I normally resist posting this sort of post, but today, I could not.
Everyone’s favorite blogger had the gall to post this video on her blog today (I refuse to link to her page, so I shall embed it below)
The post was entitled “A special dedication to all those of you who voted Nationalist – here’s a way to make life easier” It is about intelligent people being in the minority and stupid people being in the majority (if you haven’t gotten her drift yet, PN are in minority and PL are in majority). Yet I have this niggling feeling that at 1:37, the point she’s trying to not-so-subtly make falls apart.
“All those people that you had no concern about will suddenly start to annoy you. People of other races, other sexual orientations – people with more money, basically anyone different from you.”
Please refresh my memory if I am mistaken, but is the PN (along with the PL) not in favour of the pushback policy when it comes to refugees? Is the PN not utterly homophobic to this day? Is Daphne not, of all people, judge, jury, and executioner of anyone who is not PN – calling PL supporters hamalli and (by implication, through this latest post of hers) stupid? And was this transition not the one that the dear woman herself made, when switching from being this woman –
English: irony iron (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Belief in a two-party state is belief in a form of totalitarianism masquerading as democracy. All we have now is a political see-saw, with a fat Nationalist boy sitting on one end, and a pudgy Socialist boy on the other. First one goes up, then the other. Is this a wonderful state of affairs, to be preserved at all costs? Should governability enter the argument at all? Who cares about governability, if in ensuring governability we strangle the democratic process? Governability is not the Holy Grail, and we should not allow the government to sell it to us as such. (Unearthed by J’accuse)
to the woman she is today, busily attacking everyone who does not agree with her, finding it blog-worthy to comment on the fact that Toni Abela touches Jason Micallef’s cheek a lot, and rubbishing AD at every opportunity? It is, of course, the most intelligent thing one can do to classify people as being stupid or not stupid on the basis of which party they ascribe to.
Luke Scicluna
Consarnit 
may i ask how you believe the system should realistically work….. and please give me your own opinion not some other politician’s….
Which system? If it’s the two-party system you’re referring to, I believe that Electoral Law should be reformed in order to set a national quota for the election of MPs to Parliament, thereby allowing parties who have reached the quota on a national scale but not in a specific district to elect their own MPs (AD got 5,500 first count votes, votes which shall not, it seems, be represented in Parliament).
If it’s another system, please elaborate further and I’d be happy to reply.
Hmm i see so what you are saying is that because of 5,500 persons (which many of them may have voted on account of not voting other parties ) we should have another party in parliament which holds the parliament in his hands…? I know the system now is different with the majority of seats (naturally i believe its going to be an unfair parliament especially with the Labour party in gov, which in truth i believe can govern, yet the fact that they all have the same opinion (example : on divorce) frightens me.), but if it were to be as it was in 2008-2012 : 1 extra seat, wouldn’t the critics of the AD Party have too much power??
First of all, it is irrelevant – if 5,500 people have voted for AD, they have the right – irrespective of what the effects in Parliament would be – to be represented – that is how democracy works. Secondly, it would be political suicide to try to ‘blackmail’ parliament in any way – if they tried to do that, they would not be elected again. Thirdly, Malta’s parliament is, I believe, the only parliament in Europe which has only two parties represented (there are parliaments with five or more parties represented, and they make it work) and what ends up happening in the two-party system is bickering between Government and Opposition, without a moderating, neutral voice. Fourthly, and finally, on many, many issues, PN and PL are in agreement – these are the populist decisions which act as filler for manifestos. AD is the only party which has not been afraid to diverge from the norm, and as such, could, I feel, provide a third voice in Parliament whose decisions are not based on wanting to win the next general election, since they don’t have much chance of that.
political suicide?….honestly what have they got to loose…? Brigulio will still play with norm rejection …
They would lose their MP, and all that they have fought for over the past years.
i dont mean to be a pain in the ass but can you mention some things they have “fought for”…
because having no political say whatsoever i dont know what things they might have done… and as long as they ve been done (even if they were “stolen” off their ideas), the fact remains that they ve been done, like the pay of the new 14 ministers…. i dont care if its for 14 different persons it will still be scooped as taxes from my secondary teacher wage…
They were the only party to take a clear stand on the divorce issue, to make a clear commitment to sustainable energy, to defend equal rights for people of different sexual orientation, to propose the strengthening of unions and the banning of closed-shop practices, as well as several other policies which can be found in their electoral manifesto, the majority of which make sense.
As regards the larger cabinet, it is my opinion that 1.) the more political power is spread between different members of cabinet, the better – this helps reduce mega-ministries like that of Austin Gatt in the past legislature – and we all know what happens with mega-ministries. 2.) more specialised politicians could lead to more efficiency (nothing’s certain, but if it pays off, it’s a good investment)