Why does the government seem to be replete with spokespersons when it comes to the need to call a spade a spade or say something that is closer to black on white than the catch-all statements of your standard politician? Whether it is Arms or Aviva there seems to have been a proliferation of spokesmen (we have yet so read of a government spokeswoman incidentally) who are at hand to fill the gaps of information as their master commanded.
The relative anonymity of the spokespersons could be chalked down to a couple of reasons: (1) their closeness to one newspaper means that they will not reveal their true identity because they would have to explain why other papers were not given the same news at the same time, or (2) a linked explanation is that these spokespersons are really a smokescreen for a leaked ministerial idea that is best not attributed to the minister himself/herself for fear that it would all seem to be too un-ministerly.
Take the ministerial spokesperson speaking about Aviva Bus Tickets this morning. You’d like to know who he is in order to ask him a supplementary question. Of course, this being a government spokesman being quoted by a newspaper (and not a government press release) we also have to factor in the ever increasing possibility of the newspaper reporter making a hash of the quote. But first the quote (Times, of course):
Tourists will pay higher bus fares than local residents to ensure that subsidies on the new public transport system are focused in favour of those who pay for them through taxes, according to the Transport Ministry. For this reason, a ministry spokesman insisted, the difference in bus ticket prices will not discriminate against visitors.
Now I know I am being (legally) finicky but what the spokesperson/paper is missing here is that the whole point of a difference in rates between those paid by tourists/visitors and those paid by locals is to discriminate. The quote/statement/leak is unfortunate because it seems to, as they say in logic, tell a lie about itself. It’s an amazing way to get stuck in a rut by making things sound complicated when they are not.
The point being made by the Transport Ministry seems to be that Malta – or the transport operator engaged by Malta – will be fully justified in introducing different prices for tourists than those for locals. In other words they are trying to explain that there will be discriminatory fares but that this discrimination will be justified. But in order to say that, they actually say: “‘No discrimination’ in new bus fares (Times headline). which is wrong and misleading.
The reason being given for the eventual discrimination, albeit in a convoluted manner, is that locals pay taxes while tourists do not (really?) and it is the locals taxes that subsidise the ticket.
I honestly do not think that AVIVA will have a problem creating a fare structure that incentivises use by locals but I do think that all this fuss and clamour will lead straight into the hands of a certain Commission Européenne if we go on in this direction. After all, all that needs to be done is to look around how transport operates in huge touristic cities and get a general idea which can then be localised to cater for certain needs. I was amazed at the efficiency of the Venetian transport system which seemed to have plenty of local patrons notwithstanding the fact that a single fare costs an exhorbitant 12€.
The key it seems is not in discriminating between local and foreigner but in the length of the bus ticket. Not the physical length silly, but the length of time you can use it. “Oyster” style, rechargeable cards can be offered with the greater discounts for long term purchases. The usual other incentives that discriminate – not by nationality or residence but by age and regularity of use – would (should) work wonders for the regular user.
That is why any visitor to Venice is bound to purchase a three or seven day transport card that at most costs 55€ (7 days). Now I am not saying that should be the fare in Malta but a similar line of thinking would probably work (at different rates of course). Italian transport has long done away with most exchanges with drivers/conductors and the only familiar interaction I got with the Vaporetto personnel was the Venetian equivalent of “move back” in order to let other commuters jump onto a dancing boat.
Related articles
- Buses, Venetian Style – Venice, Italy (travelpod.com)
6 replies on “Government Spokespersons”
Ridiculous. I can just about imagine paying a higher rate for my Oyster card every time I go to London, just because I’m not British.
Erm ….
Aviva is an insurance group….. you mean Arriva…..
You’re right pots. I just can’t get the hippie from the aviva ad out of my head.
Who comes up with these ideas? Oh, I forgot….names are not supplied. A very tragic comedy!
Discrimination between residents and non residents is in line with the EU ?? The recent “clarification” makes things even more unclear…. TOM has some good comments (todays article) with reference to case law, but these seem to disagree with the advice given to Dr Evil ? what’s your opinion?
Darn. At this stage I can only point out the linguistic flaw in the original press comments. De facto discrimination exists the moment two people have to pay different prices for the same service. EU law prohibits discrimination but has a leeway (opening/window/allowance) for certain reasoned justifications under specific conditions explained by case law. Since I work at the European Court of Justice and my job involves drafting decisions for my judge I am unable to venture any further than pointing out the general lines of EU law at this stage lest the case turns up in court. Apologies.