Despite deep reservations expressed on the prospect of Jason Micallef being re-elected as the Labour Party’s secretary general, MPs Michael Falzon and Leo Brincat yesterday said they would be accepting the party delegates’ vote for Mr Micallef, and that they would be working in tandem with the party leadership.

Both MLP heavyweights had, for differing reasons, come out strongly and in no uncertain terms, against the prospective re-election of the incumbent secretary general, after the fallout from last March’s general election defeat.

Contacted yesterday, former deputy leader Dr Falzon was unequivocal in that the delegates’ decision must be respected, confirming that he would “definitely be working with the party and its leadership”.

But, he added with reference to the delegates’ choice, “Whether that was a good or bad decision…time will tell.”

Mr Brincat, meanwhile, adopted a similar tone and also pledged to “respect the will of the delegates”, adding that he was “neither comfortable nor uncomfortable” with the “new” MLP team elected this week.

The MLP, he observed, selects its key officials through a vote of some 900 delegates while the Nationalist Party does so only on the vote of some 60 – rendering, he said, the MLP’s process far more democratic and resulting in a decision that leaves no choice but to be respected.

But, clearly dissatisfied with the results, he likened the situation to that of standing before a magistrate for a ruling – you have to accept the decision whether you agree with it or not.

Mr Brincat had penned a hard hitting opinion piece published in this newspaper and a similarly harsh letter published in another section of the media in the lead-up to this week’s vote, in which he criticised Mr Micallef, without mentioning him directly by name, and called on delegates not to re-elect him.

Referring to the pieces, Mr Brincat remarked, “I stuck my neck out on the issue more than anyone else and my comments reflected the views of many within the party with whom I had had private conversations.”

At the time of writing the articles, he confirmed, the secretary general post had been very much “up for grabs” and he had not seen any surveys on the election.

Writing in this newspaper toward the end of June, Mr Brincat – who now serves as the party’s environment, sustainable development and climate change spokesperson – observed that important decisions were to have been made this week, “particularly in the wake of the self-inflicted electoral defeat which many are still doing their best to try and make us forget. To satisfy the exigencies of their political survival.”

Some party officials, he said, “made strategic, tactical and administrative mistakes that were big enough to render their position untenable. Even in what is for all intents and purposes a caretaker administration.

“Let us hope that 4 and 5 August will prove to be a positive day of reckoning!” he added. “Change might not be as inevitable as one might think, although I feel that it should. Let us just hope that where most applicable it will definitely come about! If not it will not only be the unsuccessful candidates who will be losers but the party at large.”

Writing in another section of the media, Mr Brincat recalled, “When I recently expressed my opinion (and that of many delegates who have supported Joseph Muscat throughout the leadership campaign), to a key official, that his position had become untenable in the wake of the electoral defeat analysis report, I was impolitely told that when the time comes and I am proven wrong I should not even bother to congratulate him. This is the kind of arrogance that I hope delegates will push aside.”

Citing reasons forwarded by some incumbents to retain their post, Mr Brincat stated, “They ran as follows: If I am not elected I risk ending up without work. I am more or less the same age as the party leader. I apologise for past mistakes. I will mend my ways. I still have much to contribute to the party. And on, and on, and on.”

Such comments and reasoning, he said, “offends one’s intelligence”.

Dr Falzon, who had served as MLP deputy leader for party affairs over the last legislature and who has now moved to the post of home affairs and security shadow minister, had been left embittered following the MLP’s electoral loss report, which in turn, played no small part in the scuttling of his MLP leadership bid. Dr Falzon had held Mr Micallef responsible for criticisms against him contained in the report, and its questionably-timed release just before the June MLP leadership election.

Dr Falzon, between the lines and again without mentioning him directly by name, had accused Mr Micallef of working against his MLP leadership intentions. He had also written a caustic seven-page letter attacking Mr Micallef in the week before this week’s vote for secretary general.

The fact that bad blood still exists between the two is indisputable and now that Dr Falzon is no longer responsible for administrative affairs, the two will be able to keep each other at least at arm’s length.

[email protected]