Why all the fuss because the Malta Labour Party delegates voted against power being taken away from them? The project was doomed to fail, and I believe was only mooted to mobilise support among the MLP’s grass roots, which are certainly disenchanted with their party right now.
The sabre-rattling did not even shake the glass at the MLP headquarters. The delegates are still firmly in control of the leadership contest at the MLP, as they are in most if not all “democratic” parties in the Western world.
What amused me were the comments from naive Nationalist Party supporters, who obviously think that their chosen party is run any differently.
The amusement, however, soon wore off as the comments were taken over by fools rushing in on both sides of the political divide, which is a shame because the precious few, smart contributions got lost in the mire.
As for George Abela, what is he playing at? Any support he might have garnered by appealing to the grass roots, he has now lost by his behaving like a lackey. He is obviously grateful for the PN opinion writers’ support and is vying for more of the same. It looks like he is losing sight of whom he needs to impress.
His comments about the aftermath of the university debacle, if reported correctly, will alienate the young Labour supporters, who had shown their disappointment at the intolerance shown by PN supporters during the so-called debate.
According to The Independent, Dr Abela apologised for the “unjust way the Malta Labour Party insulted university students during the electoral campaign”.
Pleease! It might have been unsophisticated for the MLP to retort in the same mode, but unjust!
The press release sent by his campaign office does not name who had insulted the students.
“George Abela qal li pubblikament jixtieq japologizza ghal mod ingust li bih l-istudenti universitarji gew mghajjra matul il-kampanja elettorali li ghaddiet”. (GA said he wanted to apologise publicly for the unjust way university students were verbally attacked during the last electoral campaign.)
The Times’ report stated: “...Clearly referring to the name-calling that ensued after the noisy debate between the leaders of the four political parties on campus during the electoral campaign.
“Most students present at the University assembly hall in February were sympathetic to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, with very little support having been expressed for then Labour leader Alfred Sant.
“This had led top-ranking MLP officials to call the students low and vulgar, among other names”.
OK. Let us get our facts straight, shall we? What happened at the university in February was more than just a show of sympathy to the PM and “very little support” for Alfred Sant.
PN supporters, some not even students at all, had reduced the debate to a PN meeting, booing all opposition representatives with particular contempt directed at the then MLP leader, Alfred Sant.
Firstly, it was not all the university students that had been admonished. Secondly, it was not only the MLP that had shown disdain at what had occurred at the event.
The ones who were criticised, terrified the MLP might win the election, had behaved despicably.
Democracy means allowing even people you will not vote for to be heard. That is what the badly behaved people at the university pre-election debate did not allow to happen.
Booing and hissing might have a place at a political party meeting, but one expected better at a university debate. The criticism directed at the hostile crowd at the university was justified
George Abela being placatory and trying to minimise the antagonism shown to the Labour Party is one thing, but sleeping with the enemy is really not going to get him elected as MLP leader.

More ado
Alfred Sant might have lost yet another election, but he still manages to more than ruffle feathers. Why is The Times getting so excited about ousting him from leading from the Opposition benches?
Is it because Charles Mangion is more accommodating? It still baffles me why the man manages to attract so much venom, whereas others with more dubious virtues get overwhelming support.
What does this tell us about our society? We might rank as the strongest among the 27 EU members when it comes to the state of family life, but we are not so strong on loving our neighbour.
Now I am not saying that Dr Sant should be spared from the run of the mill politician knocking. He has shot himself in the foot and painted himself into corners a few times, and I certainly have not failed in putting the boot in on those occasions, but I cannot abide the contempt, that the man does not deserve, poured on him by some in the media.
We attack the Opposition for being weak, but when it strives to do its job we cry “mudslinging”. Of course mudslinging takes place in politics. It is part of the game.
Don’t any of the many commentators online watch programmes, or read about international politics?
Anyway, Sant is right about Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and one cannot just dismiss his other criticism. One does not have to agree with his reading of the future of our economy, but that is what debate is for.
The latter is a concept many here fail to grasp and rather than attacking his argument, Alfred Sant is nearly always attacked on a personal basis.
I was intrigued by a number of interesting items in his speech in Parliament. One was that he failed to see the irony when “accusing the government of having exceeded the limits of the power of incumbency to win the general election”, when his star started to ebb precisely when he himself did not use that power.
Another was when he spoke about the Nationalist Party networks and said that the PN had been turned into “a brand and a tool in the hands of a hidden few who controlled all major decision-making in the country.”
The MLP also has its networks and all its major decision taking is done by a few, although not always hidden. So what’s the beef on that?

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com