I keep being astonished at how some people believe they will achieve an impact simply by repeating complaints about the Labour administration. Obviously they have an ongoing critical agenda against the government. And they have every personal right to it. What surprises me is the conviction that theirs is an effective method by which to attack the government.
It will be countered that this kind of expression is necessary to keep the hardcore of which ever party it is, on track. Possibly. However I doubt whether the hardcore need so much encouragement, especially in the form of a repetitive liturgy.
Actually the same arguments, the same articles, the same exhortations on the internet or wherever, must end up sounding stale; or worse, come to resemble the mutterings of elderly people who have nothing better to do than weep over the loss by the PN of its kingdom. One doubts whether what they say and write could really attract new voters for their party. True, at times the party's leaders themselves often seem to be adopting the same approach.
***
OCCRP
It is curious how the story about the OCCRP - the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project got buried or sidelined. Over the last years, the Project was presented as a worldwide cooperative of journalists working together to uncover corrupt activities - no doubt, a noble and worthy aim. Indeed over the years, the OCCRP laid open many stories about who has been doing what.
But now, about the project itself, what came to light was that at least half its budget comes directly from US government sources; that they cannot investigate US citizens unless given the go-ahead and have to focus on given countries; that at least half of the Project's directors are chosen by US government representatives.
The reaction of the Project's leaders was interesting: What we have revealed has always been true! Granted, but where is the journalistic impartiality when the focus is on only one side of the globe? It's not so different to what all secret services do, without then publishing their results.
***
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
When I read about the claims made in Europe against foreign interference in the democratic processes of European countries, I am reminded of how the issue was at the heart of many controversies in the 1970's and 1980's. The Labour administration of that period contested the financing being obtained by the PN from European demochristians and the presence of European leading politicians at PN demonstrations held in Malta.
Actually with those interventions, the means available at the time were being used to influence public opinion in Malta. In many of the claims that the Europeans are raising, one can see how the same is being attempted among them today, naturally with the means available today. However there seem to be rules which say that what you do is ok, no matter how you do it; but if the other side does it, then no, that's not acceptable!! How ridiculous!