The Press

A selection of articles dealing with the Labour Leadership Campaign:

Towards electing a prospective PM – Leo Brincat (TMI)

Spin and an Abela-Muscat Winning Tandem – Lino Spiteri (TOM)

Eyes on Labour – Editorial (STOM)

No More Secrets – Claire Bonello (STOM)

Incredible? Well, say remarkable – Lino Spiteri (STOM)

A strange paradox – Alfred Mifsud (TMIS)

J’accuse: The Sound of Silence – Jacques René Zammit (TMIS)

Breaking News – MLP Leadership Election Open to all Paid Up Members – (TOM)

Spotlight on the Issues

Post-Election Issues that are in the limelight

Category 1: Obligatory (There’s no escaping this one)

(1) Casual elections – The process for electing the remaining members of parliament

(2) Speaker of the House – PM to decide who will be next speaker (see Carabott on TMI)

(3) Leader of the Opposition – President to appoint leader of the Opposition before parliament’s first sitting

(4) MLP Leader – Labour party to elect its leader on June 5th

(5) AD Leader - AD also expected to resolve the issue of chairmanship in the coming months

Category 2: At the mercy of the politicians

(1) Electoral reform – a solution for the “wasted vote” that guarantees a representative parliament while ensuring a stable governance

(2) The Neutrality Clauses – following PfP debate and action is expected with regards to these constitutional clauses

Category 3: Waiting for a report

(1) JPO – the JPO issue remains high on the agenda due to its possible repercussions vis-a-vis the slim parliamentary majority of the PN. In any case and whatever the outcome of the reports and investigations JPO is under no obligation to relenquish his seat in parliament.

(2) MLP – Analysis of Electoral Result. There is less hope of this report ever seeing the light.

(3) Mistra – the issue of what went on in Mistra can have a life of its own independently of the fate of JPO. What repercussions for MEPA reform to be undertaken by PM?

China blocked access to YouTube so that its citizenry would not be able to see what is going on in Lhasa. A dictatorship cannot survive without controlling the flow of information and so control information China did. The Chinese flag is inspired by the labour quarters. The few stars on it are representative of partnership with europe.

The nationalists are in government and the labourites are in opposition. They talk about the same subjects. One wants to set up the reception class and the other doesn’t. One says that they will make a garden on mount Maghtab and the other says that it wants a golf course instead. One says the incinerator in Gozo is online while the other installs a new one in Marsa. One says that it doesn’t want divorce while the other wants it but cannot say so. None of them talked about partnership for peace or the gas pipeline leading through Maltese territory. They both want the Lisbon treaty and they both want more money. The tax payer is like a piggy bank labelled “Smash after election”.

After the electoral loss, the labourites “understood” that the people did not want change. But they understood that people only wanted to continue building on changes already made. Meaning if Gonzi built the Mater Dei hospital and forgot to build a children’s room, the labourites wanted to provide that room so as to continue that which was done by the previous government. They would fund it from the increase in the price of medicines.

The labourites understood. They understood everything: They understood nothing! The people did not want change or even a continuation on change but wanted an alternative to populist politics – a politics of promises easily made and readily broken. The opposition should no longer invest its money in the inclusion of a hospital room but should invest time towards demolishing the mortuary room that has been killing the initiative of medical researchers independent of pharmaceutical big wigs – independents who want to cure people and not process them in a gamble designed in the name of milking ever more unholy profits.

The problem with leaders is that none of them mention the good of the country. The party comes first and foremost. And so the party becomes stronger. And so the party achieves supremacy – its direction firmly stuck in the netherlands.

The name of the leader alone is up for discussion. Not the future. Not the problems. The labourite quarters are currently copyrighted – frozen in a time capsule. The labourites cannot vote for their next leader just as the people could never vote for their country’s policies. They are so very lucky that others would take that great responsibility of choice from off their little shoulders.

The song may change. The colours may also change. However the faces shall always remain the same and so shall the ideas shall remain the same. Nothing that is not superficial will change. In the name of keeping a desperate grasp upon the power to do what they want they will do everything they can so that the turds keep surfacing upon the sea of ignorance.

The labour party insists that it wants to be an inclusive party. Inclusivity for them means knocking on people’s doors and chasing people down all in the name of telling them that things will change now that there is a new leader. Yet what sort of change would we expect if the nationalists also knock on these same doors and told them that things will be changing? The difference is that the people will realize that we no longer live in an island where politics is red and blue. We have evolved and everything and politics now has a purple body and two heads, one red and one blue – but ultimately mlpn purple.

The labour party instantaneously aged by 20 years. It stood naked in front of the electorate, its wrinkles accentuated, its legs as scrawny as those of chickens and with dark rings beneath the eyes, all exposed for the scrutiny of the thinking electorate. The television viewers would wish to see the camera person close in upon Jason Micallef and Tony Abela during one of the many commercial breaks on a TV programme only to whisper into their ear: “The party is finished. Spare yourselves further embarrassment.”

Only Joseph Muscat can cover up this physical agedness. Joseph Muscat is a youth and since he is a youth so too is he modern.  Anglu Farrugia took to YouTube in his quest for modernity – the holy grail of eternal youth. The leader is just a façade.
The electoral candidates were not capable of engaging in dialogue in the homes of people. “Remember me.” Does not count as dialogue. A slice of cream custard cake on a plate and out they go again with the abattoirs until another five years pass when they come back for second helpings.

The people crave an alternative just a child stares cravingly at delicious treats on display at a confectionary. The country needs an opposition leader who knows how to speak from the heart: “I love my wife and I love my family but I shall be bringing in divorce because it’s not about me and it’s not for me to interfere with YOUR life!”

The person who risks losing votes deserves to be called a leader because he chooses not to follow votes like Pac Man followed those little yellow dots on old video games. He risks losing the vote not because he won Partnership but because he knows and values the meaning of principle. Cornelius Colbert – “Better a dead man, than a live coward.” He did not make any U-turns as those were his last words.
The labour party is in need of a wind of inspiration, a model, who was not a coward and was a dead man. The labour party needs a figure of historic repute who was a dead man not because of any lack of charisma but because he sacrificed himself not for his party but for his country. A figure like John Fitzgerald Kennedy, whom one hopes did not study at Harvard University.

Kennedy had several things to say: “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.”; “If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.”; “The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.”; “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Of course, shortly after he was assassinated his country got tangled in the Vietnam war.

The labourites also quoted Kennedy but they adapted to the present times so as to be modern: “Ask not what your party can do for you – ask what you can do for your party.” This is not worlds apart from what the nationalists practice and now we are tangled in partnership for peace.

Blood money – Together everything is indeed passable.

Sandro Vella
6th April 2008
www.sandrovella.org for The Malta Chronicle

TMC Wants You

Who will we crown as Labour’s King (or Queen) – Have Your Say

The elections are over but The Malta Chronicle continues. The next prickly choice after 8th March will happen on the 5th of June. On that day the Malta Labour Party will elect a new leader and usher a new phase in our politics that are still dominated by two big parties. The Malta Chronicle is prepared to shift the subject of the debate to the new leadership campaign. It is a public issue because it not only determines the fate and future of one party but that of the opposition and consequently of the well-being of our politics as a whole.

Do you have an opinion about the issue? Are you interested in submitting a short piece for the Chronicle? There are two ways to do so. Either create a wordpress profile and send an email to “jacques dot zammit at gmail dot com” (punctuation suppressed to avoid spamming) and specify which email address you used to create the profile. You will be added as a contributor and you will be able to submit your own posts.

Alternatively just send your article to the above address and it will be published. Signed articles are preferred though no prohibition exists against anonymous contributions.

In the meantime we take the liberty to signal two other blogs that are discussing the issue at the moment:

www.labourinlabour.wordpress.com

www.mlpleadership.com

The offer is open. It’s up to you now.

If Malta were simply a business venture, my hunch is that the Nationalist Party would cruise through to another  deserved victory for being a “very good” rather than a “less bad” option. But although the ugly terms “Malta plc” and “Brand Malta” have been coined over the past years, implying that Malta, Alitalia and Nike are interchangeable entities, we are actually still citizens of a country, rather than simply employees and employers, service providers and service receivers, consumers and manufacturers.

And this is precisely where the “lesser evil” dilemma kicks in.

We are faced with an unconvincing, depressingly meaningless option on one side and a party whose value system is remarkably similar to the Vatican’s on the other. For many of us, perhaps those of us with a genuine liberal bent, this is a real problem, not a vexatious little quibble. What we have is a worrying choice between Total Cynicism in the left corner and a Teodem party in the right corner; a choice between the marathon man of European opposition politics on the one hand and a caste of devout Catholic politicians on the other. On one side, a group of people whose political survival appears to trump any other consideration (including the good of the party). On the other, a party for which the word ‘divorce’ remains a taboo and which plays the “abortion card” in order to taint its opponents.

If you genuinely dislike both options should you plump for the “lesser evil”?

We are being told that it is not only the pragmatic option but that it is the only responsible option open to us. Not just that. We are being told by independent journalists that those who refuse to adhere to the “lesser evil” philosophy are “setting themselves up as hate figures” if they communicate their convictions to others.

But accepting the “lesser evil” line of thinking is also dangerous in a democracy , as it entails substituting enthusiasm for a political programme with fear. It can backfire as a feeling of disgust and rejection in those who feel that they are “voting with a gun to their head” as one commentator put it graphically.

The vocabulary used (“hate figures” and “guns to the head”) show how prevalent the fear factor is in Maltese politics. Private individuals are seen to be legitimate targets of hatred and psychological violence for expressing their belief in a third way. Others are actually prepared to engage in a form of political masochism in order to keep the perceived “greater evil” at bay.

Those who vote on the basis of this logic may be led to feel that they are being pragmatic. But thinking along these lines is a trap in which the voter behaves much more like a slave to circumstance, than like a free agent. It is an indictment of our political system and political class that thousands of us will turn up at the polling booth convinced that “we have no choice”. It is an indictment of a country which believes that it is free but whose people are still held hostage by fear. Even worse perhaps, it is an indictment of a people who continue to think that it is inevitable for everyone (including the freest of free thinkers) to sacrifice free thought on the altar of political allegiance and expediency.

David Friggieri

L-Alternattiva tbenġlu sew b’dawn il-gambetti ta’ lejlet l-elezzjoni: l-istorja ta’ l-abort, il-block vote u l-vot moħli, l-appell imqanqal ta’ Fenech Adami lejlet ir-referendum li kisser l-alleanza favur l-Ewropa f’inqas minn kwarta. U l-MLP ukoll: fid-dibattitu eżatt qabel jum ir-riflessjoni, EFA jixli ‘l Sant li dan ċaħħadlu ‘l ibnu milli jidħol l-Università, b’dak il-leħen irqajjaq li jitla’ kważi għal twerżiqa mbikkma, qatt mifni bid-dubbju, u mbagħad niskopru li mid-dehra Sant ma kienx fuq dak il-bord ta’ l-intervisti, u rebaħlu libell.

It-terinati, mela, ghadhom magħna, u sikwit isiru billi jitqabbad iblah. Bono, mid-dehra, kien xi balalu mqalfat minn dawn li kull raħal ikollu, u nxtara bix-xejn biex jixhed il-falz jew in-nofs veru, u biex iniggeż il-kuxjenzi ta’ soċjetà ibleh minnu li kienet ghadha temmen bin-nies itiru u bil-fatati. Anthony Licari ghalhekk javżana nkunu lesti għal xi waħda, il-qoxra tal-banana li għad iħallu l-PN biex jiżolqu fuqha tal-Labour. Imma jista’ jkun li l-MLP għandhom waħda tiżloq ħafna aktar.

Mix-xejn ħarġilhom ċertu Jo Said, li s’issa ħadd ma jaf wisq x’ħobż jiekol (biex lanqas Daphne ma taf). L-istorja qed tkompli titħabbel sew, ghax filwaqt li Said jidher li jista’ jkollu xi lanzita għax ma sarx chairman ta’ l-MTA, mid-dehra għandu ħafna aktar x’jikxef, ħa affidavit huwa wkoll, u mid-dehra hemm xi recordings li qed jinżammu x’imkien fil-komma għal meta jasal il-waqt. Jidher ukoll li dan Said mgħammar bl-attributi, ghax wasal biex għamel konferenza stampa spontanja quddiem Kastilja waqt li l-Prim kien qed iħabbar l-elezzjoni, u qed jingħad li qed imur jizzika lin-Nazzjonalisti taħt it-tined.

Għadu qisu hadd ma jaf x’fatta dan Said. Ghax mhux pampalun bhal Michael Woods li, għax tnaffar li huh qed jiġi investigat (ghax kien jgħaddik bord jekk ittih tiġieġa), mar jiftaħ idejh fil-konferenza ġenerali tal-Labour jgħajjat ‘Hawn hu’, bħal tal-pitrolju jew tal-ħut. Dan Said, meħud kif tarah, jidher li ghandu x’jikxef u mweġġa’ sew, u qisu lest ipattihilehom waħda tajba.

Li laqatni kienet stqarrija fejn qal li xi tlett ijiem qabel il-Milied, kien għand Gonzi Kastilja u għamel siegħa u nofs jeqridlu dwar il-korruzzjoni. U Gonzi x’għamel? Said ammetta li ma tantx jaf Malti, imma traduttur eċċezzjonali: he was smirking at me, kien qed jitmellaħ bija. Tbissimt, u immaġinajt ix-xena, u ġibt quddiem għajnejja dik id-daħka tipika ta’ Gonzi li tant iddarras nies.

Fi ftit kliem, ħarġu ta’ iblah. U l-propaganda Nazzjonalista, kemm dik uffiċjali kif ukoll dik li mhix, bhal Daphne u Lou, qed joħorġuh ta’ miġnen, jekk jista’ jkun bil-provi. Jista’ ma jkunx kollu f’postu r-ragel, kif tirrakkonta Daphne llum fl-ahhar novella tal-klassi tiċċaċċra (li jintefgħu fil-ftit metri kwadri bejn is-Saddles u Peppino, mhux bilfors għax Slimiżi bħali, Daphne dear), imma qisu d-destin tiegħu qed jinkiteb bil-mod il-mod.

Għax, jekk ma jaqbadx u jaħrab Londra minn fejn ġie, tbeżbiża tajba ma jneħħihielu ħadd. Mhux għax ħaqqu jew ma ħaqqux, imma nafu kif inhi Malta tal-politika (anki issa, jien u nikteb minn sorm l-Ewropa, qed nittawwal warajja għal li jista’ jinqala’). Jekk jibqa’, naħseb li se jlaqqatha miż-żewg naħat. Għax waqt li jkun qed jinqaras u jingħafas ħelu ħelu mill-morsa Nazzjonalista, il-Labour se jkunu qed jaħilbuh qatra qatra sakemm jinxef u jitilqu jsaffru, idejhom fil-but u jħarsu lejn l-art, taparsi m’aħniex minn hawn, sieheb.

Il-bluha xafra taqta’ minn kullimkien. Taf tkun bħal Terinu li baqa’ fl-istorja bħala l-miskin li l-Insara sabuh għal snienhom, jew tkun beżżul tintefa’ f’kazin il-Gudja u kieku m’għaddejtx minn fejn l-antiporta f’dak il-mument preciż, kont tkun qiegħed fil-kwiet ma’ martek u wliedek flok titqqlleb f’qabrek bla ġustizzja kull meta naslu għall-vot. Jew forsi tkun bhal dak li tmur tieħu tiegħek mingħand Mintoff, tidħol Kastilja mhux tintasab quddiemha, u jispiċċaw joħorġuk ta’ miġnun, jaqfluk Frankuni u ssir dak li jrid joqtol lill-Kbir Leader Tagħna.

Jew iblah int jew ibellhuk. Imma l-biki tal-buffu jibqa’ mistur wara li tkun għalqet il-pantomima.

Mark Vella

UPDATE: Letter on Maltatoday from Jo Said

Cometh the election, cometh the hunter. What has finally become an endangered species of its own right still numbers 17,816 voters of its own. Or at least that is what the Hunter’s Federation claimed today. Now we do get the feeling that public interest in the number of hunters is mostly based on the hope that such number begins to dwindle in proportional amount to the increase in the number of visiting wingèd beasts all year round. We all know however that the reason for this sudden flurry of statistical activity by the hunters’ lobby is to corrupt the incorruptible politicians vying for a place in the parliament. The HF went so far as to break down its membership district by district announcing that Gozo is its strongest hold with around 3,000 votes.

The hunters have laid down their trap and are now whistling through their whistles trying to attract their victims using the only bait they can think of. The whistle is supposed to lure those fat birds used to opportunistically pander to their needs in times of vote grabbing battles. In doing so the fat birds also tend to ignore the fact that when asked the question, close to 90% of the electorate (Times Sample) felt that the government should stop spring hunting without waiting for a definite no-no from the EU.

But that is the problem isn’t it. The antics and delay tactics of the present government, the enigmatic promises of the potential government in opposition and the charade of derogation that has gone on until now only serve to give the 17,000 hunters hope. They still think that they can shake the electorate with the rattle of a gun and the daubing of some paint here and there. When they are really called to make their vote count in their own name they cannot go beyond the measly 3,000 votes (see EP elections). We get that. Most people get that. Do the MLPN get that? The dragging and shuffling of feet and hiding behind the Commission’s back does not point in that direction.

Methinks that every budding MP has his kacca gear hidden somewhere in the back of his closet… just in case it has to make a token appearance to grasp for those last few votes. In the meantime the job of introducing proper environmental measures that stop irresponsible hunting is left to intelligent voters who use their vote wisely… as in the case of joining the EU – voting in the right institutions, and in some cases representatives, who can be trusted to do the job that has been long left on the back burner.

One question I have is… do the hunters see the MLP as a solution to their woes? If so why? Has MLP promised them a return to better hunting days? It’s a genuine question. I need info as to whether MLP has a concrete policy on hunting. Preferably without references to PN. We know where PN stand. It’s somewhere between an EU Commissioner’s back and the bench of judges at the ECJ. What we need to know is where MLP stand on this one. Pronto.

Jacques René Zammit

Liberal / Christian-Democrat

AC (Newest Labour)

***
It has become a weird habit of politicians to apologise to editors for the space they use up in the letters pages whenever they write in with their contribution. Now I am neither a politician nor am I the apologetic type but I do feel a tinge of guilt that the subject matter of this letter requires more space than is the norm for a letter to the editor which in most circumstances should be short and to the point.

In her article last Sunday, columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia berated the “tiresome lawyer” Claire Bonello for ‘relentlessly whining’ against all that is Nationalist as well as for not declaring her bias towards Alternattiva Demokratika. There is much to be said about the necessity of declaring a bias that is obvious for all to see but that is not why I put fingers to keyboard to contribute to this discussion. What really interests me is the issue of “basic electoral mathematics” so ably brought up by Daphne – the matter of wasted votes.

It is a uniquely magical effect of this country’s electoral laws that give us a situation where – and Claire will surely pardon me for adapting her poster – you “Vote Harry, Get Freddie”. Daphne is right. So right on the issue of these peddling Alternattiva vote-catchers who prey on the arithmetically challenged chatterers of the Sliema Bourgeoisie. Surely they are aware that the votes they crave for their leader will be flushed down the electoral toilet. A vote for Alternattiva is the electoral equivalent of Professor Refalo’s negative marking in the Constitutional law exams for first year law students. You don’t just waste your vote, it’s also less votes for PN and hey presto one more feather in Freddie’s cap.

How funny that I should mention Constitutional law. That very constitution against which the laws of the land should be tested – the kelsenian grundnorm that guarantees that we live in a democratic country and not in a Banana Republic. Daphne is right. The current electoral formula does not allow you to focus on the party you want in power. It does not allow you to say “Hey. I don’t like the nationalists. I not even vote for the MLP when I’m dead lest my vote be counted with that of the living. Then why not vote for AD?”

Why not indeed. It seems that when you think that way you choose to ignore the ominous presence of a potentially disastrous party ready to pounce on Castille. Daphne believes that asking people to vote AD means ignoring the existence of MLP. Something like the child wishing the monster away and hoping the adults will deal with it. Which could be true. Only there is a bit of twisted logic in that too. It may be a step up from basic arithmetic but I am sure Daphne could bear with me as I explain.

You see the problem is that, as the European Parliament elections proved, given the chance 20,000 or so individuals would vote for a different kind of politician. Let me be clear about this. It does not necessarily have to be Alternattiva. My interest is the breaking of the stranglehold of bipartisan politics – and Alternattiva is currently the only plausible alternative I can think of. I see it as a Trojan Horse into the fortified battlements of MLPN. Getting rid of the dichotomy means getting rid of the parochial way of thinking and governing.

So, given the chance people will change voting habits. The bigwigs at MLPN noticed that and last year they dealt the final blow to this possibility. They took away the chance for thousands of voters (even Daphne’s chance) to vote for another party when irked with the two of them. They created the mathematical formula that underlies Daphne’s argument. She is right. Of course she is right. Under the present magical formula concocted by the PN and passed unanimously in parliament, 20,000 votes spread among the 13 districts of the country can be lost. A party garnering 20,000 votes will not get one single seat in parliament. The magic words “proportional representation” have been neutered to an insulting situation where: if, and only if, two parties get elected to parliament under the present system then the seats shall be allocated proportionally to their national vote.

Daphne is right. What she is telling us is this. If you were ever thinking of changing the political spectrum in this country you have been royally screwed. The disincentive first trumpeted to the masses by then PM Fenech Adami – vote AD get Labour – is now here to stay. In one fell sweep, PN got rid of the only party that could seriously challenge its programs with an alternative vision of doing politics. It was one fell sweep that guaranteed the status quo in our political scene. What we have is an alternating chair. So long as Labour remain the band of inept politicians that the PN machinery depict, then PN’s place in government is virtually guaranteed.

Sorry Claire. You cannot go on campaigning without showing the second half of your poster. No “Vote Harry” without “Get Freddy”. I have other plans on my mind. You see Daphne, I too am one of the chatterers. I would love to not have been brutally disenfranchised by the electoral reforms. Like you I am often baffled at the way politicians in this country are ineffective because they live secure to see another day – since electoral scrutiny has turned into a PN vs. MLP farce. Our paths split the day you decided to accept the way MLPN voted to hold your vote to ransom.

I am fully aware of the repercussions of voting AD. I am fully aware of the “wasted vote syndrome” in our elections. Unlike you however I think that the responsibility is not mine to bear but that of MLPN and their electoral reform. Come election day I will exercise my right to vote. I will continue to use my vote to provoke change in Maltese politics. And the day my vote for Harry translates to a vote for Freddie I do not believe I should be the one to do the worrying… I’ll leave that to whoever came up with this wonderful idea that my vote is worthless and worth wasting.

The ball is in their court.
***

Until now there is an interesting thread on Asylum Seekers – still in its early stages – where candidate Cardona Gatt answers a number of questions by user Matthew Pulis. The candidates have not really got much to engage with at this point but it is surely a positive start.

Aside from this, George Pullicino’s reply to Joe Sant in today’s Independent also merits a mention. I am not well versed in the matter under discussion but if George has his facts right, he surely has gone and rubbished Sant’s article. Rubbished, collected and recycled in his favour I would say. George should join the Facebook group too… either that or reform his diarish blog!

1. Knocking on people’s doors to have a cordial (still not anachronistic no matter how much Fausto’s cocooned world see otherwise) chat with an elector who will be forgotten a couple of days after the vote is in the ballot box.

2. The practice of calling you to remind you to vote AND the practice of calling you reminding you that YOU HAVE NOT VOTED yet. That, with all its repercussions, exists too. Yes, parties do know whether you have voted or not. Yes, they do have lists with such data. It starts with a man or woman in your street. It ends with a little district office taking notice of the very modern use of an old system – tgharrex min wara’ l-persjana.

3. The constant violation of private information. How do candidates have your sms? Why do they bother sending automated sms’? How are mailing lists obtained?

4. The treatment of the electorate like a bunch of party craving imbeciles who would not be twisted by anything other than a freebie drink, a concert or a tombola party.

So I wrote my usual piece. I went so far as to say that certain practices should be banned. And now I have to admit I was wrong. Of course Fausto is right. He is so right he is way way right… a sort of far out right… yep far right. I should not have used the word “banned” when I meant that more must be done to discourage these practices. Fausto is right… I gave too much importance to the word banned.

In doing so I gave Fausto the opportunity to act as though he misunderstood and open fire on the ‘liberal who wants to ban everything’. Oh my God. Of course that is what I want to do. That was the gist of my writing. Ban politicians once we are at it. Fausto pounced on the opportunity using his pedant’s machine gun to portray the picture of the liberal gone wrong.

What I did note, and my mistake is all to blame for that, is that Fausto did not discuss the issues themselves. Either that or he would not admit them. Door knocking is anachronistic he says. Then he tells us that he has a right to have his door knocked upon. Too true on that one. Which is why although I wish they could be banned I would settle for more and more people sticking the sticker I suggested onto their door. Per la cronaca it said “This Household Votes Intelligently. No Knock Knocking. Thank You.”

As for the Losco story. Read again Fausto. I never said they should ban such parties. Here read it:

I want a candidate to be available in places where I can choose to go and not to go. That way I can differentiate between one who thinks he will win me over by showing me Ira Losco’s legs on stage and one who decides to sit behind a table with his constituents and discuss issues and how to solve them. Ban the knock knocking.

You see? The point was to leave the choice… I want to have a choice between the slap us silly candidates and a good dose of the other ones. The ones who let me question them and maybe will even answer.

But Fausto is busy telling us that in Japan there are no presidential campaigns. Which is also true. My fault for picking up the phrase from a BBC site I cannot find again. But does that change the main thrust of the argument? I was not even saying the Japs got it right by banning internet campaigning.

Truth is that Fausto would rather discuss banning vs liberal than admit that something is fishy about the way our structures run democracy in our country. Fausto will denz that parties know whether you have voted the moment your name has no tick by its side at 16.00 hours and they will get their convincing machinery in motion to get out and vote. Fausto never saw canvassers of a party (read thugs and criminals) lifting reluctant old people into an ambulance to force them to vote and mark an X. Let them die after they vote.

And finally there is the funny matter of the “nuisance suits”. Throw in a joke about lawyers and I guess its ok. It’s the electoral version of “collateral damage”. In the case of “Collateral damage” it’s a dead man on the field that has been redefined into some diplomatic mumbo-jumbo to mask the horror of the event. In the case of a so-called “nuisance suits” (which incidentally are not exactly the bread and butter of the lawyering profession – most cases are defended pro bono by politician lawyers so it’s all in house my friend) what you have is a party deciding to open a court case wherein an individual is suddenly told that he or she has no right to vote because of some twisted interpretation that only serves the party opening the case.

In the “Far Right” land (and I do not mean extreme right in the political sense but in conservative control freak sense – like “liberal”, Far Right can have its own diaporama of connotations) a “nuisance suit” is run of the mill. Part of the control that the partitocracy exercises in the political game.

Well Fausto, you can be a pedant all you like what with all the liberal and banning issues. Let’s call it collateral discussion. When you decide to discuss the real issue – how the electoral process in our country is an insulting mockery of the population I’ll be around to reply.

The truth… if I lie.