Category: Campaign 2013

Categories
Campaign 2013 Zolabytes

Post Ranier – a zolabyte

A reader of this blog was inspired to write an essay-like comment after the post entitled “Your politics are ruining my country (and its future)“. I’ve decided to put it up as a Zolabyte in the hope that it provokes more conversation. Philip Serracino Inglott (currently pursuing a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Technology at Delft writes:

Thanks for pointing out Ranier’s article, which set my mind reeling. Here’s a brain dump of the thoughts I had after reading this and Ranier’s articles:

It’s nice to see Ranier put a wager upon PN’s technical ability. The implication of his argument is: if it should turn our that PL plan works, this would mean that Austin and Gonzi are either incompetent, or they intentionally deceived the population, or both. If the PL plan were to fail, Ranier would have to call for Muscat’s and Konrad’s heads, but equally, should it succeed he’d have to be the first to call for Austin and Gonzi’s heads.

Of course the corollary to that is that when the PL claim that they are certain that their plan will work, they are implying that they are equally certain that Austin and Gonzi are incompetent, or that they intentionally deceived the population, or both.

That much, I guess, they’d willingly do. But the implication is much more onerous than that for this case. The level of incompetence and/or deceit is variable. It finally depends on the magnitude of the project or importance of the decision in the context of which it was done, in comparison to how easy or trivial it would have been to see and/or avoid.

When PL’s plan is compressed to its raw basic essentials its basically this: borrow a bunch of money from private investors; spend that money switching from HFO to Gas; Gas can be bought cheaply enough that we can pay off the debt for the conversion, the past debts, and still have left over to pass on to the consumer as reduced tariffs. The private investor who lends us the money gets to keep on selling us the gas/electricity for a long time after we have sorted it all out. So, sure, he/she’ll get a tidy profit too, but that is why he/she’ll invest in the first place. It’s that simple really. Just that one basic idea — switch to gas — is going to solve of high tariff problem. The rest is details that require a lot of work to sort out, but should be run of the mill really.

But, if this is actually it, then Gonzi and Austin are not merely incompetent and/or deceitful. If the crux of it all is the choice between gas and HFO, then Gonzi and Austin must be stupid idiots and/or criminally fraudulent, if not both. And that would be very serious indeed. If the PL plan is to succeed on the basis of the documentation revealed up to now; if that is all a voter needs to know to be confident that PL’s plan will succeed; I can see no way that, once elected, PL is not also morally obliged to investigate the current cabinet for fraud and criminal negligence for their approval of the use of HFO.

Of course, the much more realistic scenario is that there are many more variables. The truth is that the analysis required to know if the plan is worth voting for is way more complex. Even if in the future the current government will, with hindsight, be shown to have made a humongous mistake by going for HFO, the matter is complex enough that one cannot draw a straight line from there to the claim that the level of incompetence would have been criminal.

But then, this means that the whole ‘energy solution campaign thing’ going on is just a charade. That there is no way that a deep enough analysis can be brought to voters until March, with sufficient detail, that they can make up their mind rationally. As Michal Falzon seems to have implied (from Ranier’s wording), voters with have to vote on an act of faith. And that is not democracy at all! That is merely herding behavior!

So PL and PN have put themselves in a rather sad position, unless they are willing to admit that the current trend in the campaign is undermining democracy, they have to up the ante, and imply that the other side is consciously and malevolently trying to deceive and de-fraud the citizen!

They have to imply that the others are not just “not as good as us” but that they are “evil!”. Since both sides play the game the election becomes a “final judgment” that determines who is on “the dark side” and who “has the force with them”. If any of the big 2 parties actually mean anything of what their garbled propaganda implies about their opponent, we would have to have a court marshal of the fresh opposition after every election.

Thank goodness, the only party that actually means all of the claims that it makes is the little green fellow with the good ideas but no clout or voice. After all, if AD had a bigger role to play in our political scene many of these silly charades would be quickly exposed, and we might have to actually think and evaluate substantial proposals before voting.

And who wants to do that?

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 7 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Categories
Campaign 2013

Your politics are ruining my country (and its future)

“Futur fis-sod” they say, or “Malta taghna lkoll”. Slogans, they’re strong and they’re loud. They get repeated like some mantra gone wrong and woe betide anybody who dare criticise any of their darlings because you are immediately tagged as an undercover agent for “the other side”. Malta’s very own version of McCarthyism has now polluted the airwaves and the ether. We’re only a few days in the campaign and quite frankly the debate between dumb and dumber has only made us numb and number.

I dared praise Ranier Fsadni’s article in the Times only to find my status host to a mass of foam mouthed angry mob stirrers – angry because apparently Ranier has not been equally magnanimous in his criticism of the way things are done. Quite frankly I do not believe that I need to defend Ranier but I rather like the point he made – which remains a good point independently of Ranier. His point was simply that the media should be more demanding of our politicians. The sly fox did not come down in favour of one party or another – he simply put it to the reader that “trust” is not enough in these matters.

Raphael Vassallo plastered line after line of research that he came across in his line of investigation. Which is fine. What I cannot understand is how some of the flaws that people like Raphael point out suddenly become ok because, you know what, even the nationalists have been guilty of committing them. So that’s all right isn’t it? Fast tracking EIA plans? Can be done because MEPA does it already. Oh goody goody.

I don’t know where to start any more. The parties have even got a monopoly on how they roll out their plans and projects. I criticised Labour for being too shallow on Gozo – and praised the PN for having concrete proposals. Apparently Labour’s proposals on Gozo are pleasures yet to come. Who cares if the plan for the elections means that you will only know what Joseph Muscat will do to create jobs on the sister island come the last week of campaigning? Which is a load of bollocks. AD are supposed to roll out their FULL ELECTION PROPOSALS tomorrow. Do we really have to wait for the PLPN to drip their electoral proposals slowly like some form of chinese torture?

And one final thing. There are way too many sudden declarations in favour of this policy or that for my liking. The parties have to make their mind up on that one too. Either their policies are a well thought of step by step process built within a holistic framework or they are just being invented as the campaign unfurls.

Which also leads me to this sudden discovery by other pundits of our greatest sickness. I saw that Daphne Caruana Galizia the other day was complaining about the Maltese mentality that “having an opinion automatically means that it’s right”. Well thank Jupiter that the message that we have been drilling from these columns for aeons is finally coming through. Maltese relativism combined with this dumbing down of the nation is a direct by product of the PLPN vision of politics. Joseph Muscat has put this development on a fast track with his “m’hemmx ilwien u kuluri” , and “il-Malti jahdem u jistinka allura bilfors il-progetti jirnexxu”. It’s a project, it’s Maltese and it will create work because he says so. No questions asked.

This is the Brave New Political world for which various rent-a-pundits and sudden activists are suddenly foaming at the mouth. There are those who will take whatever their party says like it’s the bible truth. Others are just rabidly egging on the team that has to get into power if only because twenty-five years have hurt and you cannot trust the conniggling bastards in blue. The world begins and ends at the feet of Norman Vella and Peppi Azzopardi and the ridiculously sterile BA guidelines. And if the leader bows out of a Xarabank appointment then let’s make a fuss of it… because Xarabank taghna lkoll.

Their politics is ruining the prospects of this country and its future.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Trolls and Elves in Hamrun

We always say that we are not particular to conspiracy theories and that we’d rather concentrate on substance than waste time with the mud slinging war. Having said that a few comments coming in to J’accuse recently got our attention. It’s not just the fact that the comment writer disagreed with what we said (may the lord send many of these dissenters to our pages) but how he said it. The comments feel forced and scripted, almost as if the author(s) was busy repeating the same stuff here, there and everywhere in – how shall I say it? – a propagandistic fashion.

Was there really a hall of elves busy assaulting comment boards? Has J’accuse been definitely pigeonholed into the “nationalist sympathiser” category as seems to be the trend and effort to date? Well seems so. We did a quick check on the IP address and low and behold the commentator was situated bang in the middle of Hamrun. Now it’s either someone using the free wi-fi at Borg Bonaci in High Street or…

ipelves

Categories
Campaign 2013

Promises and Plans (II) – Gozo

Simon Busuttil penned a good article in yesterday’s Times (Gozo on the parties’ agenda). This article is a clear illustration of the difference I have mentioned between empty promises and concrete proposals. Simon says (tee-hee) that the PN has concrete options for Gozo that can be contrasted to Labour’s vague promises of “increasing jobs and increasing tourism”. The difference lies in the fact that the PN is saying HOW it will bring about jobs. I know because I can list the promises here – so that should be proof enough of their existence:

  • tax breaks of up to  €200,000 over a three-year period to any new business that opens in Gozo employing a minimum of two people.
  • slash administrative fees of all Gozo businesses down to just 10 per cent of their total.
  •  efforts will continue to be made to incentivise cruise liners to berth in Gozo.
  • new measures will be taken to entice some of the more than half a million cruise passengers arriving at Grand Harbour to take a trip to Gozo.
  • to stimulate further investment in five-star hotels and to offer schemes that will help upgrade lower star hotels as well as farmhouses in Gozo.
  • Financial support will also be given to public events, typically opera, carnival and traditional events that can stimulate tourism in the shoulder months.
  • On their return, people spending at least one night in Gozo will pay the same ferry rate as Gozo residents.
  • Gozo will take a further step forwards in its devolution with the establishment of the Gozo Regional Council through an ad hoc law that will also formally establish Gozo as an island region in Malta.
  • a commitment to financing a final study on building a permanent link between Malta and Gozo with the intention of proceeding with the project subject to the outcome of the study.
  • There are other proposals too, such as further investment in road infrastructure, the establishment of a Business Park for crafts businesses and the completion of the Eco-Gozo initiative with a further focus on renewable energy and water catchment projects.
  • Committing 10 per cent of Malta’s share of EU funds to Gozo. This would be the third financial package for Gozo since we joined the EU in 2004. I reckon that, since then, EU funding in Gozo must have topped the €100 million.

I agree with Simon. It’s a mouthful. The proposals are there to be criticised and improved. Labour has not given us anything of this sort other than a show of hands about whether or not people want more work to be created in Gozo. There are some proposals above that need further analysis – how is the PN going to justify the tax breaks under EU law? It is important to read the difference between “to stimulate further investment” and “to invest” – they are not the same thing and the former depends on third parties. The Regional Council is a case of better late than never – it would be  good to see Labour adopting the general idea too (last time round Labour saw fit to even abolish Gozo’s ministry).

The point remains though. Concrete proposals vs managerial hogwash. Will Labour show us the money insofar as Gozo is concerned or are there “commercial interests” that need be protected here too?

Categories
Campaign 2013 Rubriques

Promises and plans (I)

In “the power incumbent” we saw how certain projects are best presented and put into effect once a party is elected to government and not before. The “best” in that sentence is of course referring to the advantage gained by the party in question and does not necessarily reflect any benefit for the electors. That is not to say that parties should be allowed to get away with superficial promises and sweeping statement. A case in point this week has been the declarations by the leaders of both the PN and the PL that (I parapharase here) they would not be averse to the idea that gay couples could adopt. The mainstream media took this to mean that both the PL and the PN have a clear position in favour of gay couples adopting.

They don’t. The only party to outrightly state that it is in favour of legislation for LGBT rights to include marriage, adoption and IVF is alternattiva demokratika. That is a fact. What Lawrence and Joseph stated was simply their personal opinion. We are far from an explicit promise to enact legislation in that sense by either of the PLPN duopoly. Having seen the dramatic protests and opposition to gay marriage in France I can only begin to imagine what would happen in Malta once the parties are finally forced to discuss possible legislation on any of the matters (gay marriage – not union or partnership, adoption by gay couples – on par with adoption by straight couples, and access to IVF for gay couples).

The electoral newspeak is switched on. You’ve been warned and remember – everybody lies.

Categories
Campaign 2013

The power incumbent

Not many people have pointed out a particular aspect of the Labour party’s grand plans for energy and the utility bills. Scratch that “not many” and think “nobody”. Beyond the partisan exchanges fuelled by marketing vs marketing, beyond all that the voter wishes for (irrespective of, and notwithstanding any critical reasoning) there is a peculiar characteristic of how this particular electoral bomb has unravelled. Let me tell you what that is.

In traditional PLPN discourse, Labour’s major “flaw” in its presentation has nothing to do with the lesser (though not less important) flaws of planning and detail. The major flaw is that this is the kind of project that is normally announced, embarked upon and bungled AFTER a party is elected to government. How is that a “flaw”? Well it would have been a flaw in strategic terms because under normal electoral circumstances Muscat would have got away with his tired phrase of “Inrahhsu l-kontijiet” plus a few clues about new power sources &c &c. Instead, also thanks to the dynamics of this particular election, we got the pre-project plans (yes, even if they are desktop plans) as a taster while in full election mode.

Labour is not in government. But imagine the PN had presented its White Rocks Sports Park project, SmartCity or Arriva plans with a Manuel Delia instead of Konrad Mizzi. Imagine Delia’s powerpoint on Xarabank with all the aiding and abetting of Peppi or Lou. Would things have been different? I doubt it. Political parties do not go into detail about their plans and projects before they are elected to government for two reasons:

(1) Because they can. They can afford to be superficial and speak in glowing marketing terms while burying any serious criticism under the carpet because this is a zero-sum game. It remains US vs THEM and reason has nothing to do with why they will get the ultimate voters preference. Labour can yell all it likes about efficiency and cancer but the truth remains that no matter how many technical flaws are found in its plan many many voters have already decided to go for them – because it’s either Joseph or MorePN.

(2) Latent Incumbency. I know we normally speak of the power of incumbency BEFORE an election. Government makes use (abuses) of its powers to favour the gain of potential votes. In this case the incumbency is useful for projects once you are IN government. MEPA permits? Directives? Seveso? It’s all relative. When it’s a plan for an aspirant governor that’s one thing but when you are in government you can conveniently play around these issues. Take the much touted SEVESO Directive on safety. It’s all ok for Miles Seaman to come and tell us about the need of insurance and strict safety compliance (more than ok actually) but then where have the PN consultants and experts been when we have had firework factory after firework factory blowing up in our faces?

Had Labour been elected (or once it is elected, to make the flag waving Historians, Musicians and Porta-Pundits of the world happy) many of the serious objections to its plan (and by that I mean security, safety, environment even before I start counting Euros) would be brushed aside because once in government YOU CAN. That’s the point really that should be drummed into all the asthma sufferers in the South. Once in government MEPA permits can be pressured into being, once in government a few “managerial” words about “one-stop shop permits, fast tracking, efficiency” will easily mask lax controls and the bending of the laws to the incumbents needs.

Need more proof? Ask the birds (or better the conservationists unless you meet some particularly intelligent Myna). Sure I am scandalised when I hear Mizzi dismissing legal requirements with all his talk about focus groups, expression of intent and roadshow politics but isn’t Mizzi just giving us more of the same? Same, same just different.

There is no real control of government and its power unless you get a fluke situation like the Franco Debono / Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando trap that GonziPN and its spin friends walked into in 2008.

This blog has recently faced an increased assault of being “nationalist” or “passive” simply because it has never wavered from criticising the criticisable. At this stage in the electoral campaign we still believe that both mainstream parties are pushing gimmicks rather than policies in the most populist of manners.

A concrete, long-term energy plan in the national environmental and economic interest will never be the bastard son of this election. Instead whoever is elected will soldier on with their particular version of energy plan basted together out of god knows what interests and god knows what political point of expediency.

And guess what. You’ll be voting them in. Thanks. But no thanks.