For political analysts it's become normal procedure to fire away the argument that this or that politician, or this or that political strategy, amounts to "populism". Initially this was considered the best way by which to describe a rather extreme right wing, authoritarian ideology. Soon, the argument was made as well regarding how left wing parties would operate.
With time, the term has lost all meaningful content as a relevant explanation. In the beginning if I understood well, it signified a demagogic strategy by which to arouse doubt and lack of confidence in one and all, while projecting totally unrealistic prospects about how better outcomes could be achieved, and so mobilise people while feeding them illusions.
Today it's being tagged to all those who deploy strong rhetoric to get their message across. So, it's lost any real meaning it could have had, and could easily be used to describe how Napoleon, Bismarck, Mussolini, Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Kennedy, de Gaulle, Nixon and others conveyed their ideas: a rhetorical tactic that hardly reveals what their real aims were. Still, "populism" is the buzz word being used by academics to tell us what everything going on is about!
***
THE RETAIL SECTOR
The structures by which retail trade is done in this country have changed fundamentally since Malta became a member of the EU. In first place, as happened when other Mediteranean countries joined the EU, there has been a strong growth here of the big European supermarket chains, chief of which Lidl.
Meanwhile, small shops run by "self-employed" people and their families dwindled till they have almost vanished. Instead, chains of small shops, mostly run under foreign brands have taken their place, though some old timers still survive. The hours of opening of shops, including Sundays, holidays and right through the week have changed. In many cases, the attendants aren't Maltese any more, but foreigners.
It makes sense to see about seriously evaluating this transformation...
***
AND CHAMBRAI?
The much needed change of policy by government and opposition over the future of Manoel Island was necessary and rightly done. Overnight, the legalistic arguments about why it should not be done evaporated.
The Tigne project of which Manoel Island formed part was conceived at the same time as the Chambrai venture during the 1990's when the Portomaso project made a hit (even if it too was contested). Like it, other projects could be launched, so it was believed, in order to improve the quality of incoming tourism to Malta - that was the idea. Following a lot of ups and downs, the Tigne project took off, with the outcomes everybody knows about, many of which are deplorable.
The Chambrai project in Gozo started off as badly positioned and stayed like so. Yet still, what was going to be carried out at Manoel Island will still be done at Chambrai. This makes nonsense and is incoherent with the decision that's just been taken about Manoel Island. Regarding Chambrai as well (for Gozo deserves the same treatment as Gżira), a decision similar to Tigne's should be taken. It's still not too late!