Wednesday, 27th February 2008
Is he fit to govern?
The only question that can be
asked, before you state your preference next Saturday but one, is
"which of the two party leaders is fit to govern?"
I'm not talking about physical fitness here - by the end of the campaign both of them are going to feel as if they've been through the wringer. I'm talking about political fitness for purpose. Has Gonzi got the credentials to run this rock or does Sant deserve being given the thumbs up?
Let's have a quick look at this, shall we?
Gonzi has the benefit of a stretch in Government that has been positive, which no-one but the most obtuse of commentators would argue. What has he been lambasted with by Sant? Corruption is a word that trips merrily from Sant's lips, though this has now worn thin to the extent that no-one is giving a toss about it, as confirmed by MaltaToday. The argument has become even thinner by Sant's refusal (inability?) to give details, which means that either he's bluffing or, worse, he knows something and is risking being made an accomplice by his failure to report to the appropriate authorities.
Oh, sorry, I forgot: reporting to the authorities is just a smoke-screen. The only way according to Labour is to sling mud, in the knowledge that some of it will stick - never mind that there's no substance to it. Remember what happened with Michael Frendo in '96? No case to answer, but that didn't stop the MLP from maligning him every which way from Sunday. Don't be surprised if some other such bunny is pulled from the MLP's collective hat soon, just be surprised if there's anything in it.
What else can you think of which shows that Gonzi is unfit to govern? That he didn't re-shuffle his Cabinet? Big deal. He'll do it when he's elected - it's not as if the country is in the doldrums, after all, and there is such a thing as loyalty. Anything else? Not that I can think of, really, except for a couple of hundred vulgar students and even more vulgar t-shirts, which latter moved L-Orizzont to picture one, with breathtaking hypocrisy, on its front page. Wow, a real reason not to vote for Gonzi, that.
On the other hand, what evidence do we have that Sant is fit to run our lives?
Take a look at his interviews recently. On the Sunday Times (you can actually see and hear him) he avoided the questions, relied on the "everyone's talking about it" line (does he think he's the Midnight Cowboy or something?) and generally waffled. More dangerously, he promised to fill the surcharge hole and compensate for the tax-break on overtime "through the budget", which is far as I am concerned is code for "it's coming out of your taxes, mate". The surcharge deficit will be filled, I'm morally convinced, by a hike in VAT. Apparently, another 2% will cover it.
Then we had the spectacle on BondiPlus of Sant pulling a U-turn of cosmic proportions on this mildly insane Repeater Class idea. Isn't it time the guy made his mind up? And hasn't anyone told him that the National Curriculum is there for a reason?
While on the subject of BondiPlus, don't you think supercilliousness of the type Sant exhibits is enough to make a saint lose his rag? It's not surprising that people are moved to jeer him and snap at him - I'm only glad I don't have to earn a living by interviewing him, because my patience just won't take that much stretching.
Let's move along, shall we? Is someone who can't even organise a day trip to Maghtab fit to run the country? And what about the "computer malfunction" that led to their Manifesto being misprinted? Come on, man, get it right why don't you? Is this the way we're going to be governed, policies created on the hoof and "the computer says no" becoming the reason why things happen or don't happen? While on the subject of Maghtab, has anyone bothered to tell you that a golf course there isn't on the cards, unless you give the private sector massive (and I mean massive) incentives to take it on? You don't just lay down some grass, drill some holes and stick a flag in them, you know.
And are you still maintaining that you can renegotiate the Acquis? You can't, even though you think that just because you say you can do something, it will happen. This is the real world, not a novel, where the plot can be twisted to suit the author's convenience.
So there you have it, a quick look at the contenders. It's up to you now: vote Blue or vote Red or vote Green, it's your responsibility. Just remember that unless the Greens multiply their vote by something like ten times (yeah, and pigs will fly), they don't have a snowball's (which they don't) so a vote for them is effectively a vote for the main contender you DON'T want elected.
I'm not talking about physical fitness here - by the end of the campaign both of them are going to feel as if they've been through the wringer. I'm talking about political fitness for purpose. Has Gonzi got the credentials to run this rock or does Sant deserve being given the thumbs up?
Let's have a quick look at this, shall we?
Gonzi has the benefit of a stretch in Government that has been positive, which no-one but the most obtuse of commentators would argue. What has he been lambasted with by Sant? Corruption is a word that trips merrily from Sant's lips, though this has now worn thin to the extent that no-one is giving a toss about it, as confirmed by MaltaToday. The argument has become even thinner by Sant's refusal (inability?) to give details, which means that either he's bluffing or, worse, he knows something and is risking being made an accomplice by his failure to report to the appropriate authorities.
Oh, sorry, I forgot: reporting to the authorities is just a smoke-screen. The only way according to Labour is to sling mud, in the knowledge that some of it will stick - never mind that there's no substance to it. Remember what happened with Michael Frendo in '96? No case to answer, but that didn't stop the MLP from maligning him every which way from Sunday. Don't be surprised if some other such bunny is pulled from the MLP's collective hat soon, just be surprised if there's anything in it.
What else can you think of which shows that Gonzi is unfit to govern? That he didn't re-shuffle his Cabinet? Big deal. He'll do it when he's elected - it's not as if the country is in the doldrums, after all, and there is such a thing as loyalty. Anything else? Not that I can think of, really, except for a couple of hundred vulgar students and even more vulgar t-shirts, which latter moved L-Orizzont to picture one, with breathtaking hypocrisy, on its front page. Wow, a real reason not to vote for Gonzi, that.
On the other hand, what evidence do we have that Sant is fit to run our lives?
Take a look at his interviews recently. On the Sunday Times (you can actually see and hear him) he avoided the questions, relied on the "everyone's talking about it" line (does he think he's the Midnight Cowboy or something?) and generally waffled. More dangerously, he promised to fill the surcharge hole and compensate for the tax-break on overtime "through the budget", which is far as I am concerned is code for "it's coming out of your taxes, mate". The surcharge deficit will be filled, I'm morally convinced, by a hike in VAT. Apparently, another 2% will cover it.
Then we had the spectacle on BondiPlus of Sant pulling a U-turn of cosmic proportions on this mildly insane Repeater Class idea. Isn't it time the guy made his mind up? And hasn't anyone told him that the National Curriculum is there for a reason?
While on the subject of BondiPlus, don't you think supercilliousness of the type Sant exhibits is enough to make a saint lose his rag? It's not surprising that people are moved to jeer him and snap at him - I'm only glad I don't have to earn a living by interviewing him, because my patience just won't take that much stretching.
Let's move along, shall we? Is someone who can't even organise a day trip to Maghtab fit to run the country? And what about the "computer malfunction" that led to their Manifesto being misprinted? Come on, man, get it right why don't you? Is this the way we're going to be governed, policies created on the hoof and "the computer says no" becoming the reason why things happen or don't happen? While on the subject of Maghtab, has anyone bothered to tell you that a golf course there isn't on the cards, unless you give the private sector massive (and I mean massive) incentives to take it on? You don't just lay down some grass, drill some holes and stick a flag in them, you know.
And are you still maintaining that you can renegotiate the Acquis? You can't, even though you think that just because you say you can do something, it will happen. This is the real world, not a novel, where the plot can be twisted to suit the author's convenience.
So there you have it, a quick look at the contenders. It's up to you now: vote Blue or vote Red or vote Green, it's your responsibility. Just remember that unless the Greens multiply their vote by something like ten times (yeah, and pigs will fly), they don't have a snowball's (which they don't) so a vote for them is effectively a vote for the main contender you DON'T want elected.
RSS
Comments
2. We all had an experience of AllFred party, last time was on the hole getting bigger as Alex said, but considering international political post- election results that they do not accept it and say they both won because of a small margin...take the case of Berlusconi..I won...no I won...Gonzi we are to govern...Sant no we won even the IVA for Europe I mean No Yes we won SO on and on and on...
So do not expect that by the end of March we will have the government running full fledged implementing the manifest...imagine what a Bidu Gdid will happen if things go wrong...i mean right...sorry opps
Plan B1: If they win the elections: Invent a hole, keep on looking at it and say: oh what a hole.. its getting bigger.. and bigger .. and bigger.. keep on staring at it until an election is called.
Plan B2:If the elction is lost, .. blame the computer... say that the PN government is illegal.. etcetc..
I heard this some time ago and if this is not correct, then I will take it back, but in the meantime, surely one of those who seem to have an in on what goes on at the MLP or One TV, should be able to enlighten us.
IF AD do get themselves a seat in parliament (and let's be honest and admit that its not very probable), and IF as a result of that seat a coalition will be necessary, with whom will AD be forming that coalition?
The problem is that by voting for AD one is unable to choose which party will govern and who the PM will be. Even if AD are in a coalition, the other party in the coalition can only be either PN or MLP. PN have already said that they will not enter into a coalition.
So the choice really is between PN, MLP or MLP + AD. I'll be going for PN.
a) enough people VOTE for a coalition,
b) this would mean that enough people have elected enough members of parliament to work in a coalition
c) if this is the case then party leaders will try to obtain the majority mentioned in article 80 by forming a coalition.
You know that. I know that. The fact that such a possibility is remote because of constant dabbling of electoral laws by the MLPN is also there.
This notwithstanding there is still a possibility. It is remote because it is easier to discourage people to try than for them to "take the risk" (please not these words) of exercising their vote for the party they think best represents them.
Bringing all these facts together means that I was right in continuing your last sentence. A vote for the Greens can be seen as a wasted vote by some, as a vote for Alfred Sant by others and (surprise, surprise) a positive vote for the party the voter has chosem (coalition and all).
Ignoring this fact, or even blaming the green voters for their choice smacks of arrogance and 21st century electoral bullying. That we have been reduced to this situation is a responsibility to be borne by a bumbling opposition and a conniving government.
A wasted vote, a vote for MLP, a vote for a green policy and the six coalition points. All are right. And that's the sad truth about politics in Malta where representation is simply a buzzword and proportionality can only refer to quantities of mud slung per party.
We have a voting system, the Single Transferable Vote system, which is specifically designed to prevent the wastage of the highest possible number of votes. People can transfer their vote from one candidate to another, from one party to another, till they have chosen all the names on the ballot-sheet.
Yet, the main parties, in a bid to retain their hegemony, always encourage their supporters not to cross party lines. This is a severe limitation on voters' choices as a voter can also have a say on the MP's that are elected in the party that is not his first preference.
All this talk that voting for the small minor parties is a wasted vote is patronizing and mistaken. One can vote for a candidate from a minor party and then, transfer his vote to a major party. Thus, if his first preference dies, his vote will be inherited by the candidate of the major party and it will not be wasted.
It is true that such a scenario may prevent the coming into effect of the constitutional amendments which ensure that the party with a majority or a relative majority of first preference votes would have a majority of seats but voters should not be held to ransom by the tampering of the constitution by the major parties. Moreover, this amendment would in any case not kick in if three parties elect MP's.
One feels that parliament needs a fresh lease of life which can only come about if there are more than two parties represented in it. There needs to be a weaker government and a stronger parliament, and a hung parliament or a more vivacious one, would be a step in this direction.
There he can take the leading role of one of his novels he wrote.
There he can be judged by the applause (or boos) he will get from the audience.
He should leave the running of the country for that person who takes his job seriously and who brought excellent results in four short years.
Everyone knows who that person is and which party he belongs to.
Computer malfunctions do not result in extra lines - printing incorrect versions might.
Austin Gatt's ministry have been sponsoring some very good computer instruction classes all over the island - maybe Dr Sant should seriously consider enrolling ... he might become a little more empathic with the rest of us.
You know what I mean unless article 80 of the Constitution has become superfluous.
Moreover, (assuming that Dr. Sant enjoys the virtues listed in the blog), if Dr.Gonzi really has Malta’s interest at heart, and has not identified any of AD’s core principles that is so problematic (surely it’s not MEPA’s mission, or EU credentials), he can open prior election coalition talks with AD.
However notwithstanding the paternalistic façade, Dr.Gonzi may be facing some serious threats from his party stalwarts & their pals, not to approach AD – as some may have much to lose or answer for……
…inversely…..
The new definition of artificial stupidity (or AS) is the study and design of stupid agents, where a stupid agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which minimizes its chances of success.
So Artificial Stupidity (a new term in I.T.) can be attributed to the ‘computer malfunction’ that Dr. AS himself described in his interview with the Sunday Times.
Love your articles ABC!!! And you are all free to use this new term A.S. to your hearts content :) Not that you need my permission!