Ikea break

Commitments of the personal kind keep me away from blogging. They will keep on doing so for the next few weeks. My apologies to readers. Now back to the Ikea manual.

Money and elections

Some time back Keith wrote a piece on the cost of campaigning for elections:

Electoral campaigns are costly affairs, and consequently those individual candidates having deep pockets are increasingly able to conduct a slick modern electoral campaign. The problem with this is that it is not always the case that those having deeper pockets are the best choices for the job.

Unfortunately, however, the way the system is today, given that people still are asked to express a direct preference for an individual candidate rather than a political group, valid candidates who do not have deep pockets upon which to rely are turning away from elective politics. In the long run this may have very serious consequences upon the democratic process itself.

The concern is legitimate. It is particularly acute in the case of the EP elections where the entire country forms a single constituency requiring more resources of anyone deciding to stand as candidate.

Many moons ago I defended a common practice in Maltese politics: door-to-door canvassing. It started off with two news items Jacques picked upon. One was the ban on the practice in that most eccentiric of democracies: Japan. The second was the caricatured portrayal of the PM knocking on doors brought to you thanks to Norman Lowell (he who campaigns by organising fenkati at Ta’ Cetta). Jacques called for a similar ban. Thankfully, he changed his mind and move on to other things.

There is much that is to be said in favour of door-to-door campaigning. To return to Keith’s concerns, as long as they have a pair of legs with which to walk, all candidates are on the proverbial level playing field, irrespective of their financial resources to mount a campaign. Ditto for the voters. Let us not forget that not all of them can access the internet and the people that can’t often hail from the most vulnerable categories. What’s more it is a form of campaigning that reminds that candidates are “in obligation” towards the voters who open the doors. Showing up at activities (often with free food and free booze) might give the impression that the obligation flows in the opposite direction.

Such campaigning is restricted in the case of EP elections. The candidates standing in one district for a general election has an electorate of some 20,000 voters; his counterpart standing for the EP election has one more than ten times as large. In such scenario, large-scale activities and media presence, both with consume considerable finances, are the natural way to go.

How to get around this? I’ve never had any sympathy for restrictions on the amount of money a candidate may spend on his campaign. After all commercial entities have no such restricting and nobody is call for such a restriction on the money they spend in advertising. My suggestion is to have Malta divided into a number of electoral divisions. Another alternative, the Dutch method of the entire country being a single electoral division, I find unpalatable because it uses closed lists where voters essentially decide how many seats the parties get and who sits in those seats is left to Party bosses.

Small constituencies means that financial resources will make less of a difference, candidates will prefer to spend their time meeting people face-to-face than showing up on national media and they will be more atturned to local problems. It wouldn’t be insensible to cut up Malta into three constituencies: Gozo, Malta Majjistral and Malta Xlokk. There would be nothing new in that as it’s the way the country is already divided when mayors elect the Executive Committee of the Local Council Association is elected.

Keeping in mind the populations of the three districts Gozo could elect one MEP, the other constituencies electing two. If the Lisbon Treaty is approved there are many ways to elect the sixth: a general list (as is the case with the Local Council Association), as the “compensation” making the system a mixed-member proportional representation system or simply assigning it to the larger of the Maltese districts.

The Greens have been vindicated

Here’s the Greens’ reaction to Joseph Muscat’s “action plan” (for which read: suggestion to uphold “legality” by breaking international law):

AD vindicated by Parliament Debate: a rational and firm approach to solving the illegal immigration problem

Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party expressed its satisfaction at the level of debate held in Parliament to discuss the illegal immigration problem. The proposals made by members from both sides of the House are congruent with AD’s consistent position on the matter, which always advocated a balance between the need to implement solidarity according to international obligations, and the urgency to protect the national interest.

Vindicated? Really? Now I know that the Greens think of themselves as moral and intellectual superiors and that they had it all figured out before everyone else. Sometime in 1989 when they were founded, not unlike the unnamed Party in 1984 which claimed to have invented the car, the aeroplane and the steam engine.

But if their proposals were indeed vindicated which where they? The debate had, unsurprisingly, two loci: government which insisted on the course of action it has followed for seven years and the Leader of the Opposition and his twenty point action plan. Nobody gave a toss about nineteen of the points. For good reason. First, because some have been implemented for a long time. Others, because they are so obviously a case of doublespeak that they are not worth a second thought.

Think about, for example, Muscat’s suggestion to segregate people for different ethnic origin to avoid conflict. That can only mean one of two things: extending detention centres or building new ones. Nobody cared not even the usual crowd at timesofmalta.com whom you’d expect to react with “not out of taxpayers’ money”. Or rather “NOT OUT OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY!!!!!!!”.

Did anyone take seriously Muscat’s claims about shortcomings at detention centres? In case you have forgotten, Labour’s leader thinks that the most important thing detention centres lack and which renders them an affront to human dignity is … discipline. Or how about his proposals to have them adopt to “Maltese norms” like understanding that women are free to wear what they like, you don’t cut queues and you don’t urinate in public? Knowing what the Maltese norms are in these cases I’d fear it will make immigrants feel even more alienated.

Not, the highlight of that debate was Muscat’s proposal for a quota and his threat to suspend Malta’s obligations towards the rest. That, of course, would have no pluses (who’ll fly the plane repatriating Somali immigrants to Mogadishu?) and many minuses. While there is some credibility that it is well nigh impossible to patrol the entire Libyan coast I’m sure the Italian navy has enough frigates to patrol the entire perimeter of Maltese waters and return any departing immigrants back to the closest port.

Do the Greens feel vindicated by that? All their talk was misplaced references to Dublin-II (which does not add or take away anything from Malta’s situation) and for Commissioner Jacques Barrot to hurry up and do whatever it is needed to appear that something’s happening. In other words, of everything but the elephant in the room. Is Cassola still banking on an electoral koalizzjoni with Labour?

Must have required lots of thinking

The Green Party slogan for the EP election is “Energy, Experience, Europe”. I hope, for their sake, that it’s something thought up in five minutes flat by their PRO rather that something a political consultant created for a fee. The “Europe” bit is particularly redundant. Well, with Cassola alternating between contesting an election in Italy with an election in Malta it’s probably some reminding as to what he’s standing for this time round and which electorate’s turn it is to empathise with.

The deal is done

Jacques says that he’ll let go of the “old record” which sees all the world through MLPN tinted glasses. Right on time, I say. After Joseph Muscat presented his “action plan” on immigration in Parliament we’ll be faced with an old divide in Maltese politics, a divide which may have taken many forms and guises but which was always there, sometimes in the political foreground sometimes fading back.

It was, at one point, European democracy and rule of law versus authoritarian mob rule. At another, it was free markets versus paternalistic socialism. It was a sensible tax all advanced economies adopt versus a confused throwback to customs and excise duties. It was the choice between the political fulfillment of our European vocation versus smug self-fulfillment, thinking that we’ll be fine on our own because we’re special.

To all of us (Jacques, I’m sure, included) who have had to deal with foreign counterparts the Malta Labour Party was, for many years, the embarrassing old relative who smacked his lips, belched and broke wind noisily, lifted young women’s skirts and wolf-whistled. We had to offer profuse excuses ranging from ma tantx ghamilha ma’ nies to being someone minn ta’ wara l-muntanji. That these Maltese expressions would lose so much in English translation indicates not only how a unique Maltese phenomenon (a mainstream political party being highly eccentric) this was but how equally unique was the suffering of those of us who only hoped that Malta would be … well, normal.

We’re back to that old divide again. Not that Muscat’s plan is without merits. Keeping people of different ethnicities separate is laudable but it means more detention centres which is a matter the Labour leader conveniently doesn’t go into. It’s the possibility of reneging on international obligations.

Today, by the way, an Italian warship picked sixty-five immigrants off a sinking boat. Despite being in Malta’s search and rescue zone the nearest safe port was Lampedusa which, according to international law, is where the ship with its immigrants was supposed to head to. The Maltese Government had its way only because it was in the right according to international law. I have written, on another occasion, that observance of international law ultimately always benefits the smaller, weaker players like Malta. If that Italian warship decided to ignore international law and forged ahead with disembarking its passengers at Hay Wharf what would we have done? Sent in the MV Rozi?

Not that reneging on international obligations would lead to much. We will not let them drown, Muscat says. We’ll just stop fingerprinting them so that if — hopefully — they turn up elsewhere they won’t know where to send them back. The “repatriate them” crowd surely applauded that, irony being too sophisticated not to be lost on them. We care for international law only when they are to our advantage. In return, expect it not to be so easy disembarking from an AirMalta flight once you reach a European airport. International law is very much a gentlemanly agreement and once it’s gone expect some tit-for-tat action.

Muscat is, of course, at his most ridiculous when he climbs on the moral pulpit and preaches. Just like that police superintendent berated Somalis saying that if they have no laws there here we do … and then only a few days later a (Maltese) man opened fire on the Nationalist Mqabba club with a massacre only being averted miraculously. Muscat says that immigrants will be made “to understand that women had a right to wear what they wished, that people queued for what they needed, and they did not relieve themselves in public”. Oh, really, a right to wear what you wish? Like wrap yourself in a sheet and don a halo and fake beard? Last time someone did that it got him a month’s worth of prison.

But Muscat shouldn’t worry too much. Tonight he might have won his Party the next general election. Just like his predecessor when he took a position against VAT, Muscat has opportunistically chosen to ride the popular wave. It will get him results. Just only in the short-term.

Does God exist? Following what happened in 1998 I think he does. I don’t know if he has a sense of humour to laugh at our mediocre imitations of him but I do think — again from what happened in 1998 — that he’s understanding, forgiving and always ready to give the Maltese a second chance. Let’s hope he still will.

I just can’t wait for tomorrow

Thought it was only the fringe left that talked from both sides of the mouth? Think again:

Labour environment spokesman Leo Brincat said censorship policies needed to be revamped to allow Malta to become “a truly liberal and secular state”. He said religion needed to be respected but there should be a more liberal approach to such laws.

Anyone knows what Brincat means? A “truly liberal and secular state” would hold respect for religious beliefs as much as it would have for the belief that the world is flat. But then there must have been something about the “liberal approach” to “such laws” which I don’t get. Meanwhile, at the Catholic Institute they’re staging “Spiru Cefai u r-ruh tal-Baruni” featuring many actors acting a military role. Anyone checking if they’ll be wearing uniforms and dragging people to court?

But I digress. Tomorrow, social democrat Joseph Muscat will be announcing his big idea about illegal immigration:

Joseph Muscat has denied that his Labour Party is capitalising on people’s immigration fears as he prepares to put forward a series of proposals to Parliament tomorrow in a bid to tackle the problem.

The PL’s proposals will not be extreme like Azzjoni Nazzjonali’s, but will push the boundaries of diplomacy, according to Dr Muscat.

“Our job is to be tough on politicians, not immigrants – but we can’t turn a blind eye to the problem,” he told The Sunday Times.

I wonder how the politicians at the Party of European Socialists will take that … Poul Nyrup Rasmussen would have to step in for Muscat with something more credible that his standard excuse of standing up against the imagined “right-wing press”. Sadly we’ll have to wait another day because Muscat was not answering questions except not even to answer whether the right to request asylum will constinue to exist. He did say: “we don’t have a magic wand but we have an innovative package”. A package so innovative, it seems, that “should attract the attention of the international community”. I just can’t wait.

On a slightly different note, hats off to Muscat for having pulled off so successfully the excellent photo op of a huge line of subscribers to the Party’s class action suit against the government on the tax for the registration of vehicles. If government loses that suit it could mean it’ll have to disburse the €50 million it collected. Now that’s what I call sustainable.

The strange ways of the Maltese left

A busy week kept me away from blogging. Not that I missed much: most of the stuff filling the papers was the usual regarding immigration. What was surprising (sort of) was the quarters it was coming from.

It first started with the Campaign for National Independence captained by the less than the former Labour leader Karmenu Mifsud-Bonnici who, immediately before that, was in the news decrying his present-day successor’s attempt to replace “democratic socialism” with “social democracy” as the guiding principle of the Labour Party.

Then we had this with a suggestion on what our candidates should be doing come the EP election next June:

Candidates and the electorate are to take part in the electoral process while protesting the situation. The candidates would dedicate their campaign to this issue while making sure that their name is not on the ballot, thus ensuring that no candidate is elected to the EU Parliament and the seats allotted to Malta are not taken up immediately. The electorate is to be encouraged to join in the protest by either abstaining from voting or by invalidating their vote, by writing a message of protest on the ballot.

Come next June the European public would come to know about the Maltese protest and would surely manifest its solidarity, so much so that this problem which is so huge for us to shoulder on our own would be resolved within the European context.

Of course once the problem has been resolved, the candidates would not only be acknowledged as the country’s heroes but be given the chance to contest the election so that those elected could take up their seats.

That’s the advice of Mario Mifsud, editor of the periodical Zminijietna which tags itself as “voice of the left”. Zminijietna was also the official organ of the Maltese Communist Party and if the latter still exists, the magazine is the only thing of the Party that’s still functioning properly.

Note, there is nothing in the case about rights and about sharing wealth, usually the hallmark of the writings of Mifsud and writers like him. It’s just a question of “rid us of this burden”. Some day these people might wake up to the fact that the fascists were hot too about “workers’ rights” and that Hitler’s Party was called “national socialist” for a reason. So, in that sense, there’s nothing in the Maltese left that distinguishes from the Maltese extreme right.

It’s also amusing the note the course of action. It’s probably what the Maltese left calls “radical democracy” in a way of patting itself on the back; had anything similar to this come from the right they’d call it “populism” as a derogatory way of describing something as cheap. What’s the difference? You tell me.

And another piece of related news regarding illegal immigration elsewhere: the UK has the same problem with France that Malta has vis-a-vis Libya. The only difference is that France is an EU country and signatory to the Geneva Convention and Dublin II and, unlike the Libyan coast, has only one point of “terrestial” departure to the UK. Poor Brits, unlike us, they don’t know how to make a fuss.

And today’s Richard is …

First, Richard Cachia-Caruana was Malta’s éminence rouge and grise (the MaltaToday editor seems to think they are one and the same person). Then the budding Plutarch had to find something for Edgar Galea-Curmi but couldn’t come up with anything better than … “éminence grise“.

The new desgination for the PM’s PA called for some new deep and insightful historical parallel for Cachia-Caruana. Before you could say “d’Artagnan” Harry Vassallo, the latest addition to the paper’s staff with a history in the Green Party, comes to the rescue:

The rest of the time he [Cachia-Caruana] is the J. Edgar Hoover of Maltese politics, setting the unattainable benchmark for unelected power founded on the cast iron promise of a crippling payback if and when he is thwarted. It doesn’t even inspire a smirk.

That was written in reaction to the fact that Cachia-Caruana is supposed not to have reacted nicely to be depicted in a cartoon published by the paper as … John the Baptist being beheaded.

Ah, so that was it

There have been developments:

A Bill on assisted procreation is being drafted by the Bioethics Consultative Committee and should be ready by summer, The Times has learnt.

The Bill is based on recommendations made by Parliament’s Social Affairs Committee in July 2005, Bioethics Consultative Committee chairman Michael Asciak said.

“We are using the parliamentary committee’s report as our standard, although the draft law might vary slightly,” he said.

The news comes after Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Agius on Monday urged the government to stop dragging its feet on the issue as it had been doing for too long. He was speaking during a meeting of the House Social Affairs Committee.

And Edwin Vassallo admitted to his intellectual sloth:

Rev. Prof. Agius was asked by committee chairman Edwin Vassallo to analyse the previous committee’s recommendations in view of Dignitatis Personae [Church document issued in December 2008] and point out any contradictions.

Questioned about this decision, Mr Vassallo ruled out changing Mr Puli’s report, adding that he had asked for an explanation of the teachings of the Church and whether there were any parts of the report that diverged from these teachings.

I get the feeling Agius was called for no other reason than a last-ditched attempt to make sure the eventual bill would be wholesome, offering nothing constructive, just a blanket ban. Misrepresenting proponents with “man’s primary intention in IVF was to kill the embryos that remained unutilised” and throwing in some urban legends (“it is said that in the US there’s more frozen embryos than people”) truly shows the way forward.

Mutaween in action

Tipped by the ecclesiastical authorities the mutaween have rounded up the Maltese (“foreigners who do not respect our culture”) who caused a stir at the Nadur carnival:

Nine Maltese are to be taken to court for allegedly breaking the law because of the costumes they wore during the Nadur Carnival, the police said this evening.

Reacting to a statement issued earlier today by Archbishop Paul Cremona and Bishop Mario Grech, the police said the nine, aged between 20 and 35, will be accused of having: “without permission, or against the prohibition of the respective authorities, worn any civil, naval, military or air force uniform, or any ecclesiastical habit or vestment.”

This is strange. It would seem that the people in question dressed up as the risen Christ and as Christ and the appostles. And the police come up with a law that clearly prohibits someone trying to pass off as a priest? The law in question may be dated (anyone knows what a Maltese naval or air force uniform looks like?) but you can see the reasoning behind it: in a country where priests are held in high regard, the law is trying to avert any risk that anyone abuses of people’s trust. It does not have to do anything with taking the mickey out of anyone or anything.

Divorce follows “koalizzjoni”

In case you’re one of those who’s in favour of the introduction of divorce, who feels offered a take-it-or-leave-it choice at every general election and ends up voting Nationalists here’s something that guarantees you will not feel that bad: Arnold Cassola telling you to vote Green in the next European Parliament election for the sake of civil unions and divorce.

Not that that would get the matter any further. Helpfully, Cassola hints at why: inheritance and social security, two national matters the EP has, so far, not got its hands on. It’s the national Parliament which can legislate divorce and the last time we voted for that the Greens decided that divorce should not feature prominently but instead stick to their pie-in-the-sky campaiging and focus on “koalizzjoni” instead.

Incidentally, there’ll be at least one other candidate who’ll be standing for election on a platform calling for divorce when in the EP he can never do anything about it. It’s John Zammit. But, at least, he can be excused for reasons that Cassola can’t.

Let’s defer to the reverend

A legislature ago, when backbenchers worked harder and sought the limelight less, the House Social Affairs Committee produced a document with recommendations on policies and legislation Malta could introduce in the field of assisted reproduction. The situation is terra incognita as far as legislation goes: the sector is totally unregulated in Malta. Meaning that the situation is not kosher as far as the Catholic Church goes, which adds some more credibility to the theory that the strongest force in the universe is inertia.

The report was a great piece of work from a political standpoint. After having listened to just about everyone with an informed opinion on the subject, the Committee produced something which, if anything, drew everyone’s agreement on it being reasonable. Not everyone of course was happy. Not even some Committee members were but then they hardly ever showed up to Committee meetings. The next step would have been for the Minister responsible for health to get his staff prepare a White Paper and, eventually, a Bill and while the road might have been rocky at least it would have been clear.

That was not to be. In the meantime the members of the Committee changed, now headed by Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo. Three years after the report was published Vassallo decided to re-open the debate. “Re-open” is a bit of a misnomer because opinions, it seems, will only be received from Reverend Emanuel Agius, dean of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Malta:

Rev. Prof. Agius was making the presentation to update the House Social Affairs Committee on the Church’s document on human dignity last December to follow up on the instruction Donum Vitae of 1987, with special regard to new threats to human life.

Before the meeting adjourned, committee chairman Edwin Vassallo asked him to eventually revert to the committee with a comparison between the recommendations made by the previous committee, chaired by Clyde Puli, and the Church’s latest pronunciation.

[...]

After almost three years, the House still had only a set of recommendations, not enough to go on. He suggested that Rev. Prof. Agius should be allowed to go back over the previous committee’s recommendations and revert thereon. The committee should then have time to discuss the situation internally and make its updated recommendations. If Rev. Prof. Agius found he could agree with the previous committee’s recommendations, or part of them, that could be considered as real progress.

First of all, why the Committee decided to re-open the debate is a mystery. Dignitatis Personae, the Church document on the subject published since the Committee’s report came out, can hardly be said to have taken anyone by surprise and that this “update” was not something the Committee did not anticipate. If it’s a question of orthodoxy Vassallo should have presented to the committee the Church documents setting out its position and that would have been it. It would have spared us the charade of having a “discussion” when it’s a case of Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

And if not, Agius was the wrong man to convene. Not because he’s a theologian and priest. But because he is the kind of person who can only misrepresent what he doesn’t agree with. It is one thing to say, for whatever reason, that certain forms of assisted reproduction are immoral; it is another to claim something like “man’s primary intention in IVF was to kill the embryos that remained unutilised”.

Looney left meet looney right

Looking for some context to the news item on the petition on illegal immigration by the Campaign for National Indepdence (CNI) I came across their website. Here’s some stuff on their campaign (translation mine):

At a public conference CNI held in a hotel in Sliema on Friday, 5 December, it was decided that the members of the Maltese Parliament should take concrete action against illegal immigration to Malta.

And then these people complain that with Malta in the EU our Parliament is no longer sovereign. More:

Dr Karmenu Mifsud-Bonnici insisted that if we want to solve this very serious problem, the country should declare to all that it will not accept illegal immigrants, wherever they’re coming from, whatever the reason and that every immigrant coming to Malta will be sent back to his country.

I wonder if Mifsud-Bonnici will be flying the chartered plane carring Somalis to Mogadishu. Probably not: he’s not a pilot. A pity.

It should be known to everyone that illegal immigrants who don’t give information from which country they’re from, will be held in prison until they give the required information.

How about involving Lawrence Pullicino in this whole enterprise?

Getting themselves a loose canon

The same cannot be said of the Nationalist Party presenting Vince Farrugia on its candidate list at the EP election in June. He was a major contribution to the Nationalist defeat in 1996, caring little for EU membership which, at the time, looked lost in eternity.

He did come around to the idea in 1998 when Malta’s application was re-activated. But one should be forgiven for suspecting that this change of heart only came about with the realisation, some way into the Sant administration, that no Government of a modern economy will let go of a general system of indirect taxation and the fiscal control that comes with it.

For Farrugia is not an “unknown quantity”. His first interview betrayed his opportunism. And, on top of, it’s no secret to anyone who follows him in the media that he’s a loose cannon. That’s different from the claim that the Nationalist Party is too broad a church and its candidates a very mixed bag, the environmentally-minded of whom should be worshipping at the little chapel called the Green Party. Not even Labour’s Edward Scicluna, whose opinions against the raised tariffs and, at the same time, welfare overgenerosity, have been the subject of posts in this blog … he is capable of circumspection.

Not Vince Farrugia. Unless they have an interpretation of what they got themselves into that is not obvious, the Nationalist leadership is most likely to regret the decision.

Bunnies out of a hat

Jacques writes about others’ ability for prestidigitation but shows that he (and his cartoonist) is not incapable of some tricks of his own:

The martyrdom of JPO had its desired effect and before you know it JPO got into parliament and the PN got a contribution of 5,000 first count votes that contributed to no end to the relative majority that allowed it to govern.

Now, Jacques has placed Pullicino-Orlando above any form of responsibility. Who cares for Pullicino-Orlando when you can play indignant and place blame at somebody else’s doorstep? But that involves not only ignoring important facts that stare you in the face but taking much liberty with others. Which is no big deal considering that at J’Accuse facts are subservient to the theory.

Let’s first bring shine some light on the stuff Jacques conveniently ignores. In March 2008 he was not interested in what Pullicino-Orlando had to say. Was planning law upheld in the Mistra application? Was it broken? Bent? Did the Zebbug MP tell the truth to his Party Leader? Was he economical with it? Did he lie outright? Jacques doesn’t care because this would involve Pullicino-Orlando not Joe Saliba.

So instead he dwells on the BA press conference. And dwells. And dwells. Like if Medialink were invited to a press conference and they want to send the Stamperija janitor as the journalist to cover the event anyone would bat an eyelid. What is truly odd is that Jacques then got worked up about Pullicino-Orlando and not, say, John Spiteri-Gingell also present at that press conference and whose journalistic credentials were about as strong as the dentist’s. If anything Pullicino-Orlando was representing a media company; Spiteri-Gingell was representing a website.

And let’s remember that the episode could have taken a different turn hadn’t Alfred Sant been the control freak that he is. Any party leader’s reaction to being told that the journalist asking the “unfriendly” questions would be the target of his latest accusation would have been “Tomato, tomatoe, potato, potatoe, Orlando, Orlandoe. Bring it on”.  He might even started his answer with “Jeffrey, last time I saw you you were filling molars, now you’re filling in for Amanda Ciappara”. But, needless to say, Alfred Sant was incapable of that. And if it a question of Sant’s incapabilities Joe Saliba can hardly be blamed for that.

Fast forward to March 2009. Pullicino-Orlando receives flak for his comments on illegal immigration (not least because they are diametrically opposed to what he had been saying less than two years ago). As was the case with Mistra in 2008 the blogger who gave you the “Le ghar-Razzizmu” and the “Lampost” campaigns is equally unconcerned about the substantive issue around Pullicino-Orlando in March 2009. Having a dig at Joe Saliba and Daphne is so much more fun: “Nobody was stopping JPO from going off on a self-destruct path twelve months ago”. Because, it seems, Jacques saw it coming.

Which brings me to another bunny Jacques pulls out of the hat. His hypothesis is that “before you know it” Pullicino-Orlando found himself in Parliament and the Nationalists with 5,000 votes they couldn’t count on before. That’s “before you know” that in 2008 Pullicino-Orlando’s performance at the polls was not outstanding compared to his previous electoral performances. Oh yes, in case you think Pullicino-Orlando appeared from nowhere in March, he had been an MP for twelve years before that.

Did Pullicino-Orlando regale the Nationalists with any votes they could not count on previously? Thanks to his martydom? Jacques is sure he did. Well, that “before you know” that:

Although the Mistra case dominated the last week of the campaign, 73% claim that it had no bearing at all on their vote on March 8.

Among Nationalist voters only 9% claimed that the case had a strong bearing on the way they voted. On the other hand, among Labour voters 34% claimed that the case had a strong bearing on their vote..

At most, that would mean that the case had no bearing on the way the electorate voted. A more reasonable serving of benefit of the doubt it would mean that Pullicino-Orlando lost the Nationalists votes and, with the margin being what it was, could have cost them the election. Sometimes, the Nationalists — like Jacques — also run out of bunnies.