Labour’s deputy leader for party affairs and contender for the leadership election yesterday hinted there would be no space for secretary-general Jason Micallef within the party if he is elected to the helm.
Speaking to journalists in the wake of the publication of the damning defeat analysis report, Falzon unleashed his most scathing attack ever on his own party and on the commission that wrote the document, calling it “a smokescreen” and lambasting the 99-page document for “blatant lies”.
Even the number of journalists attending his press conference at Melita restaurant, Attard, yesterday afternoon was indicative of the bombs he was about to detonate.
Quoting chapter and verse from the analysis report – as well as from his own notes and correspondence, which were left out of the analysis despite having provided them to the commission – Falzon made it clear he was not responsible for the “gaffes that were made” in the campaign, bar his singing romp at the Granaries that ended up on Youtube.
“I loved reading it,” he said with a smirk, “it made interesting bedtime reading.”
He actually accused the commission of “throwing mud” at the MLP electoral office in order to get at him, while exonerating “a high official” whom Falzon never mentioned by name, although it was amply clear by the end of the press conference that he was referring to Jason Micallef.
Falzon told journalists to draw their own conclusions every time he was asked whom he was referring to.
Falzon slammed the commission for identifying the people behind the electoral process and blaming them for decisions they weren’t responsible for, while only limiting itself to referring to “a high official” whenever it felt it had to protect a particular individual.
“This report is a smokescreen. It has no problems blaming certain individuals, while it goes out of its way not to name others. Is there anyone left in this country who doesn’t know who made that gaffe on TV when it turned out he didn’t know how many new voters there were?” he said in clear reference to Jason Micallef.
Asked whether he would work with Jason Micallef if he is elected leader, Falzon said: “I work with whoever is chosen by the party, but I’m not ready to work with people who leak information. There was information known to just two people in the party that was leaked. I can’t work with them.”
Asked if Micallef was one of them, Falzon said: “Draw your own conclusions”.
Falzon also hinted the report was drawn up to tarnish his name while protecting this “high official”. “In some parts the report shifts the burden onto the people who weren’t responsible, in others it exonerates the responsible individuals, and in others still it veils the known facts,” he said.
“Who was in charge of the campaign? It says the group of five had the campaign in its hands, while elsewhere it said we didn’t meet. Can they please make up their mind? On page 41 it says the leadership was (in charge), in other parts it says high officials. The report should name these high officials, not put us all in the same boat. The report also quotes an official saying, ‘I know where I wanted to get’. Who is this official? Note that this official is speaking in the singular. That’s the truth. The campaign was in the hands of a few people.”
The leadership contender also opened a broadside on the commission and on the party for the internal politics that were destroying the MLP through cliques and exclusive in-groups that left no space for others, even on the party media.
“The report speaks of cliques, but I never had cliques, and I pray the Lord I would never need them, because they are only necessary to insecure people. I have friends, yes, and I believe in working as a team, but not cliques.”
Referring to “an inch of documents” he passed over to the commission but which were not reflected in its report, Falzon referred to a 2005 email he had sent to Alfred Sant and copied to Charles Mangion, denouncing the cliques, their manipulation and their “unacceptable manoeuvrings”.
“I believed the media was for the party, not for the cliques. I spent three years warning about cliques, and the person working most with his own clique portrayed himself as super loyal to the leader. With me as leader, MLP will work with teams, not with cliques.”
He mentioned the party’s TV programme Vice-Versa, presented by Charlon Gouder, for which he was never invited. Nor was he ever asked for a comment by the party media.
Reacting to the commission’s statement that the leadership was “overconfident” of a victory, Falzon again took exception to this, saying he didn’t even have access to the party’s polls.
“Who was overconfident? Go and check the footage of our last mass meeting. I was imploring all Labourites to go to vote. So it was definitely not me, who didn’t even have access to polls.
“When it comes to the electoral office, the report has no qualms in naming names and blaming the office for things it wasn’t responsible for, including the campaign. Counting agents are even confused with assistant electoral commissioners. How can we take this report seriously?”
“A clear lie” was also the commission’s claim that there was agreement about the billboards.
“It’s true we saw some of them in advance, and in fact I had given my advice about one of them that it was libellous. But I was told I had a conflict of interest. We were still awaiting another lawyer’s legal advice and all I know is that while I was driving at night I saw it there.”
Falzon also asked the commission who was responsible for the negative campaigning.
“Who wanted it that way? I don’t attack my political adversaries by name. Why didn’t they mention the correspondence I passed to them dated 29 May 2006 in which I was told off for not using words like ‘barons’ and ‘friends of friends’? Who were the (Labour) journalists who gave us a negative image?”
About Michael Woods’ star appearance at the party conference, Falzon said he had no idea he was invited until the brother of the former health ministry official implicated in a bribery scandal stood up to shout.
Distancing himself from the other blunders listed by the commission, Falzon added: “I didn’t come up with the DNA thing, overtime, the Gozo incinerator or about reopening negotiations with the EU. All I did was to sing along with some 50,000 people. I admit I sang; I was just human. I made some 72,000 people smile.”
About the party polls, Falzon said these were never discussed. “I asked more than once to discuss the tracking poll, but the answer always was that we should discuss them if they were negative. Yet the report says everyone agreed with the leader.”
Falzon also took exception at the report’s statement that he did not dedicate enough time to the party. “I was always there, at every activity, just as I was there at the counting hall till the very end. Yet nobody mentions that, and nobody mentions the ‘high official’ by name.”
About the decision to extend voting time by one hour, Falzon said this was presented to him as an already-taken decision by the electoral commission.
“I could only inform the leader about it,” he said. “How could I consult anyone about a decision already taken elsewhere? According to the report the PN was worried about long queues in Valletta, Zejtun and Marsa. Now if there is an idiot who believes that, then one can really believe anything. Do the authors of this report have a memory? Do they remember that the PN did not even contest in Zejtun and Marsa?”
Referring to page 62 of the same report, Falzon even hinted the commission’s report was edited by someone else as he quoted an incomplete sentence about the effect the voting extension had on Labour voters.
Thanking delegates and volunteers at the electoral office, Falzon said he no longer headed the office for the last five years. “Our activists don’t deserve this. They (the commission) beat them to attack me. I thank them for their genuineness, not attack them.”
The report adds the party seemed “lost” in the counting hall. “This is insulting. I would like to know if there was anyone from the commission at the counting hall. Who told them so? Who left first? They should be ashamed of themselves. By 12.45pm we knew the result, based on the system I had devised myself. I spent till 6pm praying it would not work well, for the first time ever, but the truth is the party knew immediately the result. So much so that by 3pm certain people had already left the counting hall. I ended up on my own with Louis Gatt and Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi. I want to express my gratitude to the counting hall agents. You have to spend three days there and face a defeat to be able to talk. What the commission did is insulting.”
“No analysis report will put my integrity into question. Nobody messes around with my integrity.”
Falzon insisted that he abstained from the discussion and vote on the analysis report’s publication as he wanted to leave the executive to decide freely.
“In the name of democracy, I appeal to you to report faithfully what I’m about to say,” he said at the beginning of his hour and a half press conference. “Don’t do it for me, do it for the truth. The National Executive gave me the authorisation to speak and react publicly, so that’s why I’m here.”
Falzon said he had informed all the commission members except one of his intention to react publicly before the conference. The one he didn’t contact – Renee Laiviera – had “a clear agenda against” him.
“I had brought the matter to the attention of Charles Mangion,” he said about his protests against her inclusion in the commission. “Her husband had written in blogs against me, and on blogs that were hostile to the Labour party. Yet she remained.”