• 
• 
• 
• 

Finally, the result was what it is, much to the surprise of the MLP, who had exhibited a degree of quiet confidence that they were going to cream the PN. When I say "quiet confidence" I'm being slightly sarcastic, just in case your sense of irony has been dulled by the interminable wait for the result.

I'll not try to kid you: I was mightily relieved when it became known that the PN was the winner. It would be disingenous to the point of ludicrousness to pretend that I had disguised my political leanings from you or that I hadn't made it pretty darn clear who I was rooting for. And for the benefit of the experts on blogging that I've seen mouthing off about how impure this sort of blogging is, being as its part of the more formal world of journalism, or who seem to be scandalised that I have betrayed the pro-AD warm sandal-wearing ethos of blogging, let me point out that this is an opinion piece and this is my opinion.

If you don't like it, not to put too fine a point on it, you can mash it up with your muesli and swallow it.

So, rant over, the PN scraped through on a wafer. Actually, it was a wafer's thinner cousin, one that had been dieting for months. Reading some web-forums and between the lines of certain public statements made, it seems that some people have formed the idea that the result of the election has diluted democracy.

That's as may be, but the fact is, the PN got more votes than anyone else and is therefore legally entitled to govern, which it will be doing. That's way more democratic than getting less votes than its main competitor and governing, too.

Why was the majority so thin? That's a question that will need to be answered by the grey eminences within the PN and the causes addressed. The eminences could do worse than have a chat with everyone who had a permit refused by MEPA, for instance. Then they can have another chat, with all the people that MEPA annoyed by granting a permit, naturally to someone else.

From the chatter in the streets, it seems that MEPA - more precisely, its way of going about things - was the single most easily identifiable reason why many people were prepared to risk having Sant, now amongst the politically not-so-dearly departed, as PM. The tree-huggers would get incensed because a permit was given to someone who wanted to put up something in their back-yard, while tree-felling developers would get incensed when MEPA failed to give them a permit to rape some more countryside.

Clearly, MEPA could do, and very often did, nothing right, and the Minister within whose purview this particular poison chalice resided got the privilege of being reviled by everyone. A dirty job but someone had to do it, the upshot being that quite a significant number of people declined to scribble "1" against a PN name, if they bothered to turn up to vote at all.

Then there was all the mud, slung about with gay abandon by the MLP. Happily for the country, this was a miscalculation of epic proportions, since most people seemed to give less than a rat's ass about corruption, but in a scenario where every vote was to count, losing even the few votes that were to be cast by the squeamish few for whom corruption matters was a dangerous hobby for a political party to adopt.

For mud to be slung someone has to mix the water and the dirt together in the first place, and no-one is naive enough to imagine that the MLP manufactured all the mud. So a quick look into this aspect of the election result might be in order.

All of the above, and no doubt more, will figure in the PM's calculations when he starts to put bottoms to Cabinet seats. He's virtually promised to put some new faces into place, too, so we should be getting a new landscape of portraits on the Cabinet wall. Some changes will be dictated by circumstances, since the electorate's ingratitude towards people who have done fine work appears to be becoming manifest.

A more immediate examination of the result will have to be made by the losers, of course. The MLP managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory big time. Five weeks and a bit ago, they seemed to be unbeatable. All they had to do was turn up.

So, what went wrong? Just a few pointers, which will probably be ignored. Who had the idea that corruption, corruption and more corruption, leavened with a large dose of negativity, was the right choice as a main plank for the campaign? Don't you guys do surveys?

Did it occur to anyone that if you kept Sant away from the front-line, you might actually get to keep your advantage? Apparently not, because you let him loose in front of the cameras, chickening out from a straight fight with Pullicino Orlando (for all that the latter was in the wrong place at the wrong time) and making up policy on the hoof, to say nothing of becoming Aunt Sally to the student body.

And was it really such a good idea to let everyone know that you expected to win easily and that it was Labour's turn this time? Is the concept of hubris, seasoned with the memory many of us still have of what happens when its "Labour's turn", not something with which you are familiar?

There are many more questions you can ask yourselves but, hey, it's not really my problem.

While we're looking at the election result, it's time for me to get a few digs of my own in, personal ones and less personal ones.

First, to the hunting lobby: sorry guys, you had your chance and you blew it. Now it's our turn: if there's any justice in the world, spring hunting is finished and your influence on this country's affairs along with it. That was personal.

Secondly, to that motley crew of thinly disguised racists and special interest pushers, the special interests being more often than not their own: you've had your fun, now pack up your tents and get back under whatever stones you crawled out from under. And take Norman Lowell and his forty-odd (and they must have been odd) votes with you, why don't you? That was personal too.

Thirdly, to the AD: you're right, in an ideal world, your influence would be recognised and rewarded.

In the first place, this is not an ideal world, that doesn't exist, and in the second place, attacking the party within which your natural market resides isn't going to promote your cause. Yes, fine, perhaps people were scared into not voting for you, but you've pulled that line once too often now and it's wearing thin. Maybe if you hadn't decided to come over all holier-than-thou while trying to pull a few less than pristine tricks yourselves at the same time, you might have found some more sympathy.

As it is, you wanted to get into the kitchen, now take the heat and if your electoral asbestos isn't strong enough to withstand it, think about reverting to being a lobby group. Or even becoming a direct action group. Or whatever.

Your credentials to be the nation's conscience were pretty good, and it's a pity that things have come to this. Instead of standing aloof from the system at the moral high ground, you've become part of it. I know this sounds patronising but I don't mean it to be. This wasn't personal.

Now it's time for me to head off to a post-poll analysis session over dinner.

• 
• 
• 
• 
•