why it is opting for an alternative product?

Companies that want to grow their business give a huge importance to what their customers are telling them, as retention is very important. Yet, they reach out to those people who are not customers of theirs and dedicate more time and money on this type of customer research and focus groups. Only new acquisitions, together with good levels of customer retention, will grow the business.

For some odd reason, though, Labour seems to be doing the opposite. For a number of years, it kept insisting on preaching to its own loyal Super One crowd, and in the process it alienated potential voters outside its core. It has also failed to reinvent itself on every occasion that it should have – including the aftermath of last year’s election where a total overhaul was needed.

It has been consistently on the wrong side of history since the mid 1970s. The foreign and economic policies of the then Labour governments were a total failure, and to this very day, some people are still scared of Labour because they fear that deep down this party still holds these archaic beliefs. To make matters worse, Alfred Sant’s leadership was characterised by aggressive negativity. He practically opposed every single thing the government did and proposed.

Despite that he was given the opportunity to lead the country in 1996, he was quickly replaced after 22 months, and not by a slim majority. In the long run, this incident has further damaged Labour’s credibility and appeal as an alternative government.

If Labour were not so defensive, it would have understood that 1998 should have been Sant’s last year. Not only did this not happen, but he stayed there for 10 more years. The message to the analytical voter was clear: Labour is not able to read the writing on the wall. If so, how can it be trusted to run the country?

Another issue with Labour is that the party seems to prefer to engage in blame shifting rather than soul searching. I was disappointed to read certain comments on the Facebook thread, and I had no other option but to cite the clichéd expression a bad workman quarrels with his tools. What worries me is that Labour now has thirty years of history and hindsight at its disposal, and its people still blame the PN and the English media, this, that, and the other. Anyone but Labour.

How could Alfred Sant’s Labour attract ambitious and forward-looking people with his negative campaigning against the EU? How could people trust a party that has been proven consistently wrong on the most important issues since the mid 70s? How could the electorate ever trust someone who did not respect (and worse still, tried to twist) a clear referendum result? These are not details. These are very serious issues.

Staunch Labourites will try to find a gazillion excuses to convince us that Labour was actually right in these last 30 years, and in so doing, they fail to realise that it is this very same attitude that has been dragging Labour down. Lack of self-awareness is the biggest obstacle to self-improvement. An alcoholic who wouldn’t admit his problem will never seek help.

Many people are not happy to vote PN repeatedly every single general election, but they have no other option. These same people were recently advising Labour delegates to elect George Abela as leader. He was the person they trusted, and they felt comfortable if there had to be a change in government with George Abela at the helm.

Definitely not an example of shining excellence, and definitely not the right "mustaccuni"

 

What did the delegates do? Instead of listening to potential new voters, they got defensive and stated that since these people were not Labourites, they had no right to intervene in Labour affairs. If they didn’t even listen to Alfred Mifsud before, why should they listen to people outside the party? The siege mentality that’s so prevalent in Labour clouds its judgement, and labourites actually think that whoever is not with them is against them. This is one of the great gifts that Mintoff gave the party.

I reiterate: it is precisely that these people are outside the Labour camp that makes their suggestions important. This is the market segment that Labour desperately needs to attract.  Instead of listening to the people who will make the delegates’ dream come true, they told them to mind their own business. It is a very intelligent decision indeed to prefer the party machine to lead you rather than the people who are willing to switch alliances.

It gets even better. The delegates elected a young inexperienced candidate as their leader. Nothing wrong with that – as long as his deputies would make up for his weaknesses and guide him accordingly. It is a known fact that most of the great leaders had (or have) a strong deputy who made up (or makes up) for their weaknesses.

In true Labour fashion, they did the opposite. The Delegates elected two loose cannons, and Muscat needs to constantly father them. Instead of seeking advice from them to learn from their experience, he has to make sure that they don’t embarrass him. I found one particular reaction to my assertion (that Sant should have left in 2003) quite interesting. This person said that in 2003 there was no better alternative to Alfred Sant.

Last time I checked, two of these alternatives were Anglu Farrugia and John Attard Montalto. The latter is seeking confirmation as MEP, and the former is . . . . Deputy Leader; hence a likely Deputy Prime Minister. Hence you can understand why I keep saying that Labour is STILL in ONE BIG MESS.

The fact that no great candidate put him/herself forward in 2003 should be a matter of concern for the supporters. Yet, for some very strange reason, it seems that this is just being accepted by Labourites as if nothing happened. Is it really possible that they can’t see the glaring implications? Why would no one challenge Alfred Sant? Why didn’t Labour attract any heavy hitters? Should the blame be shifted to third parties here, as well?

The last message on the thread (at the time of writing this comment) sums up, in my opinion, why it will take a very long time for Labour to do what it has to do. The comment goes: “tghidu x’tghidu il-Hadd grejna bl’irxoxt hu f’Gunju nigru b’Gonzipn”. Grammatical mistakes aside, it’s the reasoning that worries me. Let me make this clear: I know that this is one comment from one supporter, but the real issue is that it is not! If you listen to what the delegates have to say during Labour conferences, you’ll realise that a number of people within Labour actually do think on these lines.

Labour has been doing very well in elections that have nothing to do with the running of the country, but then they fail to win the most important elections of them all. It’s like a football team that wins all the pre-season summer competitions and trophies, and then it constantly fails to win the league. Not successful isn’t it?

The electorate is sending a clear message to Labour: “I am willing to vote for you. Actually, I would like to vote for you, but somehow I don’t trust you enough to run the country”. It’s like having a friend whom you would trust with your clothes, but not with your kids. I wouldn’t feel flattered if I were this ‘friend’.

Labour did not fail because of the English language newspapers, RCC, the PN media, or Where’s Everybody? Labour failed because of its policies; inability to read the signs of the times; negativity; hostility towards businesses; lack of vision; and lack of humility.

Joseph Muscat promised a political earthquake, and until this very day, still waiting sitting here by the Richter magnitude scale. If anything, the team he has is even worse than the one that preceded him. Just look at the deputy leaders and the return of Alex Sciberras Trigona in such a crucial role. Politics is about management, and management is about strategy.

Muscat should have manoeuvred the appointment of the likes of Leo Brincat and Gavin Gulia as his deputies, and the ousting of Jason Micallef. In the business world, Micallef is like a Marketing Manager who knows nothing about the market he’s addressing. He didn’t know the numbers, he didn’t know the profile of his customers. Besides, the electoral manifesto was an utter fiasco. Using Labour reasoning, I must conclude that it must have been a PN spy sabotaging the whole process at Mile End.

Labour will undoubtedly win the upcoming MEP elections in June, and even if it gets all 5 seats, the net effect on the way the country is run is, at best, negligible. Labour will also do well in local elections, but once again these don’t have a direct impact on the way we live our life.

Although it should have happened a year ago, it is still not too late. Labour should have undergone a complete overhaul: a real change in name, structures, people, and – most important of all – a change in mentality. This hasn’t happened yet.

We don’t want to see any more gimmicks, recycling and repackaging of people and their archaic ideas. We need a real change. We need a constructive Opposition that comes up with good proposals and alternatives. We need someone to constantly breathe down the government’s neck. We need a confident alternative government ready to step in when the right time comes.

Joey must be lovin’ it. He’s havin’ it his way

Saturday, 4th April 2009 – 14:32CET

President hosts lunch for Prime Minister, Opposition leader

President and Mrs Abela are hosting Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, Opposition leader Joseph Muscat and their spouses for lunch at San Anton.

Both Dr Gonzi and Dr Muscat congratulated Dr Abela for his inaugural speech with Dr Gonzi saying that Dr Abela had touched upon the values that formed part of Maltese society.

Dr Abela thanked Dr Gonzi especially since his nomination was the Prime Minister’s initiative and said that now that the seed was sown, it had to start being cultivated.

The President said that Dr Muscat was also responsible for the seed of unity that was sown and everyone now had the responsibility to help the seed of unity grow.

Dr Muscat said he truly believed that Dr Abela was the President of all Maltese and Gozitans.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090404/local/president-hosts-lunch-for-prime-minister-opposition-leader

Things are looking better already. Joey Muscat and Mrs Muscat decided to ditch their duo and joined Mr President and Honorable Prime Minister.

Convincing the Muscats to honour the guests with their presence must have been quite a task; so in typical Mickey fashion, I rolled up my sleeves, made some calls, and ……… well, I can’t reveal more. I can boast that my investigative skills are far better than Bondi’s but I have to admit (and this is no false modesty) that my investigative skills are nowhere near Anglu (il-mustaccun) Farrugia’s.

My investigations lead me to believe that our new First Lady wants to make Michelle Obama look like a Lilliputian. As a wife and mother, she knows that the best way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, so she managed to convince the Presidential staff to make it impossible for Joey Muscat to refuse the invite. She also wanted to make sure that Michelle-lover-of-all will accompany the Prime Minister in Waiting. At the end of the day, her lovely hubby will be appointing Mr Pressie in 5 years’ time.

Back to my impeccable investigative skills. As a reader of this modest blog, you have privileged access to this afternoon’s menu. Remember: this is brought to you exclusively by Mickey Malta.

Joey must be feeling like a king; he's havin' it his way

Will Joseph do a Joey?

This weekend's dilemma: should it be George or a juicy burger?

Tomorrow will mark an historic day in our country’s recent history. George Abela, a person from the ‘opposing camp’ will be sworn in as President of the (banana) Republic.

It’s great to see Dr Abela in this role, and I believe that he deserves it. The only downside of the whole thing is that such a valuable resource (in the land where human resource is the only one available) will be wasted in this ceremonial and practically irrelevant role.

Wouldn’t it have been better if he were sworn in some time ago as Leader of the Opposition? It would have been the first time in recent history where the Labour Party would have elected a leader that is respected by the majority of the Rockers. Even those who don’t necessarily support the party he would have led.

Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that the PN media would have been all out to demonise him; but at least he would have given them a run for their money.

I will be following the ceremony on TV very attentively tomorrow – but for a different reason. I will be checking whether the person that the delegates installed (because they were instructed to do so by the higher echelons within the party) in his stead will be attending, or whether he will send someone else as part of the ‘Be a Leader of the Opposition For a Day Scheme’.

He seems to have taken a habit of delegating these tasks (official ceremonies, that is) to his reports. I just want to see whether he’s consistent with this practice since earlier this week he said that he sees nothing wrong in what he did last week. How can he say no to a hungy Michelle (Soleil and Etoile)? He’s a modern, progressive and moderate individual; so he cannot run the house like a dictator. He has no choice as he’s the only male against three women. Poor old Joey is outnumbered and in an absolute minority.

Maybe this time he’ll take his family for an outing to Gambrinu’s or opts for another overseas voyage to Nardu’s Gabbana in Gozo. At least, this time he’ll be contributing to our economy instead of our neighbours’.

Solid as a rock: il-veru caghaqa

Malta must be REALLY a sexy chick. It is being asked to sport suspenders at 45! Many people from all walks of life are encouraging (relatively) young Malta to shed its suspenders and wave the middle finger to the Western world. I’m sure that the powers that be at the Pentagon, Capitol Hill, Downing Street, il Qurinale, and all the other centres of power are trembling with fear at this potential threat.

They must be exhausted with all these sleepless nights. The mighty and powerful state of Malta is contemplating to suspend its international obligations. WOW!!!!!!!!! and more !!!!!!!!!!!!!! and more !!!!!!!!!!!!!! and more . . . . . Although it may sound strange, I am actually not surprised at these suggestions, for the following reasons:

1. they are presumptuous – many Rockers (not the heavy metal ones, but the indigenous habitants of this rock) have the tendency to act like chihuahuas in front of a great dane: they bark at the top of their voice to scare the other dog away. The sad thing is that these little annoying creatures seem to believe that they actually managed to scare the great dane when the latter would just be completely ignoring the nuisance

2. they don’t make logical sense – therefore congruent with Maltese logic

3. they don’t make economic sense – if the Rock suspends its international obligations, it will have to face economic sanctions which will definitely include a ban on tourism and trade. We’re so full of natural resources that we can actually survive without imports, eh! And our domestic market is soooooooooo massive that we can do without export as well

4. they are diametrically opposed to Christian ethics – Malta is one of the LEADING EU countries with high tax evasion rates; one of the LEADING EU countries where teenage pregnancies, marital breakdown rates, low birth rates . . etc are concerned. You get the gist. Malta is so religious that it bans provocative art; it prosecutes people for dressing up as religious characters in carnival; it denies the right to divorce to its inhabitants. Yet, when it gets the opportunity to puts its religious beliefs into practice: the beatitudes, the good Samaritan, all people are created in god’s image, love thy neighbour . . . . it turns to Aleister Crowley’s bible

The sad thing is that these treaties were drafted to safeguard countries like Malta in instances where bigger countries (and it doesn’t take much to be bigger than Malta) think that might is right.

So, even if we had to ignore the moral implications (which are the most important principles in the immigration issue), JPO’s, Joseph Muscat’s, Josie Muscat’s, Norman Lowell’s and the timesofmalta.com bloggers’ suggestions are completely nonsensical.
But then again, if they made sense, they wouldn’t be accepted here . . .

Welcome to Malta: the zone where normal things don’t happen very often!