In today's Sunday Times Roamer picks up Fausto's preferred baton of pooh- poohing anything Green. Apart from the statistical questioning of the numerical gains of the AD we also get a direct challenge of Harry's assertion that the election results mus be read bearing in mind that Alternattiva was present only in 5 councils:
"As to that 1.7 per cent of the vote garnered by AD, few people apparently took the time to work out that this figure was diabolically arrived at by averaging the results across the 23 localities when AD had only contested five of those areas. This begs the inevitable question: Why were only five localities contested? The answer seems to be "simply a matter of material resources". And human ones, too, I imagine."
So the criticism aimed at AD is basically: Since unlike other parties you do not find it in yourself to present incompetent bumbling buffoons in your list simply for the sake of number you are wrong. Since you fail to put forward any Tom, Dick and Harry as a valid politician (even at Council level) you are to be criticised.
Meanwile MLPN are allowed to present candidates who have as much political positiveness, administrative acumen and social savoir-faire as a Chimpanzee Tea Party. In our society these Manchurian Candidates are acceptable. Because our vote is so blind that it simply votes by colour. We are content that il-partit has sufficient candidates to have a go at that 50% margin in each locality. All the rest ... is green politics.
Now Harry has no reason to be blowing trumpets of victory or circling Castille three times in the hope that the structure collapses. Definitely. However I do find the criticism based on number of candidates fielded as arrogant as any crowing that Harry might indulge in.
We live in a country were we are lucky if 5% can see through the MLPN screen. Out of that 5% finding sufficient candidates of calibre that would guarantee the promised change from the sorry state of politics we are mired in becomes a gargantuan task. This is not a dartboard selection. This is not a selection for the sake of number. This is a matter of quality that respects the electorate's need and hopes to convince its wants.
Unfortunately though, it can be very tiring and energy consuming ... preaching to the converted.
7 commentaires:
Ok, Jacques, let's go into the specifics.
Three years ago, Kurt Sansone stood on a Green ticket in M'Scala. He hung on until the last count.
Now, former Green councillors and candidates tend to be very busy these days, which is how Dr Vassallo has been explaining off his party's losses in B'Kara and Lija. And it could be that Sansone did not stand in M'Scala this time round because he's busy as the editor of the Business Weekly.
That's a hypothesis. Here's another one: a Green candidate would have failed miserably this time round because M'Scala voters who, for some reason, felt they did should not vote PN or MLP, would have voted for Josie Muscat's independents.
(In an interview with di-ve.com Harry Vassallo said that the Greens will still be helping the residents of M'Scala in their campaign against expanding the recycling plant ... by standing in Zabbar!)
Take Kalkara. Remember the big issue of 2003 in Kalkara? It was the development of the area adjacent to the Kalkara valley. The Greens had a candidate there, Christian Mizzi. He must be busy too in 2006.
Or just maybe, once the development was no longer an issue (and even when it was this overwhelmingly Labourite locality still voted Labour, not Green) there was even less prospect of electing anyone there.
I don't know how things will pan out in, for example, tas-Sannat. But if the Ta' Cenc issue is closed by then (whether in favour or against the development) will the Greens move to the next locality hosting a development controversy?
Here's another example. Remember last year when the Nationalist Party chickened out in Zejtun and Marsa? Why do, you think, it did that? Why do you think, it chose Zejtun and Marsa rather than, say, St Paul's Bay and St Julians?
After all, in Malta it's very easy to get registered anywhere as an elector. The Greens know that: Edward Fenech, their candidate in Lija, is not a resident there.
I don't speak for Roamer (or anyone for that matter) but the issue here is: how did the Greens fare in these elections? Those who think the answer should be "not so well" should at least be spared the insinuations that that they're in the business of creating smokescreens or charges that they are arrogant.
P.S. The Israelites had to go around Jehrico seven times to bring the walls down.
P.P.S. Your "Manchurian Candidate" metaphor does not apply in this case. Watch the movies. The 1962 version (starring Frank Sinatra) and the 2004 version are both worth watching.
If I remember right, the PN withdrew its candidates from Zejtun and Marsa at the eleventh hour, literally as the nominations closed. Why did they do this? I don't know, because I am not part of Joe Saliba's Secret Intelligent Strategy Group. But here's a hypothesis for you: had they announced their decision earlier, some other candidate, possibly an independent, might have been inspired to cast his ot her nomination instead. The PN naturally could not afford this risk; it had to ensure that no elections were held at all.
(I seem to also remember that the decision was taken without bithering to inform said candidates beforehand, in the spirit of pure openness and transparency we have come to expect from the PN.)
AD, on the other hand, did not withdraw its candidates at the last minute. It simply didn't field any to begin with. No elections were cancelled as a result; therefore, no comparison can realistically be made (unless, of course, the purpose of the comparison is simply to confuse issues.)
Raphael, the issue is not what the Nationalist did at the eleventh hour or their Startegy Group. The issue is that a Party may deliberately choose not to stand for election in a particular localitiy/ies where it expects to do poorly so as to avoid appearing it has done so badly globally.
The "we contested in only five localities" line has to be seen in that context.
As far as I know, it has never been unethical to not contest a locality where you think you might not do well.
The difference is that when the PN did it, they made damn sure no one else contested those localities either, so that no elections would be held.
AD did nothing of the kind, so criticism to the effect that they somehow "deprived people of their democratic rights", which has appeared in various parts of the press, is a load of total bollocks.
But the real problem isn't that. The real problem is there doesn't seem to be a single semi-decent political analyst left on the entire island. All the so-called analysis of the local council elections so far (and there has been way too much of it anyway) has invariably been conceived with blatantly partisan aims in mind. Either to justify one party's performance, or to misrepresent another's. I have yet to read a single impartial break-down of the results.
Just back from whole day at theatre course.
One small note for Fausto: the metaphor DOES apply. The Manchurian candidates refers to the MLPN idiot puppets and not to the missing AD candidates.
As for the seven times... that was Jericho... THIS was Castille under the Nationalists... three times would be more than enough!
Issa ha mmur niekol ghax ghandi l-guh.
As far as I know, it has never been unethical to not contest a locality where you think you might not do well.
Did anyone say it was unethical? As far as I know I only described it as tactical.
AD did nothing of the kind, so criticism to the effect that they somehow "deprived people of their democratic rights", which has appeared in various parts of the press, is a load of total bollocks.
Whoever charged that Greens "deprived people of their democratic rights"?
Either to justify one party's performance, or to misrepresent another's. I have yet to read a single impartial break-down of the results.
I assume that includes Harry Vassallo's. Or doesn't it?
Yes it does.
Enregistrer un commentaire