Politics

Arriva vs The People

You can change all the bus systems that you like. One fact remains. No matter what the new system there is always one factor that is a constant. The Maltese. Apologies for the blogging lull. Summer. Wedding. Work. That’s what’s keeping us away. Now go explain this to Joseph Muscat and Manwel Delia.

PM meets Emmanuel Cini

20110726-081854.jpg

If last night’s reports turn out to be true it seems that the PM got over any qualms that he might have had of meeting hunger striker Emmanuel Cini. The reports also mention a fruity break to the hunger strike when Cini ate a kiwi. It was Emmanuel’s 10th day of striking and the hype around the man had all but subsided. While the positive side might still be that Cini did not meet a useless death for the sake of a transport reform, the whole story has given us loads to reflect about the way our press reacts in the face of such stories – not to mentiothe lack of ethics demonstrated by political opportunists.

20110726-081938.jpg

Apologia for the PN

Since I know that no matter what I write in this post I will be labelled “PN apologist” I thought of giving it a direct title and spare the superficial readers the typing. The final divorce vote has been taken and by now we all know which way the vote went. The conscience of the MPs who reflected the will of the referendum majority trumped that of those who still believed majority had nothing to do with what they decide. A majority of MPs, acting on their conscience, voted in a private members bill and Malta has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century thanks to the will of the people.

It’s funny how even the most “liberal” of commentators seem to have written this off as a Labour victory of some kind. True, they have not gone to the extreme of constitutional expert Luciano Busuttil who first posted this on facebook:

TODAY WE SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE DIVORCE SAGA WITH THE ‘LABOUR GOVERNMENT’ PASSING THE LAW TO REFLECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

Then, in a bout of euphoria he went on to impress us with his constitutional savoir-faire by adding:

IL-PRIM MINISTRU HU DAK LI L-PRESIDENT TAR-REPUBBLIKA JARA SKOND IL-KOSTITUZZJONI LI KAPACI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT. ILLUM IL-PRIM MINISTRU KIEN PARTI MILL-MINORANZA.

The “liberals” are busy pounding Lawrence though and let’s face it Lawrence could have only done worse had he donned a cassock and kick started an impromptu rosary in parliament. Fact is though that those busy pummeling Gonzi should be doing so with equal (or variable) measure to Joseph too. They still don’t get it do they? It’s one thing pooh-poohing Gonzi for sticking to his guns and voting Nyet all the way to the final vote and it’s another transporting this to the land of wishful thinking and collapsing governments. Here are a few inconfutable facts as to the why and because:

  • we had a free vote (and yes, Joseph is back to calling it frijvowt – see Times interview and his reply about Adrian Vassallo). Our parties did not oblige their members to vote in favour or against. As JOSEPH said – everyone was free to vote as he thinks. So NO – neither Labour nor PN or any faction thereof can claim to have in any way been part of the vote. We’ve dealt with this before and it remains a true constant.
  • the biggest consequence of the free vote is the shattering of Luciano Busuttil’s inexpert dreams. This was not a financial vote. It was not tied to the doing or undoing of government. It was a Private Member’s Bill in which EACH AND EVERY MP VOTED ACCORDING TO HIS CONSCIENCE. The vote was simple – do you accept the divorce bill or not? What does that say about the “KAPACITA LI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT”? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because this vote does not tell the President who has the confidence of the majority of parliamentary members. It tells the President WHAT the majority of MPs voting on a specific motion decided. Punto (and unfortunately for constitutional beginners) e basta.
  • What lessons do we learn? We learn that Gonzi stuck to his principle till the end. We learn that he was comfortable with voting no after ensuring that the will of the people is respected. That made many of us think less highly about Dr Gonzi. We also learnt that Joseph’s labour refused to take a position. More importantly we learn that Joseph’s labour is willing to take advantage of giving the false impression that it has a position on something – when it had nothing of the sort.

If anyone has been proven right by the turn of events then that must surely be this page, this blog and this blogger. Our two parties have confirmed their abdication from representative politics.

Voting PN next election translates into voting in chaos. A party without identity and values is not a party that can come up with proper programmes.

Voting PL next election translates into voting in absolute opportunism. Their weathervane approach to policy is extremely dangerous and is no guarantee for proper policies and programmes either.

Last Saturday I posted what I called a “Cyrus WTF moment” on facebook (it was later picked up by bloggers elsewhere). To me it illustrates the manner in which many have fallen for Labour’s non-policy hook, line and sinker. Others might put my statements down to “high handed opinions from abroad“. We’ve been there before – incidentally when we were told by PN stalwarts to shut up because they did not like what we were saying… it seems now that the weathervane has shifted for the Labourites and Joseph lovers to tell us not to interfere because we live abroad. Moviment Tindahalx indeed….

The Cyrus WTF moment :

 “Engerer says that whilst he and Opposition leader Jospeh Muscat do not agree on issues such as same-sex marriage, Muscat is open to be convinced on the contrary.” – and thank f**k for that….

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Unplanned

ARRIVA is due to launch the new nationwide transport system on the 3rd of July this year. Drivers are being trained, fares have been calculated and new routes have been on the drawing board for quite some time now. While the size and type of transition will justify glitches along the way there is an irritating feel to the kind of transitional glitches that have surfaced recently. Two of them in particular:

1. The Bisazza Street gaffe: The man who would love to seem to be the brains behind the scenes a.k.a Manuel Delia of the Austin Gatt ministry (and PN candidate to be) explained that the detour around newly pedestrianised Bisazza Street would throw Arriva’s intelligent information system out of the window. As pathetic excuses go this one takes the ticket. Even the online commentators on the Times – not usually the best measure for spontaneous bursts of intelligent remarks – pointed out that an intelligent system does not get “thrown out of the window” every time there is a deviation.

It then transpires that, based on the agreement negotiated by Manuel Delia’s government with Arriva, the transport company will be entitled to compensation every time government works will oblige it to reroute. If we were to take the Times reporting as a fact then it would seem that such compensation is only due in the case of permanent rerouting:

The contract also lays down a formula for compensation under which a re-routing of this nature* will have to take place. This is calculated by multiplying distance by frequency, with the latter being the crucial element in this case. (…) Meanwhile, Mr Delia said rumours that councils would have to pay some form of compensation to Arriva for closing a road off temporarily were “complete rubbish”. In such cases, councils should inform Transport Malta of the planned closure which would in turn inform Arriva, who would tell its customers accordingly, he said.

*we are not told what “of this nature” really means and are assuming it is “permanent”

So in a country where roadworks are the norm – blockages almost a standard and government planning as controlled as a Brighton Beach Party – we have a government that ties this kind of clause into a contract. At least there is always the Resources Ministry to blame if the government is obliged to pay compensation for a Transport Ministry sanctioned contract. (see ADDENDUM) The left hand blaming the right anyone? So Mr. Delia… I guess what with all the lovely clauses you negotiated you also have one explaining to the taxpayer why he must cover the bill for your half-arsed planning.

2. The Bus Driver Shortage. And since bus drivers are not in great abundance it seems that the Transport Authority is having difficulties finding bus drivers to run the current system since many drivers are off training at ARRIVA.

As the yellow buses struggle to keep the public transport service running, with drivers being taken up for training by the new operator, Transport Malta has stepped in to ease the burden by helping with dispatching. (Times)

You cannot really blame ARRIVA can you? Then again.. what were they thinking?

3. Fare’s Fair?

Unless I am completely mistaken the fare business seems to have been settled. ARRIVA will be going ahead with the resident/non-resident distinction as the tiny disclaimer at the foot of the FARES page will show you:

*All the fares shown above are discounted Adult fares for Malta ID card holders.  To take advantage of these fares you must carry your ID card when travelling.  Full fare information for non-residents, as well as concessionary fare details, can be accessed here.

There is also the ARRIVA SAVER card that will require you to download and print a form, trundle off to the POST office (33 available branches), pay a €5 administration fee and choose between a 30 and 90 day top up.To be fair it seems that online top ups are in the pipeline. Still… this will not be the last that we hear on discrimination on basis of residence.

Interestingly there is this disclaimer regarding Gozitans or what seem to be the Maltese who carry an ID with an address in Gozo to save on the Gozo Ferry fee…

Please note, the Arriva Saver Card can be used in Malta only – unless when applying the customer can produce a relevant Malta ID card with a Gozo address, in which case they can also use their Saver Card for travel in Gozo.

I cannot understand this one. Is it telling me I cannot use the card in Gozo for buses in Gozo? What else can you have if not a Malta ID card? What kind of difference/distinction/discriminatory condition is “a relevant Malta ID card with a Gozo address”? This seems to me a very convoluted way of justifying the double-insularity exception for Gozo (the same one that allows Gozo Channel to “discriminate” fees). It would probably have been easier for two companies to have been formed ARRIVA MALTA and ARRIVA GOZO – each with their separate ticketing system. But hey… who am I to know?

ADDENDUM: In a MaltaToday report we read the following:

It turns out that it was only on 21 April – five months after Transport Malta signed the agreement with Arriva – that the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs asked Transport Malta to consider the complete pedestrianisation of Bisazza Street. This meant the decision to have a fully pedestrianised street was left up until too late for any changes to the Arriva contract.

Which might seem to be a saving point for the negotiators of the contract. Sure, until you realise that this will (probably) not be the last time the government (and yes, it’s useless pointing fingers at separate ministries) will decide to restructure the urban landscape. The timing of THIS pedestrianisation is not as much to blame as the clause that allows for compensation for rerouting in certain circumstances.

 

Misunderstanding Eddie

I was left fuming this morning during the Ghandi Xi Nghid program with Eddie Fenech Adami. Unlike many people who have suddenly discovered how hard it is for a party to harbour diametrically opposite ideas within its fold I was positively pissed off at Andrew (Azzopardi) and at the way he imputed certain statements to this blog.

The program was its usual entertaining self and Andrew had the right guest under the spotlight. There really was no need to claim that J’accuse had asked questions of Eddie’s involvement in the divorce debate or that we had in any way criticised his apologetic stance vis-a-vis the catcholic position. Eddie is controversial enough as it is and does not need help of misunderstood blog posts.

Let’s be clear Andrew dismissed my angry fluster with his usual jokes – and as I told him at the end there would be no hard feelings. Ghandi Xi Nghid is on a roll at the moment and can afford a slip or two in the process – especially when the star of the show provides it with a good supply of controversial statements. What frustrated me most was that the very core of what Andrew misunderstood in my blog is exaclty what I did NOT want to engage in: because I think it is useless and counterproductive.

Eddie has not changed from the Eddie of the ’80s and ’90s. His position is perfectly understandable. He is no longer the nationalist party and as we explained in the previous blog post (Understanding Eddie) he has taken a perfectly understandable stance. Understandable does not mean that we agree with his position but that we can understand where he is coming from. That is different.

Eddie, and politicians like Eddie, are arguing against “relativism”. My favourite quote of the programme has been ignored by the sensationalists. Eddie stated (my paraphrasing) “partit li jitlef il-valuri jista jisfaxxa”. That is where I understand Eddie and agree. Both the PN and the PL “jistghu jisfaxxaw”. We have had ample proof that they abdicated from a position of principle ages ago. They are henceforth speaking from a position of populist relativism. The “free vote” is the culminating point. Parliament passing the law with mathematical calculations is the corollary.

The likes of Alison Bezzina (my ears are bleeding), Moviment Tindahalx et al are unwittingly participating in the sensationalist game. (I picked their comments on facebook – am sure there are more in the same vein where they came from). Sure Eddie’s “hoping that parliament votes against the law” is sensationally appalling. But he is a retired politician! Eddie hoping for a particular outcome should be as useful to the whole assessment as Mintoff hoping for another outcome. It isn’t. But they do not realise it!

What worries me much more is that Andrew (in the programme) defaulted on the opportunity to highlight the democratic deficit that Eddie’s position actually creates. When Eddie says that moral issues are not for voting upon as parties he creates that vacuum. When Eddie says that a party without values can disband he admits the contradiction. This is why I was angry at Andrew running down the very very uselessly distracting track of the role of religion and tolerance.

This has nothing to do with tolerance and alot to do with parties being clear about what they have to offer and obliging their members to follow suit. The biggest danger in this whole mess is the vacant minefield unleashed by Labour’s Free Vote. We said it at the beginning and say it again: No to Free Vote because a Free Vote is an abdication from representative rights.

Parties need to have the balls to stick by their principles. If the PN wants to be an anti-divorcist conservative party it is free to do so. It should cut the bull about the social-liberals that need being taken care of. Who would we elect then? A Hodge-podge of indecisive conservative/liberals who would unleash their conscience on matters of state at every opportunity?

That is why we should not be spoofing Eddie and calling him a dinosaur. We should be joining him and pointing our fingers at the farces who represent us in parliament. We should EXPECT our parties to represent clear values – and not a pick and mix that represents no one but their MPs individual conscience.

Let’s not make Andrew’s mistake and get lost in the translation… stop misunderstanding Eddie and ask more questions of the fools who are really trying to take us all for a ride.

P.S. Andrew is a very nice guy. I am sure he understands my anger on this point. I must also make it clear that he offered to read a clarification in the second part of the programme and I refused because I thought that the damage had already been done. Hu hsieb Dru.

The Wasted Vote

So you voted PN last election? You got Lawrence Gonzi and Austin Gatt. You got David Agius and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. You got Edwin Vassallo and Tonio Fenech. You got Tonio Borg and Karl Gouder. You got the party that is anti-divorce on paper but can wake up one morning and spring a private members bill surprise. You’ve also got Joe Saliba to thank for those sleepless nights conferring profession after profession on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – from dentist to farmer to press card bearing journalist. Don’t worry though… if you’ve got a liberal streak in you there’s always Cyrus Engerer and Frank Psaila’s plan for a “social liberal” face to save the day.

So you voted PL last election? Well actually you voted for Alfred Sant’s MLP but we know where that one went. After the tears subsided what did you get? You got Joseph Muscat and Adrian Vassallo. You got Owen Bonnici and Marie Louise Coleiro. You get Marlene Pullicino and Gino Cauchi. You get a party that wants to be liberal and progressive but fails to take a simple stand on divorce. You get the inventor of the “free vote” that means that whatever the flying flip you wanted to elect in parliament has no point anyway – because the individuals’ conscience is paramount. So was it pro-divorce Muscat that you were thinking of or was it anti-divorce Vassallo?

Have you really ever sat down and wondered what your vote translates to once the noise of the last carcade subsides, once the last billboard of empty propaganda is removed and once the last article of the spinners of hate is condemned to the bottom of your dustbin?

Funny. Last I heard, not voting PL or PN would turn out to be a “wasted vote”.

“I’m sorry, but in your desperate attempts at convincing yourselves and anyone else who is listening that if XXX becomes prime minister you have nothing to do with it, you are on your own. If you had the slightest bit of political savvy or psychological nous, you would know that you are setting yourselves up as hate objects…”

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta