Poll shows that 71% of respondents are opposed to presidential nomination of the head of France Télévisions. 11% have no opinion; 18% agree with Sarkozy that it is “logical” that the state should name the head of a corporation it owns.
Unfortunately Le Parisien does not provide the text of the questions asked; Le Monde is somewhat more helpful, but one would have to see the questions to ensure that the wording wasn’t skewed.
Au delà des critiques sur la réforme en soi, c’est une réplique de M. Carolis – “lorsqu’on dit qu’il n’y a pas de différence entre la télévision de service public et les télévisions privées, je trouve cela faux, je trouve cela stupide, et je trouve cela profondément injuste” – qui a provoqué la fureur et l’incompréhension à droite. “Il y a certains mots, j’espère – enfin je pense – qui ont dépassé sa pensée. Ce n’est pas normal de prononcer certains adjectifs, comme ’stupide’ ou autre, ça ce n’est pas possible, vraiment ce n’est pas possible, a réagi la ministre de la culture, Christine Albanel. On ne peut pas dire ça du président de la République, de l’actionnaire qui vient s’exprimer sur France 3.” [link]
Minister for Public Administration Renato Brunetta launched, a little over a month ago, what he called a ‘transparency operation‘. The idea is to publish online all the details for the personnel of public bodies, including contact details and rates of abstenteeism and other absences, so that Tizio or Caio (the Italian version of Smith or Jones) can call these people to complain at them.
I’m not convinced that such measures will lead to a great citizen-led (consumer-led?) increase in the efficiency of public administration in Italy, but I do think it could be interesting to social scientists to see the types of people who get nominated to lead these bodies (in other words, are they all party hacks?). At the moment, the operation only extends to the quangos surrounding the ministry - the Scuola Superiore della pubblica amministrazione, Aran [public sector wage-negotiating body], Formez [], Cnipa [the computing service]) - but if it extends also to other bodies it could be interesting, particularly if nomination procedures vary between these ministerial appendages.
The committee on public service broadcasting in Sweden recommends that the name of the television licence fee ‘tv-avgift’ be changed to ‘public-service avgift’ in order not to annoy people when they pay avgifter on their laptops.
Update: the report is now available. Additional elements include VAT payment on the licence fee, with the differencein funds for the broadcaster being made up by a government contribution. Eva Hamilton is quoted as saying:
Det principiellt viktigaste och svåraste i den här utredningen är att utredaren föreslår att public service ska få statsstöd utöver tv-licenserna, alltså en blandad finansiering. Statsstöd är någonting som varken Sveriges Radio eller Sveriges Television vill ha därför att det ger ett beroende till politiskt godtycke. Vi vill inte att finansministern kanske ena dagen är sur på ett inslag i Rapport och dagen därpå har att besluta om hur mycket pengar public service ska ha, säger Eva Hamilton, vd för SVT.
The most important and most difficult thing in principle in this report is the committee’’s suggestion that the public service should get state support in addition to the tv–licence - that is, a mixed finance system. State support is something neither Sveriges Radio nor Sveriges Television wants, since it leads to dependence on political approval. We don’t want the finance minister one day to get upset at a piece on ‘Rapport’ and then the next day have to decide on how much money the public service broadcasters should get.
From the comments in this Le Monde article it seems that Sarkozy has actually thought about this, and wasn’t speaking in impromptu fashion.
This suggestion goes against the trend of moving such appointments away from the executive. Reaction is somewhere between hostile and incensed.
The argument in favour of presidential nomination is that too often the current practice of public auditions by the candidates for the post of President ofFrance Télévisions rewards those who are all flash, no substance. Pretty weak argument, I would have thought.
My paper on the 2008 election and vote shifts between the parties has now been published at CADMUS, the EUI’s online repository.
More electoral reform in the air - this time not for national elections, but for next year’s European Parliament elections. Veltroni has come out in favour of a watered-down threshold of 3%, compared to the 5% originally proposed.
Why is Veltroni doing this? Presumably he wants to preserve those other opposition parties - the radical left, the UDC - in order to prevent the centre-right from gobbling up more space along the political spectrum. It seems pretty cautious, and also (implicitly) to assume that the PD faces strong limits to growth which would prevent it from mopping up votes that might otherwise go to the UDC and the radical left.
ADNKronos has learned that the PdL is preparing to deposit in the Senate draft legislation to reduce the licence fee for Rai. “Objectively”, said Senator Alessio Butti, member of the parliamentary watchdog commission, “the licence fee is extremely high. But it’s a tax, and as such should be paid. More than abolition, therefore, it’s possible to imagine a reduction, first of all for the less well-off, and, subsequently, more generally”.Il Pdl, a quanto apprende l’ADNKRONOS, si appresta a depositare in Parlamento, al Senato, un disegno di legge per la riduzione del canone di abbonamento Rai. “Oggettivamente -dice il senatore Alessio Butti, componente della commissione di Vigilanza- il canone e’ molto elevato. Ma e’ un’imposta e come tale va pagata. Piu’ che l’abolizione, quindi, e’ possibile immaginare una riduzione, prima per le fasce piu’ deboli e poi, in un secondo momento, generalizzata”.
“Objectively”, the Rai licence fee is not extremely high.
| Broadcaster | Licence fee (€) |
|---|---|
| Rai | 104 |
| BBC | 170.5 |
| RTÉ | 160 |
| SVT | 217 |
| DR | 303 |
(Or see Rai’s own graphic).
The opposition is up in arms about the proposal of the Justice Minister, Angelino Alfano, to place restrictions on the use of telephone interceptions by investigating magistrates.
It’s hard to make the case against some limitation, since the number of wiretaps in Italy dwarfs that of other countries. Affari Italiani claims that 80,000 wiretap requests were made and authorised in 2007, with around 125,000 wiretaps ongoing (unfortunately, I can’t find the ministerial data they cite).The equivalent figures for the UK, according to the 2006 report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner (published with considerable delay) are 1,435 requests granted, 797 interceptions ongoing at the end of year.
Additionally, the proposal to restrict wiretaps to crimes involving terrorism or the mafia is, while somewhat restrictive, not too far from current restrictions in the UK, where the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act restricts wiretaps to ’serious crimes’ (involving violence, a group with a determinate end, or large financial gain, according to section 81 of the Act).
Finally, if it is true that excluding crimes of corruption would seem “a defence of the political caste”, in the words of Roberto Castelli, then the Lega would be shocked by the Wilson Doctrine, which prevents wiretapping of MPs, and which was roundly criticised by theInterception of Communications Commissioner in 2005/6.
All this, of course, is not to say that the proposals ought to be approved as they are. Whilst there is still no text, it is at least in theory possible that restrictions could complicate ongoing trials - involving Berlusconi’s involvement in Saccà’s corruption trial, discussed before. (Though apparently this would be in conflict with the principle of tempus regit actum, or Italian lawyerese for “no retroactivity here, please”).
