25th April 2008
The Malta Independent - Friday Wisdom
It is true that this
month started with April’s fool day but it is evolving into a whole month of
foolery. It is about time to move on and get serious.
The government must be joking in offering the opposition nomination of the Speaker, under two conditions which insult the status and the intelligence of the opposition. The offer that the Speaker would be chosen from among the ranks of Labour MPs, is evidently meant to increase the government’s majority in the House from one to two seats. The condition that this would be subject to a formal pairing agreement, shows condescension and disdain towards the opposition in expecting a crucial pairing agreement at a cheap price.
The opposition would be shooting itself in the foot by excluding a pairing agreement as a matter of principle (though this could be justified given that the PN denied pairing in 1997/1998) but it would be unbecoming of Labour to agree pairing on the proposed terms.
Another one cracking jokes is Alfred Sant, who this week broke a lent of silence since his resignation from party leader. If he has irrevocably resigned as party leader why has he not similarly resigned as Opposition Leader? Must he continue to confuse Labourites more than they are already confused following the third successive election defeat Sant led them into?
Sant told the media that George Vella is correct in stating that “there were no internal discussions neither at cabinet level nor on leadership, administration, executive and parliamentary group level in order to get Malta’s EU application from the freeze” and that Dr Vella “does not know of any position paper and never participated in any discussion to change Labour party’s policy in relation to the EU”.
That Dr Vella is an honourable man needs no corroboration. What is funny is that Dr Vella had made his declaration following an interview by Dr George Abela where he reported as follows:
“The Labour government had set the wheels in motion to re-route Malta towards EU membership back in 1997. Former Prime Minister Alfred Sant had personally drawn up a paper to start discussions with the Nationalist opposition, in a bid to lead to “convergence” about EU membership. Internal and informal discussions involving Dr Abela, Lino Spiteri, John Attard Montalto and Dr Sant were held to plot the way forward on the EU issue.”
At the time, former Education Minister Evarist Bartolo had also written an article in a newspaper entitled ‘Convergence’ precisely on this issue, which seems to have gone unnoticed.
“We held internal discussions as we believed it was high time to remove the EU freeze.”
It is not obvious to me that in endorsing Dr Vella’s declaration, Dr Sant was concurrently implying that Dr Abela’s version is wrong. The two stories are not mutually exclusive. Why this double speak? If Dr Sant has to state anything, which I doubt, it is whether he confirms or not the informal discussions referred to by Dr Abela, in which Dr Vella was allegedly not involved. How can Dr Vella deny something in which he was not involved?
I personally have had many informal discussions with Dr Sant on similar matters. On 18 January 2003, Dr Sant held a consultative meeting with the whole executive, which delivered to him a very strong message that the party should change its policy and accept the concept of a binding referendum on EU membership.
This message was subsequently ignored by the leadership, who conditioned acceptance to the crazy idea that the referendum would have to be approved by a 60 per cent qualified majority. Does the fact that Dr Vella was not present at the executive meeting mean it never happened? Does Dr Vella’s non-participation at the meeting with the executive, justify the total disregard by the leadership of the views of such an important organ on such a crucial matter? Why did the leadership then accept such views after the referendum was held, so much so, that the electoral manifesto for the 2003 election carried a pledge of a binding referendum on EU membership if Labour were elected?
Labour seems to be carrying the curse of its ex-leaders. Boffa left to form his own. Mintoff aggressively kept interfering in the choice of his successors and finally voted against the only Labour government elected after his departure from leadership. Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici desperately keeps trying to impose on the MLP his narrow view of the outside world. He even thought it fit to nominate his successor, who refused the appointment but always projected a shadow of moral authority on the leader for ceding the throne. Sant did not leave after his strong anti-EU membership policies were rejected by the electorate and stayed on as leader, thrusting upon the party lack of credibility for its adopted post-EU membership policies.
Can’t Labour elders understand that they serve the party much better by shutting up, rather than by using their power of ex-incumbency to influence Labour’s future?
Just last week the largest corporation in the world, General Electric (GE), announced quarterly results, which were below expectations. GE had a reputation of consistently beating expectations. Jeff Immelt, their CEO, was instantly in the media apologising to shareholders for failing to deliver as expected, and promising that this was just a bump on the road and there was nothing wrong with the company’s structural health. The next day the media cornered his predecessor, the revered Jack Welch, six years into his retirement, who said that such misses could tarnish the reputation of management. The comment made instant headlines. Welch for the first time was coming out to criticise his successor Immelt. Welch was instantly back on the media reading an unconditional declaration of support and confidence in Immelt and pledging never again to pass any comment about GE’s performance.
If I were to have any say I would put two conditions in the employment contract of Labour’s new leader. Firstly, that he submits himself for reconfirmation mid-term during the legislature, where he will have to prove that he is raising the party and personal ratings among the electorate – enough to give confidence for the aspired success come next elections. The second one is that when he leaves, he leaves – parliamentary seat and all – and should never comment about anything Labour, even if his life depends on it.
April has been a month of jokes. Let’s look forward to the first of May.
The government must be joking in offering the opposition nomination of the Speaker, under two conditions which insult the status and the intelligence of the opposition. The offer that the Speaker would be chosen from among the ranks of Labour MPs, is evidently meant to increase the government’s majority in the House from one to two seats. The condition that this would be subject to a formal pairing agreement, shows condescension and disdain towards the opposition in expecting a crucial pairing agreement at a cheap price.
The opposition would be shooting itself in the foot by excluding a pairing agreement as a matter of principle (though this could be justified given that the PN denied pairing in 1997/1998) but it would be unbecoming of Labour to agree pairing on the proposed terms.
Another one cracking jokes is Alfred Sant, who this week broke a lent of silence since his resignation from party leader. If he has irrevocably resigned as party leader why has he not similarly resigned as Opposition Leader? Must he continue to confuse Labourites more than they are already confused following the third successive election defeat Sant led them into?
Sant told the media that George Vella is correct in stating that “there were no internal discussions neither at cabinet level nor on leadership, administration, executive and parliamentary group level in order to get Malta’s EU application from the freeze” and that Dr Vella “does not know of any position paper and never participated in any discussion to change Labour party’s policy in relation to the EU”.
That Dr Vella is an honourable man needs no corroboration. What is funny is that Dr Vella had made his declaration following an interview by Dr George Abela where he reported as follows:
“The Labour government had set the wheels in motion to re-route Malta towards EU membership back in 1997. Former Prime Minister Alfred Sant had personally drawn up a paper to start discussions with the Nationalist opposition, in a bid to lead to “convergence” about EU membership. Internal and informal discussions involving Dr Abela, Lino Spiteri, John Attard Montalto and Dr Sant were held to plot the way forward on the EU issue.”
At the time, former Education Minister Evarist Bartolo had also written an article in a newspaper entitled ‘Convergence’ precisely on this issue, which seems to have gone unnoticed.
“We held internal discussions as we believed it was high time to remove the EU freeze.”
It is not obvious to me that in endorsing Dr Vella’s declaration, Dr Sant was concurrently implying that Dr Abela’s version is wrong. The two stories are not mutually exclusive. Why this double speak? If Dr Sant has to state anything, which I doubt, it is whether he confirms or not the informal discussions referred to by Dr Abela, in which Dr Vella was allegedly not involved. How can Dr Vella deny something in which he was not involved?
I personally have had many informal discussions with Dr Sant on similar matters. On 18 January 2003, Dr Sant held a consultative meeting with the whole executive, which delivered to him a very strong message that the party should change its policy and accept the concept of a binding referendum on EU membership.
This message was subsequently ignored by the leadership, who conditioned acceptance to the crazy idea that the referendum would have to be approved by a 60 per cent qualified majority. Does the fact that Dr Vella was not present at the executive meeting mean it never happened? Does Dr Vella’s non-participation at the meeting with the executive, justify the total disregard by the leadership of the views of such an important organ on such a crucial matter? Why did the leadership then accept such views after the referendum was held, so much so, that the electoral manifesto for the 2003 election carried a pledge of a binding referendum on EU membership if Labour were elected?
Labour seems to be carrying the curse of its ex-leaders. Boffa left to form his own. Mintoff aggressively kept interfering in the choice of his successors and finally voted against the only Labour government elected after his departure from leadership. Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici desperately keeps trying to impose on the MLP his narrow view of the outside world. He even thought it fit to nominate his successor, who refused the appointment but always projected a shadow of moral authority on the leader for ceding the throne. Sant did not leave after his strong anti-EU membership policies were rejected by the electorate and stayed on as leader, thrusting upon the party lack of credibility for its adopted post-EU membership policies.
Can’t Labour elders understand that they serve the party much better by shutting up, rather than by using their power of ex-incumbency to influence Labour’s future?
Just last week the largest corporation in the world, General Electric (GE), announced quarterly results, which were below expectations. GE had a reputation of consistently beating expectations. Jeff Immelt, their CEO, was instantly in the media apologising to shareholders for failing to deliver as expected, and promising that this was just a bump on the road and there was nothing wrong with the company’s structural health. The next day the media cornered his predecessor, the revered Jack Welch, six years into his retirement, who said that such misses could tarnish the reputation of management. The comment made instant headlines. Welch for the first time was coming out to criticise his successor Immelt. Welch was instantly back on the media reading an unconditional declaration of support and confidence in Immelt and pledging never again to pass any comment about GE’s performance.
If I were to have any say I would put two conditions in the employment contract of Labour’s new leader. Firstly, that he submits himself for reconfirmation mid-term during the legislature, where he will have to prove that he is raising the party and personal ratings among the electorate – enough to give confidence for the aspired success come next elections. The second one is that when he leaves, he leaves – parliamentary seat and all – and should never comment about anything Labour, even if his life depends on it.
April has been a month of jokes. Let’s look forward to the first of May.
No comments:
Post a Comment