Politics

(Austin's) Time to Say Goodbye

Austin is preparing his swan song. He told Herman Grech of the Times that he has been doing so since the results of the last election were announced at the counting hall. It may be so but the fact that Austin feels that it is time to say goodbye and “enjoy his wife” does not suddenly give this Minister the license to take us all for a ride – whether or not he is the transport minister. J’accuse has often had words of praise for the Thatcherite resilience of Minister Gatt who seemed to get things done in areas were even devils feared to thread but as readers well now our criticism is equanimously balanced.

The two-part interview available on the Times contains a couple of “whoa” moments that might be an indication that notwithstanding ministerial claims otherwise, the Time to Say Goodbye might also be linked to the danger of Gatt’s decreasing capability of squirming out of hot issues.

First there are the questions on the parliamentary cock-up by the PN regarding the possibility of listening to witnesses on the BWSC question. Gatt is adamant that parliamentary procedure does not offer sufficient protection to witnesses who might incriminate themselves. Weird. Weird because, as Herman points out, Gatt had no such qualms for the Voice of the Med investigation. Weird because different political weight of the two issues is absolutely no excuse for not proceeding in the same manner for the second. Weirder still because Gatt is a member of the House of Representatives – a house that would be performing its duty if it were to investigate whether or not public monies have been subject of corrupt activities. Gatt is not the advocate for any of the witnesses and is in no way duty bound to protect them. Is Gatt aware that he actually stated that the witnesses are not protected from self-incrimination when bearing witness before the parliament? One should hope that if there is something incriminating about their behaviour then it would be in everybody’s interest that that behaviour were to be discovered (and not sheltered).

Then there’s the point of parliamentary procedure. Gatt has been serving his country since 1976 and feels it is time to retire and enjoy more worldly matters than the business of parliament. Is it possible that in all that time he did not notice this lacuna and move for a law that remedies the situation. Parliamentary democracies in the UK, US, Italy, France etc are used to examining witnesses within their legislative assemblies. It is rather sorry of a member of government to practically compare the safety of our parliament to some interrogation in Basra that could result in self-incrimination.

As for comparative studies, when Gatt is asked about the discriminatory fees in the transport system he rolls off the names of a number of city transport systems that – according to him – discriminate between residents and non-residents. He asks us to do the homework. So we do.

London:
Oyster Card: You go to the visitorshop (click here)and you can order an Oystercard delivered to your home in Malta prior to your visit to the UK. Once in London you can top up the card and use it just like any other London resident and at the same rates.

Stockholm:

Notwithstanding the fact that “By one measure—single ticket price for a 10-km (6.2 mi) journey—Stockholm has the most expensive-to-use public transport in the world, as of March 2009” – there is no discrimination between residents and non-residents on Stockholm public transport. A quick tour of the Wikipedia site for Ticket Prices in Stockholm would have given Dr Gatt that answer.

Helsinki :

Same as Stockholm. The advantages you can get in Helsinki are obtained by buying Travel Cards instead of single-fare tickets. It’s an obvious mode of discrimination that J’accuse has already pointed out but it is a discriminatory choice for the consumer and not based on the nature of the consumer. Read about it here (God bless Wikipedia).

Talinn :

Talinn is the only one of the cities mentioned by Dr Gatt that does discriminate between residents and non-residents. With all due respect to Talinn it was rather, how shall I say, unusual for that city to be thrown in within the list. You’d expect a cocksure Minister to say “Hey, London, Paris, Barcelona, Rome, Brussels and Amsterdam” discriminate against non-residents. I guess Talinn has been bandied around as an example by Austin’s advisors. So I did not just look at Wikipedia (article here
 – the article does include the following unequivocal statement: Ticket prices for non-resedentials of Tallinn are more expensive than stated above!) this time – I asked an Estonian blogger- Andrei Tuch –  about this scheme. Here’s the reply:

J’accuse: Would you know if city transport systems in Talinn (buses/rail/etc) actually discriminate between residents and non-residents when charging fares?

Andrei (antyx): Yes, they do. Tallinn has a populist mayor who wanted to isolate his supporter base, bribe them with benefits. At one point the scheme was blocked because it was judged to be unconstitutional (nobody must be discriminated based on residence), but right now the scheme does operate. You can see the prices here.

There you have it Dr Gatt. Three out of four of the cities you quoted actually do not discriminate between residents and non-residents. It turns out that Talinn’s scheme was judged unconstitutional (not even at EU stage but national stage) and is only the result of “a populist minister isolating his supporter base”.

Time to say goodbye? Maybe. Just maybe.

UPDATE:

In case we get accused of biased reporting. J’accuse sent a query to the Talinn City Government with regards to the question of different fares. Here is their prompt reply:

Dear mr Zammit,

There is a slight difference between the prices for  electronical periodic cards for the city of Tallinn residents and non residents.

Prices for  non residents are approximately 15-18% higher than prices for residents.

There are no price differences among the single tickets and hourly tickets (paper tickets).

Different prices for the city residents and non residents have been in force from the 1st of February 2010.

Please find all the ticket prices from the pricelist which you can find at:

http://www.tallinn.ee/Tallinn-ticket-fare-from-01.02.2010

In case you require some additional or more detailed information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Eva Kärblane

Tallinn City Government

Transport Department

Chief Economist


Enhanced by Zemanta

The "IVA" Deception

JPO is happily heading a coalition of sorts that will campaign for the introduction of divorce. While it is definitely encouraging that persons from both sides of the parliamentary divide can join with social powers that have been stonewalled out of the institution thanks to the PLPN rules it would seem that the very participants are blissfully unaware of how this IVA business can turn into a great deception.

It is one thing to form a movement that lobbies for the introduction of divorce and another to choose a slogan that is an evident throwback to the referendum moments pre-EU accession. I am sure that I will be called the eternal cynic in this respect and that the excuse that “some effort is better than no effort at all ” will be thrown back at me in full force but the advocates of this new IVA movement should be made aware of the constitutional (and marketing) pitfalls of their arrangement.

By orienting their movement to a referendum style formation the IVA for divorce group has already conceded valuable ground in the battle for the introduction of the divorce. They are virtually admitting that this will have to be a majority decision in the form of a referendum and/or consultation of the people. They are allowing the parties in parliament to do what they do best – i.e. abdicate from any responsibility of legislating for divorce as they should have done decades ago.

Instead JPO & friends give the impression of being much more interest in the limelight afforded by this discussion than by the actual force of their argument. Divorce is not a majority question. The Bonnett Balzans of this world may come back at divorce arguments with the fire and brimstone philosophy but the endline in a normal democracy operating in normal conditions would be for the parliament to legislate and allow for a legal possibility that has long been missing in our juridical system.

Instead we have IVA. And IVA to what? As we have pointed out previously under Maltese law we do not have a propositive referendum. Should we have a referendum on the matter that would probably come AFTER parliament introduces a law on divorce – because our law allows for abrogative referenda: a referendum asking the people whether they want to abrogate (cancel, annull, remove) a law that has been enacted. In which case the answer for the IVA movement should be LE (no, I do not want the divorce law removed) and not IVA. Quite a quandary no?

But of course the PLPN will play along with the whole idea of a consultative referendum. It pays them because they can blame “the people” for whatever decision is taken in the case of divorce. We might have JPO & friends to thank for any eventual cock up…

Government Spokespersons

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
Enhanced by Zemanta

XI

November gives us not one but two days of remembrance. Today, the first, is the 5th of November – associated with Guido Fawkes and the failed gunpowder plot against James I of the United Kingdom. In six days time the second day of remembrance – emblazoned with the words “Lest We Forget” will once again remind us of the millions of dead in last century’s darkest moments. In the US there’s also Thanksgiving – another day in which events past are recalled. It might be because I was born in this month (and therefore a heavily biased Novembrino) but I always felt that the month was intended as a period of reflection before the great renewal and restart that would soon be celebrated just after the hibernation. Here’s V reminding us what he was all about and a Last Post from XI.XI. (Image from “the Shepheard’s Calender” – November)

V.XI

XI.XI

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tom “Desperation” Waits – November

Serenissimo (I.M. Back)

We’re back from a five day stint in La Serenissima. Two days of sun and three days of windy drizzle turned out to be a relaxing (and eventful) holiday. More about the eventful part later. There’s loads of bloggable news to be seen to after the break  but we thoroughly enjoyed switching off from the world for a little while. There’s been all sorts of items to comment upon from the sublime (Juve beat Milan) to the terrific (Tottenham uncovered the intercettato true colours) to the worrying (a parcel bomb addressed to the ECJ). Obama’s lost his majority in Congress, Labour has lost its cool with photoshop and Berlusconi’s just lost it. His latest foray into the world of political bumbleness included the statement of “better someone who likes women than a gay”. What will continue to baffle is the manner in which thousands of people will still vote for the midget on high heels even after this kind of gaffe. Still, politics has a way of suprising us doesn’t it? I’m looking forward to catching up on Tonio and Friends….
Accompanying photo is of a t-shirt spotted in a shopwindow in Venice. Subliminal advertising? It was a bridge or two away from a huge graffiti stating in no uncertain terms: “Lega merda”. Serenissima indeed.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Budgetary Woes

I’d almost apologise for not commenting on the budget but then again there is not much to comment about nowadays. Reactions to the budget could have been predicted much before Tonio Fenech opened his mouth and in any case J’accuse has never professed to be an expert in matters economical. Reactions to the budget on social networks served to prove that the critical mass of our voting population have been overfed clichés so many times that they are quite capable of spouting them back when requested “budget responsabbli” must have clinched the winning vote for the ayes. On Labour’s side, the realbudget.com gimmick turned out to be simply the yawn inducing assessment of what was not there. How else can you explain Labour’s obstinate refusal to factor, ever so slightly, the EU economic scenario into the context?

One of the most intriguing part of the budget is the increase in VAT on tourism to 7%. While the private sector began its whinge fest about how this would destroy the tourism industry nobody seemed to be aware of the fact that the European tourist industry is folding upon itself. Thomas Cook, one of the largest tour operators has recently communicated to its partners that it will be unilaterally deciding not to pay 5% of what it had promised. It was an offer they could not refuse for in the industry, the bulk provided by Cook is enough of an incentive for the receivers to hang on to Cook notwithstanding its bullying ways.

For a country that claims to be heavily dependent on tourism we seem to be surprisingly slow on adapting to the European mood and insist on depending on what we deem to be the veritable gold mine of mass supply from the likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Luton. Air Malta’s reaction to the budget was to downsize the number of flights to and from the UK – with the impact that 38,000 beds will not be filled come next summer.

Malta’s absence from hot deal sites that cater for DIY tourists from all over the world and the reluctance to explore new routes to the more stable parts of Europe really have me flummoxed.

Another point that has me even more confused is our inability to cater for the pension bomb more directly. Luxembourg has just calculated that the current rate of 14% of the population will change to 1 in every four persons being a pensioner over the next 50 years. I am sure Malta is not far behind on that ratio. While our current crop of politicians have proven diligent enough to steer the cake clear from the poorlands of the economic crisis, both government and opposition seem too tied to short-term gains (in the opposition case it is short-term fantasies coupled with irresponsible planning) to have an eye on the big picture.

Still. You reap what you sow don’t you. Remember that next time you vote PLPN.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta