Tag: BWSC

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

My Cousin Bondi

This is a tale of two cousins. One is a self-professed journalist who has a time slot on national television the other is a thatcherite minister in the Maltese government. J’accuse does not normally take to the “pink” style references of familial links and the like but this time the coincidental operations of two cousins – one of whom we still admire – merited an appreciative pointer from this ever cynical blog.

First was the “journalism above all bloke”. This week there was another self-referential program about… himself. Or rather about the fact that assertions made by him in an earlier program did not sell very well to a large part of the population. Bondi must have been reading the news for a couple of weeks now for he planned a program full of clips and cuts from everything under the sun. Admittedly. and sticking to his philosophy, all references he read or saw or heard were to himself and his program. So he set up a new one in order to disprove his detractors.

He had planned a lovely jubbly program complete with an interview with Finance Minister Tonio Fenech. It would be a program in which he would prove that PL’s campaign depicting him as a statistic fabricating lackey for the nationalist government is completely cuckoo. It would all be as slick as a gelled hairdo. It would be. Until Bondi discovered much to his chagrin “a few minutes before the program began” (as he repeated ad nauseam) that a welcoming delegation from the PL were waiting at the studios complete with special guest Charles Mangion.

Bondi was as surprised as Alfred Sant must have been when he saw JPO sitting in the journalist benches on that fateful afternoon. He could not call for security and have the offending intrusion on his orchestrated program removed. He would have liked to. But he could not. Instead he smiled and gave Kurt Farrugia a “ma gara xejn” nod. And so the program began. It took a bouncy Bondi a full six minutes to settle down and actually start the program – not before flushing the cameras with caveats and mumbling sorry excuses about how a presenter of his international stature had been caught pants down by a rare sly move from the PL marketing team. He would have to go ahead with the program with the “adversary” in the studio watching every step.

Throughout the first part of the program (there’s a limit to how much bull we can stomach for you readers) we could feel Bondi’s discomfort as he squirmed from one figure to the next. He jumped from “zball zghir nibdluh” to “kollha l-istess baqghu il-figuri” with the grace of a clumsy donkey ride on a hot summer beach. Whenever he felt he was losing grasp of the situation (read: the program was not going according to script) he cannonballed onto Mangion with pleas for the labour parliamentarian not to “Set the agenda”. In Bondi’s mind, anything that risks disproving his theories involves setting the agenda.

Pity that Mangion was a feeble lamb and failed to live up to the occasion. He should have damn well insisted that the Beta tape he was carrying be shown. It was after all a table of figures and not – as Bondi seemed to imply – a porn video of god know what libellous nature. That Bondi managed to brush away the presentation with a feeble: “mhux fair ghax gibtha tard” spoke volumes of the worry that had planted itself firmly in the presenter’s mind. Truth is that Bondi cannot and will not take on his critics fair and square at equal arms. He needs to dance around and manage the show with clips that can be shifted and moved around at will. Even if Bondi was right, or half right – the manner in which he chooses to refute criticism makes him stink of wrong. Very wrong.

Which brings me to the much admired (in these circles) Austin. Among the sanscouillistes even the man with half a ball is king. Gatt seems to be loaded with such attributes (we are always speaking on a metaphorical level of course – I have no idea (or interest) what Gatt carries in his pants) and as such has often borne the brunt of audacious measures. Which makes his pussyfooting and excuse mongering in the BWSC affair all the more suspicious. Unlike Cousin Bondi, Gatt has never feared opposition and a good battle and prefers to take it head on.

Reading the script of the parliamentary accounts committee interview of the Auditor General was a bit of a throwback to kafquesue big brother readings. The quizzing of the AG by Austin Gatt had a bit of a stalinist feel about them that made more noise for what was not being said than what was being said. The “smoke without fire” metaphor had been stretched beyond limits. The AG had said ab initio that while all the investigations left a stinky smell of something fishy he had not managed to put his finger on the pile of stinking fish. Why then would we need the charade of Austin Gatt asking question after question about every stage to point out that no evidence was found? Had the AG not already said that?

It sounded like Pope Urban VIII vs Galileo:

He listed almost ten stages of the entire process and the persons involved during the decision process, and after each case, he asked the Auditor if there was any evidence that these people had been corrupted.

The Auditor General replied: “there was no evidence.”

Neat isn’t it? Almost ten stages. Almost like a rosary. A litany. Stage I. No Evidence. Stage II. No Evidence. Stage III. No Evidence. Stage IV. No evidence. etc etc. Ora Pro Nobis. Turris Eburniae and all.

In view of the information available to the Audit office. No corruption was found Mifsud (the AG) said, however he did add that “there had been lack of cooperation from some people who the NAO had questioned.”

Eppur si muove right? Not really. The nationalist inquisition is probably routing for an open and shut case. Austin Gatt had skillfully (not without causing a ruckus at the PMs office) set the agenda for the PAC in much the same manner as a Bondiplus programme. The obstinacy with which he opposes the calling of forgetful witnesses (a parallel with calciopoli perhaps) is baffling. Again. Whether he is right or wrong Austin Gatt’s methodology in this business has fouled the whole reasoning. The press that Bondi scours so assiduously for references to himself have been unanimous in criticising Gatt’s modus operandi this time round. He was painfully aware of this during his interview with Herman Grech.

So there you have it. Cousins Gatt and Bondi display similar traits when it comes to attempting to control a PR exercise gone wrong. These damn Gozitans… what is it they say about burning good ones?

Quotes from MaltaToday report.

Categories
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
Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Stable government and its price

So David Cameron got to move to number 10 after all. With a little help from his new-found friends, Cameron (and Clegg) ushered in an era of “collaborative politics” that promises to combine effective representation with reasoned administration for the greater good of the people. The much-maligned monster that is coalition government settled in and is already working on an Emergency Budget to tackle the continuing ails of the economy (British, European and worldwide). And there we were thinking that pesky third parties would ruin the show.

When the pros and cons of coalition governments are being discussed, the question of stable government always figures as one of primary concern. The fear of government breaking down or collapsing mid-term and of provoking multiple elections over short spans of time have been one of the main arguments against the possibility of coalition governments – that and the ugly duckling of a “kingmaker” party – a minor party able to call the shots on who gets to form a government.

Whenever such considerations are made we are making implied choices between stronger representation and stable government. The implication seems to be that perfect, proportional representation is not conducive to stable government. In a way that is because, given our “black or white” bipartisan all-or-nothing approach, we are automatically suspicious of compromise politics and confidence building. But is our “stable government” system really so perfect after all?

Stable or bust

Speaking to the party faithful at the PN General Council on Friday, minister Tonio Borg reassured those present that “the government will be safeguarding the people’s clear verdict given in the general election two years ago which was for the Nationalist Party to govern the country for five years.” This was Tonio’s summary refusal of the PL thesis of a government hanging onto power by its talons. Forget Auditor General investigations, forget disquisitions on Erskine-May and forget companies with ugly acronyms like BWSC.

It’s all about who is in power for five years. The reverse side of the coin is the same. Look at the fracas in parliament – the yelling, the motions, counter-motions, the childish insults and defences (you’re drunk and she’s pregnant – oh the shame) – it all boils down to one thing and one thing only: the PL wanted so desperately to bring this one seat-majority government crumbling down (on a vote which technically does not do that) and to undermine whatever sense of legitimacy GonziPN still has to govern.

gonzidhondt

When the results of the last election were out, our Bertoon had Gonzi celebrating on a small bucket representing his “relative majority”. A party that garnered less than 50 per cent of the vote in the country would govern, thanks to a constitutional mechanism of seat compensation. Our caption read: “D’hondt worry, we’re happy” – a nod to the D’hondt system of calculation in elections – invented by a Belgian (Belgian? now that’s a sure source for stable governments). The toon was our way of saying “at least someone’s happy”. Sure. GonziPN had every right to be happy as the next legitimate government of the nation, having snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. But was the voter really getting a good deal in constitutional and representative terms?

The cost of ‘stable government’

Two years ago a party that had a 1,500 vote advantage over the next party that had failed to get to the 50 per cent threshold could claim two extra seats in “constitutional compensation”. Those two extra seats (voting value approximately 7,000) are given to the party with the relative majority in order to ensure that it can govern for the next five or so years – assuming that all the members on its side of the House will vote in its favour.

So we have constructed our “stable government” around a fictive majority that in effect exercises something akin to absolute legislative power in parliament. If government wills it, anything becomes law – unless its bench members decide (knowingly or out of fatigue) to vote against it. The Opposition may – rightly or wrongly – yell, cry, perform its least flattering resurrection of 80’s parliamentary thuggery, walk out in indignation and shout “foul” to an angry nation. It may do all that and more but, barring a revolution, the government is as firmly in place as a limpet – crisis averted, n’est-ce pas?

There is no coalition partner forced upon a party that has not obtained the majority of national votes. No coalition partner to act as a moderator of the more radical of the government policies that might only have enjoyed the favour of a national minority (relative majority it well may be, but it is still a government by national minority). The closest we can get to the coalition partner scenario is in the infamous “rebel backbenchers” picture where, for reasons that can be highly volatile (not as clear as those of an elected coalition partner), a fraction of the party in government decides to make use of his newfound disproportionate weight.

I don’t know about you but if that’s stability, then give me instability any day. Not that I would want instability, but this kind of conundrum really makes the examination of an alternative scenario with coalition partner worth revisiting. AD chairman Mike Briguglio wrote of the current state of affairs in an article that also appeared in J’accuse (Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly). At one point Mike suggests that the Nationalist Party might even pull off a victory at the next general election. What then?

Mike wrote: “The Nationalists can save their day if the economy recovers, yet, if in government alone, in the next election, we can only expect more arrogance, disregard for the environment, confessional politics and a lack of civil liberties and social rights.” The “if in government alone” bit did not escape me. It is obvious that AD of all parties would entertain thoughts of coalitions in Clegg style and Briguglio’s message is clear – if the Nationalists were to be part of the next government it would best be with a check and balance system guaranteed by a coalition partner.

bert4j_100516
Cleggmania?

The problem in Malta is that voters will weigh this option with the usual suspicion. Elections are depicted as an all or nothing battle themselves. The rules are such that – as I have shown – the trophy of governance is intricately merged with the trophy of absolute power at all costs. Even in such telling times as these, when the bipartisan representation exposes all its ugly warts, messengers like Briguglio will find it incredibly hard to sell the idea of a different form of “collaborative government” that has just been launched in the UK. Selling the idea might not be enough – without electoral reform, laws on party financing and a clear awareness among the voting population, we are far, very far, from being anywhere near the kind of movement that brought the UK Cleggmania.

Meanwhile the BWSC saga with all the parliamentary repercussions rolls on. Joseph Muscat of the Same, Same but Different Party has just presented his 15 points to battle corruption. The monster, once defined, failed to bring the PN government down. So now Don Quixote invents a few swords and sabres and bandies them about. We shall see how gullible the voters can be by the way they accept this new set of “promises”. In our analysis of the 15 points on the blog we point out (among other things) that:

(a) promising a working electricity system is just the mediocre kind of electoral gimmick you can expect from our bipartisan stable system in the 21st century; (b) you cannot fight corruption if you are unable to define it legally; (c) there is no such thing as retroactive application of criminal law; (d) when Joseph Muscat promises to implement a directive he is stating the obvious – he will have to implement directives when in government whether he likes it or not; and (e) a law on party financing must not be limited to “corruption” whatever that means – transparency means knowing even what are the “legitimate” sources of party funds.

Somebody stabilise that euro

I know it’s egoistic of me but I have begun to notice that ever since I booked a June trip to New York, there seems to be a general conspiracy to threaten my holiday. As if Iceland’s bucolic volcano and its random outbursts of paralytic ash were not enough, the combined effect of Greek woes and economic disaster on the continent have daily gnawed away at the purchasing power of the beloved euro, once I cross the pond to the other side. Also, if you please, those bigoted maniacs that fabricate religious excuses at the same rate as they strap bombs to their chests have upped the ante once again in the city that never sleeps.

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, I have “New York or Burst” (as Balki Bartokamous would have it) tattooed on my brain. No volcano, euro devaluation or fanatic terrorist will come between me and the joys of the 24-hour Apple Store on Fifth Avenue – open 24/365… beat that GRTU! How’s that for stable determination?

www.akkuza.com has been on a go-slow this Ascension Long Weekend in Luxembourg. We’ll be discussing stable governments all next week so do not miss out on the action.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]