Some, myself included, have received an SOS from the PN. The PN needs “our” input. It implores those receiving its SOS that it urgently requires the inputs of well-intentioned volunteers. Today’s PN leadership wishes to rebuild the party. That is, it wants to reconstruct what its predecessors have demolished.
Now such an exercise requires first and foremost an accurate appreciation of how and why the PN is in its present state.
When one reads through the report analysing the circumstances which led to the PN’s routing, which report was coordinated by current PN Executive Committee President Ann Fenech one can get an inkling as to why the PN is in a state of shambles. This comes through not just by reading the actual report (at least that part of it which is public) but through the line of thought which links each of the 38 pages of what is described as an Executive Summary of the actual report.
Apparently, according to the Ann Fenech report, everyone is at fault, except the PN. The PN was misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Ann Fenech’s report speaks of authorities and civil servants who “sabotaged” the PN-led government. Unfortunately Ann Fenech fails to bring this argument to its logical conclusion: that the PN Ministers and their private secretariats were an incompetent bunch if they did not notice this “sabotage” and take the appropriate action. They were even assisted by Boards, and Committees leading Authorities, sometimes at an exorbitant rate of pay, who at times were more of a rubber stamp than an Authority.
If this reasoning is not analysed and acted upon the reconstruction exercise will be futile as the foundations are the result of a very weak reconstruction philosophy.
The PN has still not apologised for defying the divorce referendum result in Parliament. Nor has it sought absolution from the cultural community for defying reason in its persistence on the roofless theatre at the Royal Opera House site in Valletta. The PN’s stance on the roofless theatre was one which left no doubt that in the PN’s view everybody was in the wrong, except the PN.
The PN’s arrogance and its lack of social conscience personified in former Minister Austin Gatt and his entourage directing the “reform” of the Malta Drydocks as well as the Public Transport Reform seems to be a non-issue in Ann Fenech’s report.
Also surprisingly absent in Ann Fenech’s analysis is the PN’s shift away from the political centre under Lawrence Gonzi’s stewardship. Lawrence Gonzi inherited a left-of centre PN but when he left the leadership handed over a conservative party to Simon Busuttil. Ann Fenech’s report (as published) is silent on the matter. Most probably Dr. Ann Fenech and fellow co-authors Prof. Mary Anne Lauri, Dr Simon Mercieca, Ms Rosette Thake and Mr Malcolm Custó do not have an inkling as to the actual consequences of the PN in government during the period 2004-2013 moving along a conservative path.
Finally there are those who consider that those who did not support the PN in the March 2013 general elections had no valid reason to do so. In their view they did so as a result of an incorrect appreciation of the situation.
Some have supported and even voted in favour of specific measures adopted by the Lawrence Gonzi led government. These same persons are in the forefront now in 2014 supporting residents who are protesting against these same measures originally adopted by the PN led-government. How is it possible for the PN and its leadership to be credible when some of its MPs act in this manner?
Crocodile tears will not lead to a reconstruction of the PN.
Published in The Independent Saturday August 16, 2014
Blog ta' Carmel Cacopardo 
‘Nor has it sought absolution from the cultural community for defying reason in its persistence on the roofless theatre at the Royal Opera House site in Valletta. The PN’s stance on the roofless theatre was one which left no doubt that in the PN’s view everybody was in the wrong, except the PN.’ The two polls on the Royal Opera House resulted with 85% and 87.5 % against the plans that were proposed. If there was ever a time that the PN should have listened to the public, it was this time.
What makes many think twice about helping the PN is the remembrance of the ‘Gakketta Blu’ regime, of which ex-ministers like Dr. Austin Gatt played an important role; as well as the dossier on each and every Maltese family which went against the basics of Data Protection!
Dr Grech Attard:
Your comments published above are misleading.
Firstly: the Gakketta l-Blu case can be simply explained as a party political exercise in ensuring that the vote counting process during the 1981 general elections proceeded correctly and respected the choices made by the voters. The PN team, then, led by Austin Gatt was very well organised and it ensured that the PN was properly credited with all the votes which the voters assigned to it. Then it was a majority (over 50%) of the votes cast. There is nothing sinister there. Obviously there was a lot of political debate in Labour newspaper and the then state controlled TV on the similar attire worne by those carrying out the vote counting supervision.
The issue of data protection which you mention is much more serious. It is known that both the PN and the PL gather information on voters which they store electronically. This information includes all information in the possession of the Electoral Commission and includes the list of voters who in any particular election opt not to vote. How about that? I understand from your comments that you disagree with this method of operation of both PN and PL. If that is the case you should state it clearly.