Talk:Malta Labour Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Malta Labour Party is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to write and enhance articles related to Malta. You can participate by visiting the Project page, getting involved, and helping to get the project started. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
This article does not appear to have a NPOV
Contents |
[edit] English name
http://www.mlp.org.mt/sitemap.asp suggests that the name in English (on the badge) is "Malta Labour Party". It is certainly MLP. --Henrygb 30 June 2005 09:36 (UTC)
[edit] Moviment Laburista Popolari
"Recently (2005) a new party has emerged out of the Malta Labour Party - bearing the same abbreviated name - MLP - with the name MOVIMENT LABURISTA POPOLARI." Why was this removed? It removes neutrality if removed. Maltesedog 24 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
[edit] NPoV
I've removed this template, as there's no discussion here to indicate that there's any debate (or what it might be). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Sure there is. The article does not appear to have a npov and also someone removed my work so as to make it less neutral
- No, you have to explain where the non-neutral point of view is; what is the problem? It's not enough to stick a label on the article and then say no more than that you think it's PoV. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Moviment Laburista Popolari
The reference to "Moviment Laburista Popolari" was removed because it is really an irrelevant one (wo)man show.
[edit] Moviment Laburista Popolari
I do not agree with the above statement and believe that there should be reference to the recent schism between the MLP and the Moviment Laburista Popolari.
[edit] Schism? New Party?
I'll keep the references to "Moviment Laburista Popolari" if you answer the following questions:
1. How many Labour MPs defected to the new "party"?
2. Can you mention three people who make up the new "party"?
3. What's the address of the new "party"?
4. How can I get a copy of its statutes?
5. How can I become a member?
6. Can you quote any recent press release?
7. Can you quote one occasion when it was in the news after 7 June?
Just resign yourself to the fact that MLP2 exists only in the muddled head of Anna Mallia. Silly Jason Micallef fell for the ploy and made it appear much larger than it actually is.
[edit] Moviment Laburista Popolari
>Well, the movement is there.
Go ahead. Name some of its leaders (other than Anna Mallia).
>For further details contact Anna Mallia.
That's something you should have done before putting in misleading information on this article.
>and by the way a statement was made on Malta Today on 12th June.
An editorial comment. And since Alex Sciberras Trigona and Maria Camilleri have since distanced themselves from Anna Mallia. You call that "a political party"? "MaltaToday" also spoke of a "schism" in the Nationalist Party because John Dalli's niece unsuccessfully stood for election of the party executive. Just because there is a media circus does not turn a non-event into an event.
[edit] MLP Emblem
Could someone replace the flag of Malta with the MLP emblem.
This was done succesfully. Maltesedog 08:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Schism
Ok, will leave the comments on the schism till the next appearance than.
[edit] Sections
Could someone with knowledge of Maltese politics please split both this and the Nationalist Party article into sections describing their history and their current politics, respectively? Right now it seems a bit.. cluttered, and I'm certainly not the right person to fix it since I have no idea about Maltese politics. Joffeloff 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Founding of the MLP
The MLP was founded in 1949. True, there was a Labour Party between 1921 and 1949 (something which the article acknowledges) but there is a distinction between the two parties including leaders, structure, purpose and symbols. For this reason I'm reverting the recent changes.
Demdem 18:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Demdem the MLP indicates 1921 as the date on its website. Therefore kindly retain the offical date provided by the party officials themselves. Revert edits. Maltesedog 19:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The MLP is today claiming its foundation as 1921. While Mintoff was in their good books it was 1949 (in 1974 Labour celebrated 25 years from the founding of the party!).
I tend to favour the latter thesis. The present-day party's symbols are all from 1949 including the name ("Malta Labour Party") and the party emblem (the hand holding the torch), matters which, in identifying a political party, are not insignificant. There is also a change in faces (after the split Mintoff "salvaged" only 11 deputies out of the 22 elected on a Labour Party ticket in 1947), policies (integration and independence, socialism) and well as role.
I do intend to write the history of the old Labour Party. Someday. Demdem 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some points on recent edits
to Mammu83
1. The percentage difference between the number of votes gained by the PN and the MLP is not very relevant here and will become less so as the legislature progresses. In fact, we do not include the difference in the respective histories of the parties whether it was minimal (2008) or considerable (1992). This information should be included under the respective articles on the general elections and I'm sure you'll be happy to note that this point is made in the 2008 elections article.
2. There will be sixty-nine MPs in the next Parliament. I have provided the link to the names as listed in a recent Malta Independent article and I will hopefully provide a link to the President's writ once this is published in the Government Gazette. Your constant reverting to "sixty-five" (when the numbers are 35 MPs for the PN and 34 for the MLP) and removal of the reference constitutes vandalism.
3. Same thing goes for your constant removal of the reference to the official summary of results of the elections.
Demdem (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1. If it really doesn't bother you by writing down that the labour party lost the election by just .5%, i don't know why are you messing around then!i think i am not lying by saying that!
2. Can you pls tell me how many seats did the p.n won in the last election?without being co-opted!
3. Anyone who wants to see how did the p.n managed to overlap the m.l.p can always visit the general election 2008 section!but the truth is that from 65 seats, the m.l.p managed to win 34 of them on march the 8th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammu83 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. I did not say that you lied. My point is that Wikipedia is not a collection of useless information. And by how far Labour lost may be relevant in the entry on the 2008 elections but not in an entry on the party.
2. The Nationalists won 35 seats out of 69. Those 69 are all MPs with equal voting power. You clearly do not know the meaning of "co-opted" in the context of Malta's application of the single transferable vote. An MP is coopted when a seat that has already been filled by a casual election is vacated for the second time. So far there have been no cooptions in the Eleventh Parliament. It has nothing to do with the Constitutional mechanism awarding extra seats to a disadvantaged party.
3. Which 65 seats? The Constitution does not mention a number, just says that it has to be an odd number. Labour won 34 seats in the last election. The Nationalists won 35. If my mathematics is correct that's 34 out of 69.
Demdem (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. The Constitution had 65 seats.the government,won 31 seats in reality.they obtained other 4 seats just to have the majority in the parliament!is there something wrong here?am i lying by stating this? 2. Then if i'm not lying why don't you leave that minimal information by saying of by how many percent did the party lose?does such a little sentence makes difference to you? 3. In my opinion in any sentence and nowhere i'm lying or not saying the real truth, and if anyone would like to see how everything did go in the general elction 2008 than they can always chech the wikipedia page.but i'dont think i'm doing anything wrong by saying thet the party lost with .5%!!! mammu83 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.86.135 (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I never said you are lying; you are wrong which is very different.
1. The Constitution does not mention the number of MPs expect that the number should be odd. Here the Constitution, now you tell me where there's mention of 65 seats.
On the other hand here's the official announcement of the elected candidates. I count 34 for Labour, 35 for the Nationalists. And that's because the additional 4 seats given to the government are regular MPs, equally forming part of parliament.
2. The margin of victory/defeat is not relevant and will get lass so the more time passes. For the same reasons, margin of victories/defeats are not included for other elections. Similarly, I noted that you were quick to delete the reference to the string of electoral defeats suffered by Labour and Alfred Sant. Rightly so because, even if true, these facts are not relevant.
As a compromise I have more the point to the "History" section where the 2008 election is discussed, leaving the first paragraph to refer to Labour's parliamentary strength (which, I repeat is 34 out of 69) as it relates to its current political role. I hope you'll be happy with that.
