Category: Mediawatch

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Divorce – The Private Members' Bill

So the breaking news has it that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has submitted a Private Members’ Bill for the introduction of divorce. It’s a bolt out of the blue (or the fringe blue) and it would be good to see what we do know about the facts until now and what we could speculate about:

  1. Sources from the PN have told the Times that this was a personal initiative of JPO and was not discussed at the level of the PN parliamentary group. Will the PN keep its distance from the bill? Will it claim ownership of the initiative? Are any of these two questions relevant as to whether the bill has any hope of becoming law?
  2. The bill will not be discussed/voted upon before summer recess which gives the PLPN enough reflection time (and time to gauge the reaction) until the re-entry after summer. A well timed bill from that aspect one must say.
  3. Vote-wise we should definitely have PL’s MP’s given the freedom to vote as their conscience tells them. From this point of view PL will have the carpet swept from under its feet. The bluff of the “progressive party” with no real clear stand on the introduction of divorce is being called before the next election. The “divorce” promise will hopefully not be a conning addendum in the catch-all excuses for a manifesto come next election.
  4. Equally we could finally get a clear picture of what the PN makes of this kind of subject without either the hedging or the ayatollah style pronunciation depending on the interlocutor.
  5. AD has already welcomed the bill and congratulated JPO. No prizes for guessing where there votes would go should they make it to parliament (highly unlikely given the current attitude to electoral system reform).
  6. The dice are cast for the opening of a practical debate on the introduction of divorce with an actual aim and deadline – the vote on the Private Bill.

Well done JPO. Of course the bets are now open to discuss whether JPO’s move was another renegade mission or a convenient PN move that allows it to keep its distance and act with two heads – the mainstream line (still not ready to introduce divorce) and the renegade marginals prepared to accomodate a more liberal philosophy. Rainbow politics once again? If so hats off to Macchiavelli.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch

timesofmalta.com uncut

I’s the third time this week that the Timesofmalta.com editors have chosen to not publish my comments online. Now they are fully entitled to choose to ignore my contribution to the high level debate that goes on in the nether regions of every illuminated article. Since freedom of expression is in vogue right now we thought of creating a website where the comments that are not exactly kosher on the timesofmalta.com would be welcome.

We have the prototype up and running. The address is www.timesofmalta.vox.com. The “vox” in the address is quite appropriate as it gives a voice to those commentators with whom the Times has trouble dealing.

Incidentally the comment that sparked this action was a comment of mine at the foot of the Times editorial today. Ed was rambling about how nobody has commented on the Labour plan to tackle corruption and I just remarked that “nel nostro piccolo” we had already done so at J’accuse on the 15th of May. That was this morning. This afternoon and many comments later there is still no sign of our comment. Hence “TOM Uncut“.

The moment we have more time we will move this new blog to a new permanent base with a lovely web address that is sure to surprise the timesofmalta geeks. If you have any comment that has not passed the censorship lines be sure to follow the instructions on TOM Uncut.

Publish and be damned Baby!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Mediawatch

The Funny Politician

The weirdly named (for an Englishman) Lembit Opik is one of the Liberal Democrat politicians who lost their seat at the last general election in the UK. As he had promised half-jokingly during the special post-election edition of Have I Got Elections News for You he has now taken up a new career – stand up comedy. The BBC reviews his first performance in a small London club here (Give it up for Lembit Opik).

Listening to the BBC news review I couldn’t help but wonder about our set of Maltese MPs. Would they make it onto the stand-up comedy circuit? Would, for that matter, any comedian in Malta make the reverse trip to the benches of parliament? J’accuse has been guilty more than once of firing the allegation that parliament is made up of a bunch of clowns but what if we were to take that assertion more seriously? Could JPO add to his never-ending repertoire of part-time jobs and indulgences and find himself on centre-stage cracking an audience up with his tearsome antics? Would Anglu Farrugia bring an entire coffee morning to a standstill with his anecdotes ? Can you imagine the (Edwin) Vassallo and (Anthony Profs) Zammit double act: Did you hear the one about the lesbian couple who had a baby? Side splitting I am sure.

It may be true that our parliament has found its benches stocked with the product of the lesser art of radio entertainment. The Agiuses, Musumecis and Cuschieris of this planet were all a by-product of the “everything goes” and “radio is popular” culture of the mid-nineties but how many politicians possess the necessary wit to give you a good joke on the level of a Stephen Fry or at least a Lee Evans? Anecdotes about past generations of politicans make you wonder whether the odd Bonello Dupuis or Hyzler senior could have done a decent job of it but that generation is long gone. A good sense of humour, a good feeling with the audience and a large dose of wit are prerequisites for the successful stand up comedian – and I don’t think that we’ll be seeing many of those coming out of parliament soon. If it’s slapstick comedy you are after… then it might be worth your while to wait a bit longer and start reaping the dividends of this generations’ bunch of reps.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Legatus non violatur

The big three credit ratings agencies were threatened yesterday with fines and the creation of a new state-backed competitor, only weeks after European leaders attacked them for exacerbating Greece’s problems with downgrades. – The Times (UK)

Readers will be familiar with reactions by the Maltese administration to certain reports from particular institutions. “Audit” is the byword for a scrutiny or check that was originally applied to matters accounting but is now extended to such realms as “democratic accountability” and “freedom of press” to give but non-economic examples. The auditor is supposed to be as impartial as possible and his job is simply to report on the state of affairs – the idea being that it is up to managers, politicians and lobby groups to make do with the report as best they deem fit.

Recently we have seen an increased tendency to debate the validity of the auditor rather than the message itself. In other words, in these times of economic woes that might even effect the clear thinking of (non-economic) democratic institutions, there is a growing tendency to shoot the messenger.  A concerted effort by (Commission President) Barroso and (German Chancellor and French President) Merkel & Sarkozy has recently been stepped up with the intention to undermine the credibility of a very important set of “auditors” in this day and age.

credti rating marks.jpg
Credit Rating Chart

Europe’s continental leaders have targeted the three credit ratings agencies – responsible for the rating of governments and of their ability to pay their debts. The three: Standard & Poor‘s, Moody’s and Fitch (no relation to Abercrombie’s other half) have been busy downgrading Greece, Spain and Portugal’s ratings recently and were also on the verge of giving the same treatment to France. While Merkel and Sarkozy argued that the agencies need more scrutiny – a form of supervision and regulation – Barroso criticised the three for failing to alert investors on the imminent demise of Lehmann Brothers in 2008.

Barroso asks three questions:

  • Is it normal to have only three relevant actors in such a sensitive issue where there is a great probability of conflict of interest?
  • Is it normal that all of them come from the same country?
  • Is it normal that such important entities are escaping fundamental regulation?

Now the eagerness with which the “EU that counts” shoots down the three agencies is inevitably tied to the large amount of control that they hold on the mood of the market. their ratings are not simply an auditing assessment but any move of theirs tends to have heavy repercussions on the financial and economic sectors. Shooting the messenger is only half the story.

The EU does not only intend to regulate the auditors but seems intent on creating an auditor of its own – an in-house competitor. Questions will surely be raised about the independence of such a new monster. If the current three are not above suspicion because of the possibility of conflicts of interests what then of the new monster that will be financed by the very set of sovereign nations it is supposed to vet?

Barroso’s questions begin to sound more and more like Muscat’s quickly assembled 15 point plan to battle corruption. Loads of rhetoric and flimsy legal justification. In both cases they provide little solution and comfort. Back to the drawing board José (and Joseph)

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
iTech Mediawatch

There's no such thing as a free (Wi-Fi) lunch

“69  main squares and public gardens around Malta and Gozo will offer free wi-fi in the coming weeks, bringing the number of open spaces offering the service to 88.” That’s wonderful news and all those involved in this project should be lauded with more than a pat on the back. But is free Wi-Fi sustainable in the long term? Does this project fit in within a wider plan or is it just a play by ear routine?

MCA CEO Philip Micallef, PS Chris Said and Minister Gatt have all expressed their enthusiasm about this project “bridging the digital divide” and this is definitely the kind of idea that makes something like Vision 2015 less words and more action. We do not intend to be the wet blankets and killjoys here at J’accuse but it is important not to lose a sense of perspective. While it is true that this kind of service is “similar to what is offered in other countries” there is one missing bit of info in all of this.

Take Luxembourg. We had free Wi-Fi “Hot Spots” a couple of years back. The city center included well signed areas where you could access the public service. After a while though the public service became a paid service. You could  register and buy credit to access the wifi system. Free-riders could go to restaurants such as McDonald’s, Books and Beans (Pierre Meilak’s old haunt) and Urban for example. Like most European cities though the trend was more for paying for credit for public WiFi than for free availability.

Wi-Fi Alliance logo
Image via Wikipedia

When travelling in Europe you can buy credit with Wi-Fi providers like Orange, T-Mobile and others and use their many hotspots around the main towns. Sadly (for Europe) even most hotels require extra payment for the wi-fi service. Few (such as the Campanile chain) offer free wi-fi. The “free” element is excellent to get people used to the benefits of browsing when out but it costs money. My honest question is will the Maltese service be sustainable in the long run?

Lest you batter me with the anti-government critic baton I am genuinely asking whether there is a long term plan. It is all well and good to set up wi-fi hotspots and encourage their use but what will happen in a year or two when the accounts department starts to creak and austerity measures hit the service? I would strongly advise clear, up-front information – that the service will probably cost money in the future is highly probable (unless sponsors are found). Even in the case of wi-fi there is a cost… and government NEVER gives you anything for free.

Answers please.

Times Report

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Mediawatch

Programmes People Watch (II)

Friday on Xarabank. Where’s Everybody discusses Where’s Everybody. Fresh from their appearance at PN’s Vision 2015+ (a conference for non-politicians – whatever that may mean) Peppi and Lou debate Lou. With a little help from their friends. Here’s the “synopsis” sent round by Xarabank:

Freedom of Expression: Where to draw the line? Where is the limit? Should television programmes give space to ideas such as those of Norman Lowell or should these be censored or even banned? Xarabank discusses. Amongst others in the panel, journalist Lou Bondi, media expert Fr Joe Borg, Chief Justice Emeritus Prof Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici and National Commission Persons with Disability chairman Joseph M Camilleri.

You’ve just got to love them. Can you imagine the dilemma at Xarabank’s production team? …

Do we get Lowell?

But would getting Lowell answer the question?

OK OK. So do we get Lou?

And if we have Lou we need a media expert.

Is there anyone we can think of?

I think I heard Lou mention a Fr Joe Borg.

Ok. So it’s Lou and Joe right?

Yes. But no. But but but but that would be a bit too much like the programme on Daphne’s Blog.

What programme on Daphne’s Blog?

You know the one where they talked about everything but the blog

… ah that one. So we’ll just get two more cameo appearances – is anyone else talking about it?

Hmm… not anyone worth inviting…

let’s just get JoJo and spomeone from the disabled community – sorry. persons with disability – and have them talk about how offensive Lowell is.

Should be a good programme – after all people love controversy and Lowell.

Lowell – programmes people watch.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]