World Water Week 2012

 

The Stockholm International Water Institute during the current week is organising the World Water Week. Focusing on the theme of water and food security this is the sixth consecutive year for the Swedish Institute.

In Malta water has been mismanaged for a large number of years. The ground water table is generally depleted. Where ground water is still available this is of poor quality.

Agriculture is one of the major users of water. It has also however contributed substantially to the contamination of the water table as is evidenced  in the various studies undertaken locally, amongst which that prepared for the Malta Resources Authority by the British Geological Society. This report is  entitled “A preliminary study on the identification of the sources of nitrate contamination in groundwater in Malta” and was concluded in 2009.

The existing large number of illegal boreholes are drying up what’s left of the water table transforming what ought to be a public commodity into a private asset as is evidenced by the bowsers transporting and selling water to hotels and swimming pool owners all over the island at a rate which is much cheaper that that charged by the Water Services Corporation (WSC). This is daylight robbery which has been made easy by the inaction or delayed action of the maltese authorities throughout the years.

The result is that ground water cannot satisfy the reqirements for human consumption in Malta. It is in fact supplemented by reverse osmois produced water: around 60% of the water supplied by the Water Services Corporation is reverse osmosis water derived from the sea!

 

Whilst WSC sources part of our water from purified sea water it simultaneously dumps into the sea treated sewage effluent. WSC designed all three sewage purification plants as an end of pipe solution intending specifically, on the drawing board to deal with sewage as waste instead of considering it as a precious resource. After all three plants have been commissioned WSC is considering potential uses of the treated water effluent. Such consideration should have been made at the planning stage years ago!

Later this year the European Union will publish a “Blueprint  to safeguard Europe’s water resources”. This was announced by EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik in a statement which he issued on the World Water Week earlier this week.

It is about time that this Blueprint is produced. Even though in Malta at this point it seems that there is little left to safeguard!

 

originally published in di-ve.com on 31 August 2012

Dom : abjad jew iswed iżda bla griż

Il-funeral statali ta’ Dom Mintoff kif kien mistenni ħareġ fil-pubbliku l-appoġġ u l-approvazzjoni li Dom għadu kapaċi jqanqal, minkejja li hemm min ipprova jpinġih bħala traditur.  Miet imma għex b’viżjoni ċara. Viżjoni li kienet ċara sa mill-ewwel ġranet tal-ħidma politika tiegħu.

Ta’ 23 sena fid-Daily Malta Chronicle ippubblika l-mission statement tiegħu : “Malta għandha bżonn ta’ membri ġodda b’ideat godda li jkunu jistgħu jgħaqqdu l-elementi progressivi kollha u tbiddel is-sistema soċjali medjevali f’sistema li tkun l-għira tal-bqija tad-dinja.” Fl-1939 il-messaġġ ta’ Dom kien ċar għal kulħadd, ħlief għal min ma riedx jisma’. L-impenn tiegħu fil-ħajja pubblika Dom kien jarah bħala l-għodda biex ineħħi l-għanqbut!  Kien mgħaġġel, probabilment għax kien konxju li l-politiku hu għasfur tal-passa. Allura fittex li jagħsar kull opportunita’ li ġiet quddiemu. Ma kellux paċenzja ma min kien kajman.  Min kien jimxi bil-mod iżżejjed kien jarah ta’ xkiel li seta jtellfu l-ħin u per konsegwenza l-opportunita li jwettaq il-viżjoni tiegħu.

Il-viżjoni tiegħu wettaqha. Imma weġġa’ ħafna nies. Weġgħat li faċilment setgħu ġew evitati. Kif għidt diġa f’kitba oħra tiegħi hi sfortuna kbira li dawk ta’ madwaru mhux dejjem kienu kapaċi jagħtuh parir tajjeb. Pariri tajbin kienu bla dubju jnaqqsu l-possibilta’ ta’ ħsara u jagħmlu l-bniedem iktar aċċettabbli – jew inqas inaċċettabbli – milli fil-fatt hu.

Hemm ukoll il-problema kkawżata mid-debbolizzi tiegħu illi kif ilu jingħad fil-widnejn seta kien hemm min uzhom biex jirkattah. Fil-fatt fi blog oħra, dik ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia, iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa ġiet ippubblikata storja dwar dan il-punt. Din l-istorja ġiet imneħħja ftit wara għax kien fiha żball. Imma mhux billi tneħħiet minn fuq il-blog, l-istorja xorta għadha teżisti x’imkien fuq l-internet u tista’ tinqara billi wieħed jagħmel użu minn din il-link: għafas hawn. Għax it-teknoloġija, tajjeb jew ħażin, illum tikxef kollox. (Nota: sadanittant ġiet ippubblikata edizzjoni ġdida tal-post li kienet irtirata li tista’ tinqara hawn).

Din hi storja dwar rikatt u sfortunatament hija ibbażata fuq inċidenti li l-gazzetti naqsu serjament illi jinvestigaw u jinfurmaw lill-pubbliku dwarhom. Veru li meta ġraw ma kien hawn  l-ebda tradizzjoni ta’ ġurnaliżmu investigattiv fil-pajjiż. Ġurnalisti kapaċi kien hawn, imma l-klima politika ma kienitx tippermettilhom li jaħdmu. Imma in-nuqqas xorta jibqa’ hemm u kellu konsegwenzi kbar. Kif jixhed l-inċident tar-ritratti li ġew ippreżentati fil-Parlament minn Lorry Sant. Ir-ritratti jixħtu dawl fuq dak li ġara u inżammu mistura. Biex seta’ jseħħ rikatt ħalli tinħeba l-korruzzjoni, li xorta inkixfet ftit wara bir-rapport tal-Kummissjoni dwar il-Korruzzjoni fuq Lorry Sant.

Dawn u ħafna affarijiet oħra għad iridu jinkitbu volumi sħaħ dwarhom. Kif qal l-Arċisqof Pawlu Cremona dalgħodu Dom bena l-ħidma politika tiegħu fuq żewġ pilastri importanti: li jgħin lill-fqir u li jsaħħah l-identitia’ nazzjonali. Hi sfortuna li kellu jirrombla minn fuq ħafna. Li għalaq għajnjeh għal ħafna ħmieġ w irregolaritajiet amministrattivi. Li kien imdawwar minn nies vjolenti li kellhom is-setgħa li jagħmlu li jridu mingħajr ma jiġrilhom xejn, għax il-Pulizija kienu dejjem jipproteġu lilhom.

Għexna fi żminijiet koroh. Żmien fejn l-abbuż kien igglorifikat. Veru li Dom għamel il-ġid imma dan il-ġid m’huwiex gomma li tħassar il-ħsara li saret. Fl-aħħar l-istorja għad tagħti l-ġudizzju tagħha. Nittama li l-abjad jibqa’ abjad imma li l-iswed jibqa’ iswed ukoll. Għax Dom ma kellux griz!

Dom: a giant surrounded by pygmies

Much has been written in the past days on Dom Mintoff. On his service to the nation. On his values. On his methods. On his achievements.

In what we write we ought to be respectful. Not just to Dom, the man and his memory. We must also respect  ourselves. We must be factual.

We cannot respect the man  if we have no self respect!

His first positive contribution was in the development of the tools of  social solidarity,  determined to ensure that all had access to the basic essentials. He did this initially with Sir Paul Boffa his predecessor as Labour Leader. It was Boffa who laid the foundations of the welfare state through the introduction of Old Age Pensions and Income Tax to finance them!  Years earlier Boffa had prodded Gerald Strickland through the Compact to construct St Luke’s Hospital.  Boffa has been sidelined in the past 50 years when in reality it was he who should get the credit for founding the welfare state in Malta. Dom built on Boffa’s solid foundations, widening and deepening social services in the process.

His second positive was his determination that independence be translated into Maltese absolute control of the islands and their strategic infrastructure. This contrasted with Borg Olivier’s more gradual approach.  His negotiations shocked the nation as it was the first time that a Maltese politician stood up and spoke what they had in mind. In his last mass meeting before the 1971 general elections, held  at Marsa,  Mintoff had stated in very clear terms what he had in mind. It was time for Britain to pay up or pack up.

Lord Carrington then Defence Secretary in Edward Heath’s Cabinet states in his memoirs that negotiating with Dom was tough business. He realised “that there was also calculation in every Mintoff mood.”  Mintoff’s moods noted Carrington, would alternate “between periods of civilised charm and spasms of strident and hysterical abuse.”

Dom also opened a third front. He rightly felt the need for a separation of Church and State. It was, and still is  an area which requires much attention. It was much worse 50 years ago with an unelected archbishop-prince wielding political power unwittingly aiding  the colonial masters. Divide and rule was the British policy in its colonies. This front has been the cause of various scars (political and social), still not sufficiently healed.  It was violence from unexpected quarters which multiplied the political problems which each government has had to tackle since.

In his endeavours Dom was undoubtedly influenced by his direct experiences.  His witnessing of abject poverty during his childhood, his youth and immediate post war years formed his vision for developing the welfare state which had been painfully plotted by Sir Paul Boffa.

Having a foreign power controlling any square metre of significance on the islands was too much to bear for someone with Dom’s temperament. His father’s employment in the service of Lord Louis Mountbatten undoubtedly added to the significance of it all and to his determination to make a clean sweep.

It would be dishonest to ignore the above.

It would be however similarly dishonest to ignore the fact that his stewardship was also characterised by arrogance and bullying. It was characterised by organs of the state which sought to protect abusive behaviour. The long list of cases wherein Dom’s government and his most trusted Ministers were found guilty of infringing human rights is there for all to see. None of them was ever forced to resign. This is also part of Dom’s contribution to the development of  post 1964 Malta.

Anyone ever tried to identify the number of victims, some with a one way ticket to l-Addolorata Cemetery?

Former Air Malta chairman Albert Mizzi in an interview carried in The Sunday Times on March 25, 2012 stated: “I remember one time when someone mentioned something to him about corruption. He turned to me and said, ‘is it true?’ I replied: ‘That what’s people are saying’. His response was: ‘What can I do if that person has helped me to build up the party? Can I take action against him?’ You see, this is small Malta.”

That is Dom, the giant surrounded by pygmies: those who helped him build his party and then proceeded to squeeze it dry until the pips squealed.

Respecting Dom also means self-respect. Respect  the facts.  When this is done we can give the man his due.

originally published at di-ve.com

On this blog you can read the following additional posts on Dom MINTOFF :

21st August 2012 : Dom’s legacy

21st August 2012 : Dom Mintoff

22nd June 2012 : Dom Mintoff fuq in-Net TV.

5th May 2012 : Dom Mintoff : a political bully.

23rd April 2012 : Thanks O Lord for giving us DOM.

1st April 2012: Should we thank Dom?

Dom’s legacy

During his lifetime Dom Mintoff  elicited extreme reactions ranging from adulation to extreme spite. Some lit candles in front of his images. In contrast others insisted  for his metaphoric crucifixion during the 1980s mass meetings.

The man certainly had a vision.  As he himself stated one of his priorities was the removal of those cobwebs in which Maltese society was entrapped. Removing these cobwebs finely spun and protected for years on end by conservatives was no mean feat. It is still work in progress.  It certainly required the skills and the stamina of a bulldozer which Dom did not lack.

Unfortunately at times his skills were misapplied. Those same bullying skills which were appropriately applied when confronting the colonising power were certainly out of place when applied against the Maltese population, at least that part of the population which disagreed with his ideas and methods.

Those hovering around him were at times more focused on their interests than on ensuring that he was properly  advised. This certainly showed as the better elements left the ranks of his party. Some went quietly, others with a bang. It is not appropriate at this point to quote chapter and verse. It has been done elsewhere. It is however not appropriate to just sing the praises of the man. He must be remembered in his human form, warts and all.

His political service spanned half a century during which he left his mark. He started off with his predecessor Sir Paul Boffa who laid the foundations of the welfare state when Labour was first in government after the landslide electoral victory of 1947. In later governments which he led Dom built on Boffa’s foundations widening and deepening the welfare state.

The man found comfort in the company of dictators. In fact he was a frequent visitor to their courts. His friends included Muammar Gaddafi, Nikolai Caucescu, Todor Zhivkov, Kim Il Sung. He was certainly inspired by Gamal Nasser’s Arabic Nationalism  which coincided with his first term as Prime Minister and his resignation in 1958.

The man’s legacy will be determined in the long term when the impact of his negative methods will have subsided. Then history will acknowledge Dom’s contribution to the formation of Malta’s identity as well as to the acceptance of social solidarity as an essential objective of good politics.

originally published at di-ve.com

On this blog you can read the following additional posts on Dom MINTOFF :

21st August 2012 : Dom Mintoff

22nd June 2012 : Dom Mintoff fuq in-Net TV.

5th May 2012 : Dom Mintoff : a political bully.

23rd April 2012 : Thanks O Lord for giving us DOM.

1st April 2012: Should we thank Dom?

Dom Mintoff

Il-mewt ta’ Dom Mintoff bla dubju tnissel ħafna reazzjonijiet.

Il-bniedem kien il-kawża ta’ kontroversji waqt ħajtu u bla dubju jibqa’ jkun ta’ kontroversji wara mewtu u dan għal snin twal.

Bosta, inkluż jien, kitbu dwaru u dwar il-ħidma tiegħu bi kritika għal din il-ħidma.

Għalkemm il-ħidma tiegħu kienet kontroversjali u bosta drabi b’metodi mhux aċċettabbli jibqa’ l-fatt innegabbli li Dom Mintoff għal snin twal ta’ servizz lill-Malta biex iġibha l-quddiem. Ta’ ħin u saħħtu għal iktar minn 50 sena u kompla fejn ħalla Pawlu Boffa fl-iżvilupp tas-servizzi soċjali.

L-aħħar kontribut politiku tiegħu wassal biex Malta daħlet fl-Unjoni Ewropeja. Għal dan għad jibqgħulu grati l-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri.

My watch at the Audit Office

My watch at the Audit Office of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority came to an abrupt end some five years ago in circumstances which were then described as being a direct threat from Mepa to the independence of its Audit Officer.

The resulting public controversy saw the Ombudsman’s intervention in the summer of 2007 with his well-articulated solution to develop his office as the base for functions such as those of the Mepa Audit Office. As a result of their being based at the Ombudsman’s Office, these functions would be guaranteed the protection of that office: the best way of ensuring the office holder’s independence.

It was a bold step which unfortunately took five years to implement. It is only now that the first steps leading to the migration of the Mepa Audit Office functions to the Ombudsman’s Office have been initiated.

At this point it is pertinent to highlight some of the achievements of the Mepa Audit Office, which notwithstanding its independence being constantly threatened in its first four years of existence, still managed to deliver.

I state that the Audit Office’s independence was threatened during the first four years of its existence purposely, as when Minister George Pullicino and his sidekick, then Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja, relinquished their hold on Mepa in 2008, in this respect matters slowly drifted back to normality.

The Mepa Audit Office faced an uphill battle. During the period 2004-8, Mepa opposed the basic rules of decent governance. It continuously objected to informing complainants of the conclusions of investigations, which conclusions were based on facts unearthed generally from the authority’s files but at times also as a result of interviewing Mepa staff.

The Audit Officer considered that communicating the conclusions of investigations to complainants was essential in order that they would be in a position to understand the reasons justifying or otherwise the complaints submitted.

On my watch the Mepa Audit Office carried out a large number of investigations. Some concerned hot topics of the day and made it to the front pages of various newspapers and at times headline news on local TV stations.

I single out one very important investigation which illustrates the manner of operation of Mepa.

The investigation took a cue from a report in The Times entitled Tensioned Structure Raises Winemaker’s Ire, published on January 27, 2006. This investigation was in effect an inquiry focusing on the chairman, Mr Calleja, and his method of operation.

It resulted that on a specific site a number of notifications in terms of the Development Notification Order were refused for reasons which were detailed in the respective files. Subsequently other notifications were submitted on the same site, these being approved!

The investigation revealed that the case officer had been given specific instructions on how to deal with the notifications under consideration after the prospective developer had a meeting with the Mepa chairman accompanied by other Mepa officials (report 2006-031 dated March 13, 2006). Mr Calleja lost his cool and considered the report of the Audit Office as an “unwarranted intrusion in administrative measures adopted by Mepa”.

In addition, 25 days after the report was issued, on April 7, 2006, the Environment Minister had a meeting with the Audit Officer. During this meeting the minister informed the Audit Officer that he had instructed Mepa that my contract of employment, which was to expire later in the month, was not to be renewed.

In a letter dated April 11, 2006, the Audit Officer explained to the minister in writing how his action was a direct threat to the independence of the Audit Office:

“Your action would seriously undermine the independence of the Audit Office… Unfortunately since its inception the Audit Office has met with, at best, lukewarm support from the chairman and in certain cases outright hostility. If the post of audit officer was to depend on the goodwill of the chairman or the minister, than its role would be superfluous and its work can effectively be carried out by the personal staff of the minister.”

The audit officer concluded his letter by tendering his resignation.

The minister’s instructions were later withdrawn, as late in April 2006 my contract of employment was renewed for one year.

Twelve months later more drastic action was taken.

In 2007 the renewal of the Audit Officer’s appointment, which required approval by Parliament’s Select Committee, was delayed until such time that my contract had expired.

As no audit officer was then in office no request could be submitted for my contract’s renewal. He could only request my reinstatement when his appointment was renewed.But this was ignored.

This is the sequence of events which led to the migration of the Audit Office function from Mepa to the Ombudsman’s Office.

It was essential to ensure the independence of the office-holder at all times.

Published in The Times of Malta Saturday August 18, 2012 

Armier cowboys should not be rewarded

The unauthorised campers at Marsaxlokk were in the news during the last weekend not just  for their illegal camping but more for the violence they used.

It seems that the lack of action of government in respect of the Armier (and other) illegal boathouses has conveyed the message that at the end of the day they may strike a deal! Their vote for public land.

We have been through this before. That is in fact what’s on the books at Armier even though government has been very slow to implement what it has agreed to.

Agreements were entered into with the squatters at Armier  represented through their company Armier Developments Limited. Officially government is awaiting the approval of the Marfa Action Plan which was issued by MEPA for public consultation in 2002. It is government which will eventually approve the Marfa Action Plan after “careful consideration” of MEPA’s recommendations.

The Marfa Action Plan is the result of a detailed exercise through which the various activities in the l-Aħrax peninsula  were identified.

Through  the Marfa Action Plan, still in draft form , the authorities seek to compromise with the squatters by identifying five areas where they can construct alternatives to their present illegal boathouses.

Alternattiva Demokratika is opposed to arriving at any form of agreement with the squatters. They should be evicted the soonest.

The area should be rehabilitated with its cultural and natural features conserved. All boathouses illegally constructed, both pre and post 1992 should be demolished forthwith.

In its reactions to the draft Marfa Action Plan way back in 2002 Alternattiva Demokratika-The Green Party had stated that :

“The establishment of footpaths, picnic areas, proper camping sites coupled with a conservation of historical buildings and the prevention of further devastation of garigue areas through the dumping of rubble are all valuable features of the plan. AD is concerned about the effectivity of the administrative structures which will oversee the operation and maintenance of the proposed investment in such matters as the cleaning of picnic areas and the control of campsites. Enforcement structures from MEPA would be welcome”.

As no part of the island is more than 20 minutes away from the coast AD considers that the MEPA proposal for the construction of beach rooms is an unnecessary development which will only serve to reward squatters and undermine the rule of law.

Cowboys should be punished not rewarded.

My conclusion is identical to that of Dr Harry Vassallo former AD Chairman in 2002 who commenting on the Marfa Action Plan had stated: “When one considers the lack of accessible coastland and the uncontrollable sprawl of development, one realises that there can be no room for compromise in the defence of what we have left. The quality of life of the entire population should be given a priority over the privileges of boat house residents”.

Original of this post was published on Friday 17 August 2012 at di-ve.com.

On the same subject in this blog you may view:  Parties in Cahoots with Squatters

Is-Sur Anġ mhux ta’ subgħajh f’ħalqu

Kemm inħolqu impiegi?  Kemm żdiedu l-impiegi?

Bħalissa, u għal dawn l-aħħar ġimgħat ilna nisimgħu verżjonijiet differenti dwar x’ġara. Veru li inħolqu 20,000 impieg? Hekk qed jgħid il-Gvern. Imma l-Opposizzjoni qed tgħid li l-Gvern qed jigdeb.

Issa Anġlu Farrugia qed jgħid li anke’ Tonio Fenech jaqbel miegħu għax id-dokument ta’qabel il-budget, skond is-Sur Anġ, jikkonferma dak li qed jgħid il-Labour.

Fil-pre-budget dokument, fit-Tabella 1.1 li qegħda fuq paġna 4 sibt li t-total tan-nies jaħdmu fl-2008 kien ta’ 145,518 u dawn żdiedu għal 149,764 fl-2011. Jiġifieri f’dan il-perjodu bejn l-2008 u l-2011 it-total ta’ Maltin jaħdmu żdied b’4,246 (erbat elef, mitejn u sitta u erbgħin).

Fl-istess perjodu, skond l-istess dokument ta’ qabel il-budget,  dawk jirreġistraw għax-xogħol żdied in-numru tagħhom b’233 (mitejn u tlieta u tletin).

Issa jiena dawn iċ-ċifri ma nafx kif qed jingħad li jgiddbu d-dikjarazzjoni tal-Prim Ministru li inholqu 20,000 impieg.  Għax jekk żdiedu fl-impieg 4,246 persuna meta inħolqu 20,000 ifisser li matul l-istess perjodu intilfu 15,754 impieg. Din hi l-vera figura allarmanti! Bħalma huwa inkwetanti li l-kwalita’ tax-xogħol li inħoloq f’ħafna każi huwa inferjuri għax-xogħol li intilef.

Issa jiena forsi ma nafx naqra daqs is-Sur Anġ, imma s-somom għadni naf nagħmilhom.

Issa s-Sur Anġ mhux ta’ subgħajh f’ħalqu u forsi xi ftit jaf jaqra ukoll. Imma naħseb li jkun iktar kredibbli kienu jgħid il-fatti kif inhuma mingħajr ma jipprova jagħtihom il-kulur.

Gonzi jaħseb fit-tul !

Veru li Lawrence Gonzi jaħseb fit-tul.

Fl-2004 meta Josef Bonnci irreżenja minn Membru Parlamentari biex ħa l-ħatra fil-Qorti tal-Awdituri tal-Unjoni Ewropeja ġie co-opted floku t-Tabib Pjiskjatra Joe Cassar.

Min qatt ħaseb daqshekk bil-quddiem dwar x’kien ser ikolllhom bżonn l-Onorevoli Membri Parlamentari.

Issa f’mossa oħra li tħares fil-bogħod ser jippreżenta bħala kandidat fuq Tas-Sliema lill-kardjoloġista Albert Fenech. Jidher li li l-politika ftit tinteressah b’tali mod li jekk jitla’ fil-Parlament ser jagħti kontribut daqs numru ta’ tobba oħra Onorevoli li rari ħafna jersqu lejn il-Parlament.

Jidher imma li anke fil-Parlament jista’ jkun hemm bżonn tas-servizzi professjonali tiegħu meta jkun magħruf x’inhi l-qagħda reali tal-finanzi tal-pajjiż.

Kif intqal fi blog oħra “il-profs Fenech se jkollna bżonnu fil-Parlament, għax ħafna qlub mhux se jkunu jifilħu iżjed, x’ħin inkunu nafu f’liema stat huma l-finanzi tal-pajjiż.”

Ara vera Gonzi jaħseb fit-tul. L-ewwel psikjatra u issa kardjoloġista!

Labour : A case of sour grapes

Floriana has re-elected Nigel Holland as Mayor.

His election has been criticised by the Labour Party as it is the result of a deal between Mr Holland, the last of the independent councillors, and the two PN councillors elected on the Floriana Local Council.

The Labour Party obtained a relative majority of votes in the March 2012 Local Council elections. In fact, they polled 49.51% of the votes cast. A large amount, but still not an absolute majority. In fact, it elected two out of five councillors.

It was clear to all from day one that taking leadership at the Floriana Local Council was dependent on arriving at an agreement between the five elected local councillors. I fully understand that arriving at an agreement with Mr Holland was tough as his demands as an eventual “junior partner”  included taking the leadership himself. It was too high a price for Labour, which clearly they were not willing to concede. It was their basic political position. It is clear that at a point in time, even the PN councillors were thinking of an alternative solution.

In fact, it is known that at one point, the PN councillors considered forming a “grand coalition” with Labour with the consequential sharing of the spoils. The PN proposal clearly aimed to squeeze Mr Holland out of local politics, in the long term. But fortunately for Mr Holland, Labour only thinks in the short term.

So back to square one.

At the end of the day it all boiled down to one simple fact: PN was willing to pay the high price demanded by Mr Holland: the mayorship. Labour was not. Hence, the agreement was concluded between PN and Mr Holland.

There is nothing undemocratic in such an agreement: the parties leading the Floriana Council have a clear mandate supported by  50.49% of the Floriana voters .

This is the stuff of which coalitions are made. If it is possible to agree, you form part of it. If not, you just watch helplessly as others do it.

I sincerely hope that the Labour Party has learnt something in the process. Is this a case of sour grapes or a missed opportunity?

originally published at di-ve.com, August 10, 2012