Alfred Mifsud says Labour is in
state of denial
There was no reprieve from the constant criticism levelled toward the
Labour Party by former Super One chairman Alfred Mifsud in his customary
Monday-evening article on maltastar.com.
Mr Mifsud reiterated what he has been saying since Labours poll
defeat that the election of the leadership should not have taken place
before the completion of the electoral analysis. He also criticised
the party for being in a state of denial.
The criticism comes flying in the face of recent statements made by
Alfred Sant that the people will start realising that the Labour Party
was right. The Labour leader has also hinted toward an early election
on two separate occasions, a tactic often used by Dr Sant to alienate
supporters from internal party trouble.
In his article, Mr Mifsud left no stone unturned. He insisted: "In
deciding future policies one has firstly to examine and form an opinion
on why past policies did not succeed to gain popular support in spite
of having the advantage of facing a tired and fatigued government that
had messed up things quite significantly on the domestic front."
The working group entrusted by the Labour Party to analyse the electoral
defeat has not yet published its report and no time frame has been set
for its conclusions.
The working group composed of people from outside the Labour Party has
come under intense criticism from party delegates during the Friday
meetings held behind closed doors.
In his article, Mr Mifsud maintained that the party would be mistaken
to start formulating policy before the reasons for defeat are known.
Mr Mifsud also said that since the election defeat the Labour Partys
policies have become incomprehensible. "One is finding difficulty
to understand what its policies are and what it stands for. One has
to arrive at this by conjecture... I propose that this policy is ambivalent,
confusing and risky and will lead to eventual denial by the electorate
condemning the MLP for more terms in opposition."
Mr Mifsud then listed the reasons for Labours defeat: "People
did not vote for the PN but voted for EU membership. In choosing EU
membership people were aware of the critical state of domestic policies
under a tired and corrupt PN government. Labours successful criticism
of the governments handling of domestic affairs fortified peoples
mind to vote for EU discipline to sort us out of our problems. People
did not believe that Labour, that could not stay in government for more
than 22 months when elected, could deliver the sort of high quality
leadership and discipline needed to make a success of the Partnership
Mr Mifsud also cautioned against complacency. He argued that in four
years time the discipline brought about by EU membership would start
bearing fruit albeit the pain created by the inevitable restructuring
Mr Mifsud warned Labour that despite the probable hardships "those
Labourites who voted for the PN would not necessarily be disappointed
with such an outcome."
He continued: "It is what they voted for. It is what they expect.
They would continue to hold a grudge against the leadership for forcing
them to vote against their own Labour Party. They would not be ready
to come back if the party insists that it was right and the electorate
was wrong. Second denial is always easier than the first."
Mr Mifsud argued against wrapping new content in old wrapper because
it would keep voters away. He ended his article with a clear warning:
"Labours state of denial is dangerous. It obfuscates visibility
for political strategy. Denying the denial is however even worse then
the denial itself."