I’d much rather think of the term as the apt name of a favourite rock group, which only a few years back had us fuddled and cuddled in a small, middle-aged crowd for a wonderful concert on a cold, wintry night at Ta’ Qali, than as the ideal Latin expression to describe a stalemate or lack of progress.

As the father told his son in reply to the question what is status quo daddy, “It is, really, a reflection of the state that we are in.” But will it be much more of the same in this new year that we’ve just heralded in?

We have also been through the annual frenzy of political speeches wrapped in Yuletide glitter, well-intentioned marathons and do-gooder advice on binge drinking and driving, partying and other social hang-ups. Will any of it, however, change the status quo that unsuccessfully hides a bitter reality as we continue to live a lie? Even changing and fiddling with statistics has now been described as merely “a matter of routine.” European Union statisticians must be wondering what has hit them since May 2004, unless they too are familiar with the art of hide-and-seek statistics.

Will it really be more of the same as we all too obviously march forward to a general election? For one, I think there should be strict enforcement of the law against polluting the air with a welcome resort to fewer, shorter and better political speeches. We all know liberty does not work as well in practice as it does in speeches. Malta certainly needs more free speech that is worth listening to, because it’s too bad that more people here are more thoughtless than speechless.

The problem with most of our politicians is that they are restricted to four speeches: what they have written down, what they actually said, what they wish they had said, and what they are quoted as saying the next day. If the 2007 status quo is going to be more of this, humdrum is the other word.

The more the general election approaches the more one has to be careful when listening to speeches. When you listen to a political speech it’s very much like shooting at a target – you must allow for the wind. Then also allow for the second wind as soon as they say: “… and now in conclusion...”

Is it going to be a year of dealing with speeches the way one deals with a broiled, too young a rabbit? You just have to pick your way through an awful lot to find any meat. Perhaps those who are already sharpening their tongues for the coming electoral showdown would do well to remember that the recipe for a good speech includes quite a bit of shortening. In fact, the best time to end your speech is when you feel the listening is lessening. A good speech is one with a good beginning and a good ending, and kept very close together.

On a more metaphorical note, a speech should be like a woman’s skirt – long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to be interesting.

Not surprisingly, the recent spate of “Christmas” speeches hardly left us enthralled and it surely does not augur too well for the new year should all the predictions of an early election from both right and left turn out to be correct after all.

Wit has never been the hallmark of Maltese politics, alas. Fiery speeches yes, inflammatory speeches by mass production, sensible and down-to-earth observations plenty, but hardly ever any special wit, give or take the odd remark in the House where there have always been the jokers more intent on raising a laugh than our standard of living.

It is not for want of good speakers, but more as a direct result of the petty politics that tend to keep our politicians strung to the oblique and the ambiguous which provide ample safe ground and the ever-so-convenient status quo. Even our after-dinner speeches or, today, the breakfast gatherings, rarely if ever go above the usual political innuendo. The rest is often a juxtaposition of ideological leanings, statistics and funny little fodder for the media.

Why should we not have more colour and more spice in 2007? We are entitled to it, election or not. It is about time our speakers felt the need to mingle more with the rowdier of our media and to express themselves more in synch with the rest of their listeners, rather than delivering more boring speeches destined to ruin one’s digestion.

When the Scottish novelist and dramatist, J.M. Barrie addressed an audience of one thousand girls at Smith College during an American visit, a friend asked him how he had found the experience.

“Well,” replied Barrie, “to tell you the truth, I’d much rather talk one thousand times to one girl, than to talk one time to a thousand girls.” I wonder what he’d have said after listening to a breakfast keynote speech in third-millennium Malta. Perhaps this: “To tell you the truth, I’d much rather talk to an audience which has truly come out of slumber. Was it the speech or was it last night’s hangover?”

The media also has to cope with copies of the speeches they are invited to listen to and to cover, sometimes rather badly. But you really cannot blame them. Newspaper editors must, at times, feel the same way a rival MP once reacted to Winston Churchill’s highly-amusing decision to distribute printed copies of his most recent speeches to his fellow Members in the House...

“Dear Mr Churchill,” an old parliamentary dog had written to him, “thanks for copy of your speeches lately delivered in the House of Commons. I shall lose no time in reading them.”

Here we going rockin’ all over the world, I guess...