this has to have been one of the closest election results I have ever read about.
With an electorate that size this is close but a margin like that is not statistically all that remarkable.
One thing which is not mentioned so often about the 2000 US presidential election because it tends to get lost in all the recriminations and accusations is the astonishing statistical unlikeliness of that one. A country of 300 million people managed to have an election which came down to a winning margin of at most a few hundred votes. Regardless of all the recriminations and accusations (which essentially were a consequence of the fact that the margin of victory was less than the margin of error) that is the most mindbogglingly weird election I have ever seen, and the chances that I will ever see another like it are miniscule.
"Even the most ardent defender of free enterprise..."
What's so 'free enterprise' about a government-owned island? Suppose the island were divided into privately-owned estates? What price harmonious development?
"Even the most ardent defender of free enterprise..."
What's so 'free enterprise' about a government-owned island? Suppose the island were divided into privately-owned estates? What price harmonious development?
What's so 'free enterprise' about a government-owned island? Suppose the island were divided into privately-owned estates? What price harmonious development?
I did not say that the island is owned by the government nor do I wish it so. The more private ownership, the better. Malta has a messy, and corrupt, planning system. It would be far better to be totally in private hands, obviously.
But just because one supports private ownership, does not mean that one cannot express horror at the stupidity of what private owners do with their money, like building crappy high-rise developments that ruin the view for everyone else and bugger up the tourist trade in the medium term.
Alisa, good question. Some large landowners that want to maintain the long-term value of their land and buildings might realise that creating a bad environment is bad for business, so they might stipulate certain types of building standards, aesthetics, and so on. Also, there is straightforward tort. A large skyscraper that blocks light from a lot of other houses imposes a form of harm on the latter, which can and could give rise to some form of recompense or settlement of some kind either to enable the building to go ahead or change its design. For example, if I buy a house that has great views and these are suddenly badly damaged, or my building is suddenly plunged in to darkness by a new building, this is akin to a polluter putting chemicals into a river that goes past my house.
The English Common Law in many ways is a great place to start; a lot of these sort of vexed issues get sorted out in a piecemeal, step-by-step way; no planning or government ownership of land comes into it.
So, Jonathan, you think that purchasing a house with great views creates a right on your part to the continuation of those views, even at the expense of the person who actually owns the neighboring property? Casting a shadow is equivalent to dumping chemicals into a river? And "enlightened" landowners with a properly long-term perspective have the right to impose their views on the less-enlightened by stipulat[ing] certain types of building standards, aesthetics, and so on?
That's a very interesting version of libertarianism.
Jonathan, the first one is not a solution that can be relied on. Although it is possible that the tendency to build ugly high rises has at least something to do with government regulation. As to tort, it means no one will be able to build anything, as any new building will block someone else's view. That's why this is different from water pollution, which can be relatively easily contained.
Hope this is not too much OT - if it is, you might want to consider a post on the subject. I am very much interested in this. I have recently had a similar discussion with a friend who is an architect and a libertarian, and we basically agreed to disagree. Not a very helpful outcome:-)
Well I'm with Johnathan on the aesthetics.
It is ironic that the Knights of St John were able to build one othe most beautiful cities in the world in Valletta, then you look back across the harbour at the crap they are continually bunging up in Sliema
and weep!
ugly developments make money for investors in the short run
False.
Ugly developements lose money for investors, as appartment prices in ugly buildings are lower than in beautiful buildings, and real estate prices in ugly neighborhoods are lower than in nice ones. People not always appreciate the enormous role that aesthetics play in the commercial success of developements.
Private developements tend to be rather beautiful. The developer does his best to make them so. Sometimes he fails, as we are all fallible, but not for lack of trying.
If you dig into those ugly developements you'll find the heavy hand of politicians and government regulation.
The best that can be done to promote aesthetics is free enterprise.
I agree with Laird; it is very easy to talk about a desire for aesthetically-pleasing buildings in the general, but when you have to decide whose aesthetics are to be imposed, then things look a bit different. If you answer, "the aesthetics of the mayority" or "the aesthetics of the experts", then you get goverment involved and end up with the current planning system or something similar.
Casting a shadow is equivalent to dumping chemicals into a river?
Not exactly equivalent, but close. Say you have a small house next to a small field. I come along and build a bloody great building next to it, cutting off most, if not all of the light. Are you seriously trying to claim that you would not count the dramatic loss of daylight as a source of annoyance?
Since when did libertarianism mean ignoring the impact of one's actions on others, when actual harm or damage to the value of their property was involved? It is precisely because these borderline issues come up that even an free marketeer like me can understand why certain building developments, even impressive ones, can make some people very angry and feel their own property values have been screwed.
Hah!
As it happens I currently live in Malta. For the past 3 days my house has been under siege by nonstop car horn honking as motorcades have driven along the bay my flat is situated against, flying flags for their political party.
The honking went on for 2 days, then the election came and then from about 9 when the PN won, the street party began.
The street party ended about 2 hours ago. 26 hours of non stop street partying outside my flat. Let's just say I haven't been too productive these past two days.
Anyhow, that out of the way. Onto the election.
The relief I felt when the Nationalists won cannot be overstated.
I happen to find the autocratic bent of the EU utterly disgusting, I detest its forthright intention to micromanage the lives of every man woman and child in the continent.
However the Maltese Labour Party are a real piece of work. They actually are worse than the Labour Party under Foot. Insipid with corruption, arrogance and self-importance, their policy base this year was "we'd like to be in power".
The Nationalists have promoted strong growth by lowering taxes and encouraging foreign investment.
Malta in the 80s had a proper socialist planned economy, which its economy is finally recovering from. The Labour Party employed blackmail, physical abuse and police oppression to suppress other parties.
From this dubious past has emerged a party led by a man who is quite simply the most horrendously thick, arrogant and odious politician I have ever encountered.
So why the slim margin? With GDP growing due to deregulation, a limited budget, taxes being lowered and the opposition having a manifesto in which 6 of their 'aims' had already been met by the incumbent government, how did Labour come so close to returning to power after 3 defeats?
The answer is quite simply that the Maltese independents are few and far between. People here treat their parties like football teams and are loyal to them irrespective of the policies or circumstances involved.
It explains why a 93% turnout was considered "low" and why I've heard dance remixes of "The Final Countdown" by Glam-rock band Europe blaring into my flat for the past 28 hours.
At the end of the day it was about whether the Nationalists managed to pull enough of their members (and independents) to the polls to make up for the vest Labour voting bloc.
Thankfully they managed it. Just.
But why should developers spend money putting up ugly buildings that people will not want to stay in?
In the Republic of Ireland various F.F. government gave subsidies and other help to developers to destroy 18th century buildings - because they viewed them as a sign of British Imperialism.
I am not saying that is the case in Malta, but I wonder what the ownership structure and the tax system look like.
For example, are the high property taxes on existing buildings?
And is their rent control on existing building also?
Town are not ruined just by people seeking after money - there reasons why people seeking money will act in certain damaging ways.
I am Maltese and would like to someday be able to say that I can vote freely in Malta. I have voted in this election but there was never any doubt in mind who I was going to vote for - even if I never even bothered to look at the names of the contenders until I walked into the polling both. The truth is Malta has been running elections since indipendence in 64 with two choices. One is Labour the other Nationalist. Alas - one of these is simply such a non-contender if you really beleive in democracy that regardless whose name is on the ballot, one cannot afford to let the one party have unbridled power.
Being in the EU has finally, one hopes, provided a safety net to the islands political system. Excesses, whether related to political freedoms, corruption or economic tug of wars now need to be seriously - very seriously - taken in hand.
Economic well-being is well on its way - hopefully due respect to culture (still essentially a colonial hangover) and personal freedoms will slowly emerge. the nationalist goverment has perhaps one last, hopefully prime opportunity to achieve this in the next five years whilst Labor does a very serious rethink why it continues to survive strictly on the support of its diehards without garnering the affection of a single Nationalist or winnig over the few uncommitted voters.
On the tort point:
Yes, if you cut off the light of someone else (so their home was in darkness) - that was tradtionally understood as a tort.
Various "public interest" or "general welfare" excuses were used to undermine this.