The Spanish Problem Of Rentals

"We have an obligation to put order into the tourist offer, the sector and coexistence. These concepts are very clear in, for example, municipality's urban plans."

This quote, translated pretty much literally, disguises - thanks to Spanish usage - the target for this "order". The tourist offer means accommodation, and specifically rented accommodation. The sector is the business of this accommodation. The coexistence is the balance between tourists and residents. The words were spoken not by a Balearic politician but by the director-general for tourism in Extremadura, a region hardly noted for its mass tourism and one without any "sun and beach". There's plenty of sun, very hot sun at that, but Extremadura's tourism is predicated on beach alternatives - the reason why it doesn't have mass tourism.

Francisco Martín Simón, the director-general, explains that the obligation extends to fighting unfair competition that undermines businesses which pay taxes and create jobs. In the region of Castile and León, likewise without any beach tourism, his counterpart speaks of tackling the problem through inspection, agreements with town halls, information and a "register of transgressors". She, Blanca Arévalo, was participating in a conference on interior tourism along with other regional representatives. The messages were basically the same in fighting illegal accommodation.

In Extremadura there are said to be 608 illegal holiday rentals. This is for a region which covers almost 42,000 square kilometres. Mallorca's land size is less than one tenth of this - 3,640 square kilometres. The total land area of the Balearics only barely manages to be above one tenth (it's just under 5,000 square kilometres). The islands' official resident population is almost identical to that of Extremadura.

In terms of tourism, one isn't by any stretch of the imagination comparing like with like. But in population terms one is. The density of population in the Balearics is massive even without tourists adding to it. The 608 illegal rentals in Extremadura are a drop in the Balearic Sea by comparison. You could count that many just by spending an afternoon walking around parts of resorts in Mallorca.

The exact number for Mallorca and the Balearics is hard to know, given the conflicting figures that are issued; or at least were before the rentals' legislation began to have a real impact. Earlier this year, though, the number of properties in the Balearics on Airbnb was 22,000. On HomeAway it was 24,000. Many of these will probably have been duplicates and certainly not all will have been illegal, but even Aptur, the association for holiday rentals, was recognising the scale - more than 40,000 apartments being rented out in an illegal manner, it reported in May this year. Extremadura is roughly ten times the size of the Balearics; the number of illegal rentals in the Balearics wasn't ten times the number in Extremadura, it was heading towards one hundred times as many.

In Castile and León, more than twice the size of Extremadura and with a regular population just over 100% greater, they haven't been able to come up with an exact figure of illegal rentals, but an estimate offered in May this year suggested some 2,000: one for every 1,200 people in the region. In the Balearics the ratio was around one for every 27. The regional government there has introduced fines of up to 90,000 euros, and that is the maximum for individuals, more than twice the Balearic maximum.

Andalusia was also represented at the conference. It does of course have very significant sun-and-beach tourism. It also has a vast interior. The approach in that region has been to enable legal registration. More than 20,000 properties were registered within the first ten months of the law coming into force in 2016. It is reckoned that there were at least 80,000 illegal properties, but even having introduced a relatively permissive regime (not totally unlike Catalonia), the number isn't going down markedly. In Andalusia, where the maximum fine can be as high as 150,000 euros, they want the state to step in, convinced that only national law, and a harmonised one at that, can really get to the bottom of the matter.

Whatever one thinks about the Balearic legislation, the fact is that the Balearics most certainly isn't alone in addressing the rentals' question. Whatever the motive for adopting legislation - to deal with tax fraud, the underground economy, unfair competition, pressures on housing, "saturation" and coexistence - the regions of Spain are all confronted with the issues. When one makes a comparison between two extremes (tourism in the Balearics and Extremadura), one can see how just much pressure there is in the Balearics. But Extremadura, as with Castile and León, Andalusia and other regions, share one undeniable factor in common - the Airbnb effect.

The Balearic government, rightly or wrongly, is castigated for its legislation, but the government, like other regions, is legislating against symptoms. It isn't the cause.

Twisted Knickers: Rentals And Tourist Tax

Knickers in a twist. Are yours? It could only happen in Mallorca. Holiday rentals legislation and tourist tax, that is. Oddly enough, it can appear that it can indeed only happen in Mallorca. Why? The island's success, that's why. It has held the tourist leadership for so long, it has become so ingrained into holidaymaking culture, it has attracted international media attention like no other destination for many a long year. It could only happen in Mallorca.

Are knickers in a twist elsewhere? Regarding rentals and tourist tax? Locally there may well be. Apartment owners (and speculators) have discovered that there are rules and that there are regulations. Talk in bars or in the local press is of concern with taxes. But the outside world knows little of such matters. Elsewhere, as in other tourist destinations, isn't Mallorca. These destinations compute but not to anything like the extent that Mallorca computes. What happens in Mallorca most certainly doesn't stay in Mallorca. It never has done. It fills column inches for the foreign press. Elsewhere doesn't. There isn't the same interest as with Mallorca. The island sells itself and it sells papers. Elsewhere doesn't sell itself and doesn't sell papers.

Here's an interesting little scheme for you. You'll have heard of Croatia. You can't not have heard of Croatia in the past, what, less than a week since the Balearic tourist tax announcement. Everyone's going to Croatia next year. It's just so the new Mallorca. It isn't because, given its lower capacity, not everyone will be able to fit into a hotel. It will be more the new Mallorca because the demand for (and supply of) holiday rentals will therefore shoot up, just like Mallorca's demand and supply have shot up. That's where the little scheme comes in, and it isn't like Mallorca.

Do you know that if you, as a holidaymaker, rent a property that isn't registered with the tourist board in Croatia, you could be liable to a fine of the equivalent of around 400 euros? You didn't know? You now do. Why the fine? Because of the law. Isn't legislation, aren't regulations such a damn nuisance? Don't governments know anything about tourism? Like the Balearic government doesn't know anything. Well, the Balearic government and indeed the Spanish government do not have laws which mean that a holiday rentals' guest in Croatia follows the same rules as hotels. The owner has to register you with the police. Croatia wants to know who's in the country.

The Croatian owner can be hit with a fine for not registering the guest on top of the fine for not having registered the property as a business and for not therefore having gone along with the scheme of classification of properties (akin to the hotel star rating). The fines aren't as huge as they now are in Mallorca, but the principle is exactly the same. Knickers in a twist in Croatia?

There is a tourist tax in Croatia as well. It isn't as high as Mallorca, but there is a tax nevertheless. Just as the Greek islands, everyone's other darlings for next year, will have a tourist tax of up to four euros per room per night. Fancy anywhere else? Malta, for instance? It has something known as the Environmental Contribution. Sounds familiar? Sort of, yes. Again it isn't at the same rate as Mallorca (and of course the rest of the Balearics), but there is still a tax. In Bulgaria the tax might be up to eight euros per person per stay. In French resorts, the old cap of 1.50 euros per night that could be charged went up two years ago. No one ever mentions the French tax, yet it has existed for years, which is the same in Germany. Turkey doesn't have a tourist tax but does have a charge for an entry visa. The cost for a family of four is roughly what it will cost from next year for a family of four (two kids under-16 who are exempt) for a week at a Mallorca five-star hotel.

There is only one other region of Spain where there is a tourist tax - Catalonia. Its tax was introduced in late 2011, and its star-rating system for private accommodation is much the same as Croatia's. In Valencia - Benidorm and all - there are holiday rentals rules that are not dissimilar to those in the Balearics. But not even Benidorm makes its way so determinedly into the media pages. And nor does Portugal, with requirements for inclusion of holiday rental licence registration numbers in website adverts that are identical to those in Mallorca and the Balearics.

You see, it can only happen in Mallorca. All those twisted knickers, that is. Yes, the tourist tax is generally higher than elsewhere (not all cities, though), but other governments might just fancy a little increase and you'll probably never hear about it.

Snow White And The Seven PSOE Dwarfs

"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most morally superior of them all?" The mirror answered, as mirrors do: "you are, oh Queen of Podemos". With this, Her Royal Bootness, Laura Camargo, cackled as she returned to her plans, plotting governmental domination of Snow White, the sweet and friendly Francina. Meanwhile, the Queen's not entirely faithful Humbert, Alberto Jarabo, was seeking to make amends for not having metaphorically killed Snow White. Podemos will be inside the government come October, he announced to the dwarfs of PSOE. And the tourist tax will be doubled, he shouted. The dwarfs nodded in humble obedience. He stopped short, for now, in cancelling Christmas, though this could be a demand for passing next year's budget, as is the 100% increase to the tourist tax and the elimination of the 50% discount that currently exists for April (and possibly also March).

Snow White and the PSOE dwarfs were preparing to go to their tiny cottage for the party's congress. Snow White told the dwarfs to be less subservient to the Queen. Podemos claim moral superiority, yet this is an expression of populism, she opined. The Queen and Humbert, to say nothing of the Lords of Podemos in Madrid, can engage in "bad practice" and brush it off as forgivable because they believe they are morally superior. PSOE will not bow to such populism, she made clear. PSOE will fight corruption transparently and PSOE will demonstrate that the party will do what it says it will do. The dwarfs all cheered, albeit they weren't entirely sure what she was talking about. There again, very few people are.

At the cottage, the idea will be to plan their own dominance, but the dwarfs were shuffling nervously, looking at their tiny shoes. "Who'll be sleeping in our beds," they asked, mangling their fairy tales. "We'll still have to get into bed with the Queen," one horrified dwarf maintained. "Err. Yucky," the other dwarfs chimed. Snow White replied: "Never fear, for I will one day consult the mirror in strict accordance with the principles of consensus and dialogue. I shall be the most morally superior of them all."

With this, the dwarfs uttered a collective hoorah, still not totally convinced that they had a clue what she was going on about. But it sounded good, and there was more heartening news for them. Snow White explained that a handsome prince is travelling through the lands. His name is Pedro. He will fall in love with Snow White's plans for progressive politics of the left, predicated on pacts and a system of federalism. The dwarfs were now becoming ecstatic, but one noted that this will still mean having to give bed room to the Queen. "Don't we want to govern on our own?" At this, Snow White's sweet and friendly face turned sour. For as and when she looks in the mirror, she knew that she will only see the image of the Queen staring back at her.

Selling A Winter Tourism Strategy

Aviba is the Balearic association of travel agencies. It is forty years old. A new image has been created. In the words of its president, Toni Abrines: "We are Mediterranean, which means being sea, sun, infinite sunsets, the horizon, light. Aviba and the Balearics are blue and yellow."

The association is thus banking on an image that has served Mallorca for as long as there has been mass tourism. The image was officially, in promotional terms, once captured in Joan Miró's Sol de Mallorca. Little has therefore changed, except for Abrines adding that there have to be "tourist interests that go beyond sun and beach". He wants there to be a tourism strategic plan which recognises that there are "political ups and downs" but would nevertheless support the tourism industry by sticking to a plan.

Defining a plan that achieves consensus seems like a pipe dream. It would require agreement from political parties of differing complexions, from the numerous business associations, from unions, from society. Just as one example of how difficult it might be is the fact that Podemos (in the form of Laura Camargo) have drawn winter tourism into question by pointing out that the poor workers would have to work for more than eight months a year.

Aviba itself seems unclear what the strategy might be. In opting for a refreshed image that stresses the essential components of Mallorca's tourism (its summer tourism), it is making off-season tourism secondary. There again, that it is exactly what it is. And to suggest otherwise is a nonsense.

In the Canary Islands, they are working on such a plan, and the government there is opening it up to the public. It is inviting opinion. The Canaries, though, are a different proposition to the Balearics. Those islands have genuine all-year tourism. There is little variance in tourist numbers between summer and winter. But this is not the only way that the Canaries differ from the Balearics. Promotion is innovative, whereas in the Balearics it is not. The Disney-style element to the official promotional website says it all. Here is an imaginative means of selling attractions, including the national parks in the Canaries and their winter appeal. In the Balearics, promotion is almost a dirty word, and what word there is tends to be mixed.

The travel agents association does rather sum this up. It wants winter tourism but at the same time presents an image that can seem at odds with this. The Balearic tourism ministry, meanwhile, has simply stopped any promotion of summer. Its strategic plan is the winter. All promotional eggs are in the low-season basket.

This emphasis on the winter is perfectly reasonable. Indeed, Mallorca has been crying out for a concerted and coordinated winter promotional effort for years. Herein lies the rub - coordination. When there used to be the Winter in Mallorca campaign some years ago, it didn't have the necessary support politically or from business. It was eventually and quietly dropped. Indifference and lack of will had won the day.

Having a strategy is one thing. Selling it is quite another. This selling includes the messages and in particular how they are conveyed. I'm unconvinced that the ministry and its tourism agency know how to go about this in an effective way. Let me give an example.

I am to be working on a promotion for the ministry. Basically, this is a translation from Spanish for something which, as I understand it, is to be distributed on planes from the UK (or on arrival at the airport). It's all about the low season - Better In Winter. The first paragraph of this informs the reader that the Balearic archipelago is some two hours' flight time from central European cities. I looked at this and thought - you're kidding. Firstly, what sort of an introduction is that? Secondly, it's aimed at the UK market. Thirdly, if you're on a plane or have arrived, then you know how long the flight is.

My version will relegate this factual intro, but it is indicative of the kind of mindset that dominates the messages. Facts and information come before emotion and inspiration. It's hard enough to differentiate destinations when they are all essentially selling the same things, so you have to go hard on appealing to the heart and on creating a genuine connection in the minds of visitors (both potential and actual).

The same applied towards the end of 2015. The ministry was on a mission to explain the tourist tax to the UK market. I received some copy and binned it. What resulted was much longer and was written in order to tug at the heart strings. And this was from someone who was and remains no great supporter of the tourist tax.

The strategy for winter tourism is there, and it is unlikely to be altered if there is political change in two years time. The PP had assured us back in 2011 and 2012 that the fruits of its winter promotional efforts would have been realised by the time of the 2015 election. They would not be about to put the strategy in reverse. But far more important is what the strategy says. Far more important is getting all parties (and not just political ones) on board. Everyone has to buy into it - Aviba is right in this regard - but the most important party of all is the tourist. Strategies require implementation, and their messages are key.

The Spice Girls Take Over Podemos

The sisterhood is rising up within Podemos. I'd like to be able to truly align them with The Spice Girls, but once one gets beyond Scary Spice (Palma's Aurora Jhardi), the comparisons do rather dry up. Not that there isn't Girl Power, just that, in all honesty, who could be Baby? Posh? Most definitely not. Likewise, the leader wouldn't qualify as Ginger. Laura Camargo, the Boot Girl (or Boot Spice, if you prefer), is someone David Lynch could have imagined for Twin Peaks: a Nadine Hurley with specs rather than a patch, possessed of superhuman strength and some disturbing secrets hidden beneath the patio.

Laura, it would seem, is about to strike a blow against the brotherhood. And there is no brother more eminent in the Balearics Podemos than Alberto Jarabo. The current general secretary, Alberto is about to feel the full force of the unleashed sisterhood combined with the support of brothers as well. Basically, he's on his way out, and Laura will ascend to the Podemos throne (metaphorically speaking, because there are no thrones in Podemos-land).

This in part is all the fault of His Royal (sic) Podemos-ness, Pablo Iglesias. He apparently took all good Balearic Podemosites by surprise when he said on telly that there would be primaries for the Balearic leadership next month. This had been planned for later in the year under the terms of whatever citizens' council had determined it thus (and there are any number of such councils inhabiting the Podemos sphere).

It was then thought that this wasn't such a surprise after all, as an early vote would leave the way open for Alberto to be re-elected. Laura wouldn't have time to gather her troops and would in any event prefer to show unified solidarity with Alberto. In other words, it had been a manipulation by Pablo to ensure Alberto could continue rather than allowing Laura to take over. And why would he want this? Well, that's because Laura represents the loony anti-capitalist faction, which received something of a trouncing when Podemos Central were having their run-off to decide the leadership, which Iglesias won convincingly.

Initially, it looked as if Alberto and Pablo would get their wish. Then Laura (or someone on behalf of Laura) dropped hints that she would have a crack at becoming gen-sec. Alberto intimated that, in the cause of unity and solidarity (etc.), he might step aside, before making it clear that he wouldn't be. Meanwhile, the Spice Girls had rallied round Laura.

Their number has dwindled markedly in parliament ever since Xelo and Montse were exiled to the Valley of the Fallen behind the PP and forced to become part of the shapeless Mixed Group. Not, it has to be said, that Xelo and Montse would qualify Spice-wise; they're more on the Susan Boyle popular spectrum. But they are out in force elsewhere, such as in Palma with Scary Spice and the endearingly bonkers Eva Frade. Scary said that it would be very positive to have a feminist activist as gen-sec. Eva declared that Laura has thus far provided a "master class on how to conduct new politics", while Sandra Espeja (who conserves the environment on behalf of the Council of Mallorca) believed that Laura's elevation would "feminise" the party. (She, Sandra, might just pass as Sporty, by the way.)

Feminists among the brotherhood then also pitched in on Laura's side. The latest is that there is a "manifesto" under the hashtag of "unity has the name of woman" which has been signed by some one hundred Podemos sorts, numbered among them being Balti, who hadn't previously seemed to wish to take sides. Now faced with all this demand for unity in the name of Laura, Alberto really hasn't gone anywhere to go. Other than out. If he doesn't go, it's impossible to see how he could command the Podemos ranks in parliament, given that all Podemos deputies are backing Laura.

It isn't simply a desire for a woman to be in charge that is behind all this. Laura, it is generally accepted, is more adept than Alberto. Moreover, Alberto, it has been said, hasn't fully got it with the consultative style of Podemos, while there is a perception that he is too easily persuaded to fall in line with PSOE and Més. Laura is less likely to be, which could make life uncomfortable for the matronly Francina Armengol.

Anyway, while all this was going on, the news emerged of a gaff in Son Serra de Marina that Alberto had sublet. More than just sublet, he had apparently been offering it via websites specialising in holiday rentals. He was doing what!? Adding to tourist saturation? A statement subsequently explained that this was all above board, the owner had given permission and Alberto had declared it.

Was news of this subletting just a coincidence? Who can say, other than "I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want ...".

Blue Flags: Time Has Caught Up

Here we go again. The annual Blue Flags' song and dance. It's a story which is annually destined to occupy the front pages. That's only natural. For a society and an economy with the beach so close to their hearts, it's bound to, though once upon a time of course, there was no story. That was because there was no Blue Flag.

Matilde Asián, the national secretary-of-state for tourism, was able to glow in the spotlight of the number of flags fluttering on Spain's beaches. The Blue Flag, at the time of its inception thirty years ago, was ahead of its time. She was right. In the 1980s the world had still to wake up to the imperative of water quality. The world was still comparatively lazy and indifferent when it came to matters of the environment. The Blue Flag was a fantastic initiative.

Biel Barceló, the Balearic tourism minister, has said of the Blue Flag that tourists don't particularly value it. When he came out with this last year, he plunged the government into an argument with ADEAC, the organising association in Spain. There was talk of its legal people getting involved. The government was casting doubt on the Blue Flag and causing damage to it.

My reaction to Barceló was to thank God that someone had officially raised doubts about the Blue Flag. Let me be clear, the initiative does do an immense amount of good, but for a number of years it had been coming clear - to me at any rate - that it had gone way beyond its original purpose (that of water quality). It had started to carve out its own empire, adding ever more criteria and requirements.

At the same time, the general beachgoing public was far less indifferent to quality than it might once have been. Its environmental antennae had been alerted by the Blue Flag in its early years, but it was becoming ever more demanding, regardless of the Blue Flag. Sanitary conditions, good services, rescue facilities, etc., etc.: the public demanded them and expected them. Legislation, local regulations made sure that these demands and expectations were met. The Blue Flag was incidental.

Barceló said that tourists don't value the Blue Flag. In some parts of the globe, I suspect they do. That's because of parts of the world that have been playing catch-up on an environmental front. In the Balearics and Spain there have been laws both domestically and European which over many years have rectified many of the wrongs and which have made Spain a world leader for tourism. Yes, we hear about pollution in the Med, we do hear about the plastic that is washed up, we do hear about the occasional spillages of faecal water or about garbage floating. There isn't perfection, but where there is evidence, something is usually done, and if it isn't there is someone to take a photo or video and post it on social networks and scare local authorities into action.

What do tourists (or residents, come to that) take notice of? A Blue Flag? Be honest, do you? Are you in fact bothered about the various certifications for quality that numerous beaches have in Mallorca? Maybe you are. For the most part, I don't think people pay a great deal of attention. That's because quality is now taken as a given, and it comes about for all sorts of reasons, and generally speaking it is guaranteed, notwithstanding the occasional unfortunate incident. Barceló was right.

Far more notice is taken of what is knocking around the internet. If TripAdvisor reveals that such and such a beach is wonderful, then people will accept that it is. Recommendations are vastly more powerful than a flag. Likewise, if there are bad reviews, then a beach (and resort) may well suffer.

Playa de Muro's beach regularly attracts accolades. They come because of the excellent quality that is guaranteed in different ways. Yes, there is a Blue Flag but it is only one of several quality certifications. That it has been identified and praised by the Blue Flag organisers for its rescue service is even more reason for it to receive accolades. But the outstanding service which exists there is because the town hall (and business) have been so determined to push ever more the quality of the beach. The Blue Flag is nice but it isn't central and nor did it have anything to do with the creation of the medical emergency rapid response team at the beach.

The Blue Flags are an annual event. They are like the Oscars or Baftas without the gowns and bow ties. Or this at least is how they might wish to be perceived. The fact is that the annual ceremony passes many by, such as the municipalities who can't be bothered with the process. They have other means of demonstrating quality. Ahead of its time. Time has caught up.

Aptur: Here, There, Everywhere

Mallorca is awash with associations for one thing or another, but there are few which command as much attention as Aptur. Defenders of holiday rentals, there is barely a day when the association isn't in the news.

This past week has seen Aptur accuse the environmentalists Terraferida of "criminalising" holiday rentals, gather the support of various other associations, hold a meeting with the hoteliers and announce its satisfaction at a court ruling on some islands in the Atlantic. Aptur is as ubiquitous as the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation and as prolific as the number of illegal rentals.

The attack on Terraferida resulted from the environmentalists repeating for Ibiza what they had done with Mallorca. They produced a map of Airbnb properties. Aptur said the figures which Terraferida came up with were not valid, as they didn't correspond to Airbnb. The environmentalists were engaging in demagoguery and using data which did not show the reality and were being used in seeking to criminalise rentals.

Whatever Aptur thought, Terraferida stuck to their guns. In Ibiza and Formentera, Airbnb has over 4,700 rentals with almost 27,000 places. The turnover on these last year was more than 92 million euros. Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of its data, the presentation of these maps is an indication of how tense the arguments are and how divided opinion is.

One of Aptur's problems is that it doesn't currently derive a huge amount of support where it really matters. Despite the hoteliers criticising the planned rentals' legislation, it is evident that the government wants to curb rentals as much as possible. If it didn't, there wouldn't be the limit on the number of places which the legislation envisages making available, there wouldn't be the tight stipulations to be made on standards and there wouldn't be zoning (more of that below).

In addition to the government, Aptur also lacks the support of the unions. They may have their issues with the hoteliers, but they certainly don't buy the argument that rentals generate masses of jobs or secure ones. In an effort to show support, Aptur announced that various other associations are backing it: ones that would be expected to do so, such as the car-rentals' association.

Where Aptur can also count on some support is with the public, but the survey by the university found that there was only just over 50% support in Mallorca, while in Ibiza - with its great problems with accommodation - only 36% were in favour. Society is split, but it is an issue that is of vital importance to much of local society. There was, meanwhile, some evidence that society is taking note of the threat of fines up to 40,000 euros. It was reported that there is a "stampede" of owners removing property adverts from Airbnb and other websites.

Aptur countered this by saying that it is perfectly legal to rent to tourists. Which is true under the provisions of the tenancy act, but the very fact that Aptur mentioned tourists undermined its argument. Tenancy act rentals cannot be advertised as being for tourist purposes, yet this is exactly what they are and they are let out to tourists courtesy of what many now appreciate is a loophole that needs addressing.

The meeting between Aptur and the hoteliers was unusual in that there was an attempt to seek out some common ground. They agreed to try and define a tourism model based on quality and to create a working group for dialogue. As a first step, Inma Benito of the hoteliers has asked Aptur to make a proposal regarding the regulation of rentals in apartment blocks.

While this sounded all very reasonable, it was difficult to figure out the timing. Whatever either party suggests, the government is on the point of legislating. Quite what difference this working party will make is anyone's guess. Moreover, things weren't as conciliatory as this suggested. Benito repeated the threat of hoteliers converting hotels into apartments as a way of countering the threat from rentals. Implicit to this threat is that there would be job losses, hence why the unions are so concerned about rentals. There are some 150,000 jobs that rely on the hotel sector. Rentals of whatever type wouldn't come close to creating that level of employment.

Then came the ruling of the High Court in the Canaries, which annulled the concept of zoning for rentals in those islands on the grounds that it represented an infringement on freedom of competition and services. Even though the zoning scheme in the Balearics differs to that in the Canaries, the court's judgement does affect the principle. The Balearic government will surely have to take note, as its zoning will doubtless end up in court as well and an appeal against it will have the precedent of a decision in a different court.

With this ruling, Aptur may just have found a strong ally - the courts. And it can add to the courts the National Competition Commission, which is liberal on most matters, including Airbnb and rentals.

What's The Environment Anyway?

Please don't shoot the statistical messenger. I'm a mere conduit of numerical glad or bad tidings, especially if there seems as though there's an angle to contemplate. Typically, one's response to the data overload delivered through tablets of percentages from government bodies and surveys or from websites and companies desperately in search of publicity ranges from a shrug of indifference to red-faced fury: how dare they take us for such fools?

While there are those who will insist that statistics exist in some number-crunching fantasy land, divorced from realities or personal perception, occasionally something comes along which makes one (well, me) pause and reflect. And so it is with a survey about attitudes towards the environment.

International "days" are frequently the excuse of a peg on which to hang a survey and its findings. Earth Day is 22 April. There has been such a day since 1970, the year in which the Earth was therefore invented. The day extends to 193 countries, according to Wikipedia, which may or may not mean that there are parts of the Earth excluded: they are not of this Earth.

Be that as it may, this year's Earth Day has inspired a website to address environmental attitudes. The site in question is Ofertia.com, which I confess to not having previously been aware of. The credentials for its survey are that it is basically a shopping website. There may well be a touch of the publicity-seeking as a consequence. We are now familiar with Ofertia, whereas before we were not, and it's all thanks to the environment.

What, you may well ask, does shopping have to do with the environment? A great deal when you begin to drill down into the detail of the retail process: land devoted to shops; the logistics demanded to supply them; the ultimate consequence of, for example, landfill; all that plastic floating around in the Med; cars and other vehicles moving hither and thither and polluting the atmosphere; ever more land needed in order to satisfy transport, i.e. roads.

Shopping, as far as the environment is concerned, does not have a great deal to commend itself. And the Balearic government has recognised this. The pro-business, pro-vast commercial centres Partido Popular once advanced (under Bauzá) a tax on commercial centres. The reason was all the pollution caused in the act of shoppers shifting themselves in order to carry away bundles of plastic packaging and domestic electrical goods to later be destined to rot away in the peculiarly monikered "green points".

When the large retailers threatened to take them to court, the PP quietly abandoned this and a couple of other "green taxes". To compensate for the lack of revenue, they instead imposed a massive charge on water use, something which, oddly enough, went below the radar. The current government, both regional and insular, has had its eyes on shopping as well. The Council of Mallorca is currently working on a land plan: the Council's main reason for existence is the drafting of land plans, or so it can seem. This one has to do with shopping; hence, there is at present a moratorium on new large retail sites.

Such concern for the environment, and here we get to the survey, does not appear to be shared by the citizens. Or rather, there is a concern but it is not as great as most of the rest of Spain. The survey suggests that the level of commitment to the environment in the Balearics is the third lowest among regions. Only Galicia and Navarre are less concerned.

Is this finding surprising? I would suggest that it most certainly is. More than statistical overload, we endure environmental overload in Mallorca. The environment can barely move because of eco groups of one sort or another, to say nothing of the eco credentials of political parties such as Més, whose tourist tax is, in case we forget, supposedly for sustainability.

But it is even more surprising if one considers what is meant by the environment. The word tends to presuppose visions of landscape and plastic washed on to virgin beaches. Yet the environment, and this is a stupidly obvious observation, is all around us. Everything is the environment, and everything influences the environment, including shopping.

We may tire of frequent reports that dissect the impact of man on fragile ecosystems in Mallorca, but the environment is greatly more than the habitats of species and coastal erosion because of the harm caused to posidonia sea grass. Perhaps the word - environment - is the issue. It conveys less than the whole, and the whole is the complete island, inclusive of the roughly 80% of land that is available for agricultural purposes. But the complete island is only small. Its environment (and its protection) is vital. Yes, I am surprised by the survey.

The Non-Ecotax

While I've been away - which I haven't been as I've been chained to a desk for the purposes of a book in the manner that rowers of ships across the Mediterranean were once shackled in ancient times - we had this business of the tourist tax not being an environmental tax. Quelle surprise, as they don't say here.

The admission by the government that the tax is for general revenue-raising purposes was made in a submission to the Balearic High Court; it is considering the legality of the tax because of the appeal by the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation for judicial review. Strangely enough, this fessing up seemed to pass without a great deal of comment: in the established media, if not on social media.

The point with the tax is that of course it is for general revenue purposes. It can't be anything else. It is itemised in the government's budget as a revenue; the same government which bangs on endlessly about the insufficient level of financing from Madrid. The government has the power to establish specific taxes if it needs to improve its income. The tourist tax is one means of doing so. Therefore, it is a general tax.

The difference lies with the revenue raised being ring-fenced for the various purposes that the law on the sustainable tourism tax set out. In this sense, it isn't a general tax, but the goalpost-shifting which has occurred (or did with last year's revenue) has meant that the revenue has leapt over the fence. It has gone on water, the provision of which is a fundamental demand made of any government. Industry relies on water. The citizens' health and sanitation are at risk without water. And so are the citizens' swimming pools.

I maintained, well before the brain fade brainchild notion of a tax was ever mooted, that if there is to be a tourist tax, then it should be used for resources - water being a key one. In this regard, the diversion of funds to water projects seemed fair. However, I am with both GOB and Podemos in believing that such projects were not among the purposes.

There again, one can make the case for pretty much anything being purposeful in terms of "sustainable tourism". Investment, for example, in renewable energies through the tourist tax would be equally justifiable. Tourists need energy, as they also need water. There could be investment in boosting subsidies for seasonal accommodation for doctors and police. Tourists need doctors and police, who currently realise that they can't afford accommodation in the Balearics, if indeed they can find any. But these "purposes" would be tangential, as is the case with the water projects, to what the tax is intended for.

The government made a rod for its own back by insisting that there be the range of purposes that there are. Flexible is how one might describe them. Or, as I have previously defined it, a camel of a tax, the use of which is determined by a camel of a committee (all 32 of them). The environmental purpose is in fact only one. The government is therefore right in saying that the tax is not environmental. It's only partially so.

At least with the old and unlamented ecotax the then government provided none of the current fuzziness. So dedicated was the ecotax to the environment that the government, among other things, handed over some 14 million euros in acquiring - in the name of the citizens (and presumably also tourists) - the Son Real finca. And the different governments have been regretting it ever since, if the general mismanagement of the finca is any gauge of post-acquisition governmental interest.

A further point to make is that Catalina Cladera, whose sole interest as finance minister is to have as much disposable tax revenue as she can lay her hands on, said in advance of the tax's introduction last year that it wasn't an ecotax. In stating this, she was not wishing the tax to carry the stigma of the old ecotax but she was also being accurate. In fact, the environmental purpose for which the tax is supposed to be used was boosted from the original draft of the legislation. That was because the government bowed to the pressures of GOB and the more fervent econationalists within its own ranks, i.e. David Abril of Més.

Still, does any of this make much difference to those who pay the tax? Most tourists won't have any idea what the purposes are. The assumption will be that it is a tax like other taxes, therefore one for general revenue. And the government, in the form of the tourism director-general Pilar Carbonell, says there have only been four complaints. What does she expect? Are there forms on hotel reception desks for registering complaints, especially about revenue not being used for the environment?

Denouement Day For The PP

Today is D-Day. Domingo Day also known in co-official language terms as Diumenge Day. It will also be Denouement Day. Two one-time friends won't end up killing each other, but one will be the loser of a long and complex affair.

At some point today we will know who will be the new leader of the Partido Popular in the Balearics. I'll bet you can hardly wait to find out. And wait there has been. A very long one. Interminable. Well, not quite, as it terminates today, with one of the candidates due to be terminated. Which one? The bookies will be weeping if the long odds outsider J.R. Bauzá romps to victory. Others will be joining them. Catalanists will be wailing their woes and hurriedly reinstalling the garlic over their portals, lest Count Dracula should darken their doors once more.

Joy, though, might be unconfined in certain quarters: let's call them the hoteliers. J.R. has been going down - in all likelihood - with all guns blazing. One of them has been fired at the tourist tax. Were J.R. to a) become PP president (again) and b) Balearic president (again), he has said that the tourist tax will be the first folly of the Psoemespodemos pact to be ejected with great force into the blue waters of the Med.

The spirit of Jaume Matas would thus be restored, Jaume having taken the legislative knife to the little lamented ecotax in 2003. And in eliminating the tourist tax, J.R. would be having his symbolic retaliation against Psoemespodemos. One of its first acts was to consign the law of symbols to the symbolic junk heap of Castile-Catalan rivalry. The Catalan flag could once more flutter without fetter and fear of ferocious reprisals by anti-Catalanist fundamentalists. Would J.R. and his chums do the conga in the way that Psoemespodemos so embarrassingly did, having removed the symbols law from the statute book?

Well, he would have to be president and have some chums. And they, unfortunately for him, are in comparatively limited supply. But those that there are will be with him all the way at Es Moli d'es Comte, which is the finca pile hosting the PP congress. What a shame they couldn't have waited another week. They could have had their congress at a congress centre. More spirit of Matas would thus have been abroad, though given that the Palacio has now become something of a Psoemespodemos gig (hmm, maybe not Podemos), they would probably have decided otherwise.

Es Moli, from what I can make out (thanks to TripAdvisor), could do with all the PP-ists firing off some five-star reviews. It is ranked 1,487 out of 1,776 restaurants in Palma (de Mallorca). "The political debate was somewhat sterile, but we loved the cabbage rolls with sobrassada." Or whatever. Still, perhaps it's an appropriate gaff for the occasion and for the PP's Count Dracula. The mill of the count. Though for J.R. it may prove to be a millstone too far.

And one of the stones that he insists on dragging around with him is multi-language teaching. What more can he add to the list of teaching languages? What about Uzbek? There must be the odd tourist from Uzbekistan in desperate need of understanding why he must pay the tourist tax. Or how about Klingon? Much more of a laugh than English, that's for sure.

Teaching has been just one of the issues that the local Spanish (and Catalan) media has been dissecting in the lead-up to D-Day. There has been virtually no room for anything else, the photos vying for space with the analysis, the quotes, the interviews. And best of the photos was one for the favourite, Biel Company, There was Biel, surrounded by Biel's Babes, the males pushed to the periphery. And when one of the babes is Marga Prohens, one would have to feel that Biel has it in the bag. Who, let's face it, would knowingly vote against Marga.

In somewhat less frivolous fashion, Company has stated that J.R. is not a company man, as in there's no way he'll be giving J.R. a job if (when) he wins the election. Bauzá, attempting to appear all things to all (company) men and women in the party, has hinted that he might do otherwise were he to win. However, that would be unlikely. One of his parting shots last week was to say of Company that he (Bauzá) made him a minister, he (Bauzá) affiliated Company to the party. "Let each one draw his own conclusions about him." And it's true. He did make him a minister. Company wasn't a PP member as such. He became one later.

Denouement Day is thus highly personal. There may be more than one loser. The PP is threatened with being split in half. Or more like into one third and two thirds.

The Vain Search For Competitiveness

The European Union produces a regional competitiveness index every three years. The latest one, for 2016, comes replete with a colour-coded map. Deep purple denotes low or negative competitiveness. A bright green shows the highest levels of competitiveness. On the purple to green with a sort of grey in between spectrum, there is almost no green in the Mediterranean. In Spain, of two regions with shades of green, the more vibrant is for Madrid. The Balearics Islands are in the purple zone. Not as low as Sicily, nearly all of Greece, Romania and Bulgaria, but in the slightly less purple category. In other words, not terribly competitive.

The competitiveness is evaluated according to three dimensions. Basic covers institutions (such as government), macroeconomic stability, infrastructure and basic education. Efficiency deals with higher education and lifelong learning, labour market and market size. Innovation is for technological readiness, business sophistication and actual innovation.

Of these, the Balearics score well on only two. Health is one. The other, and there will be some relief here, is basic education, which does therefore offer a brighter perspective than the normal gloom that surrounds the education system. But any positivity is not carried on to higher education. In all, the islands find themselves in 200th place out of 263.

The usual other Spanish suspects join the Balearics towards the bottom of the ranking - Andalusia, the Canaries, Castile-La Mancha, Extremadura, Murcia and the north African cities of Ceuta and Melilla. These are ones which, for instance, have levels of unemployment higher than the rest of Spain. The Balearics are different in this respect, yet the region does not find itself well ranked for labour market efficiency. Nor are business sophistication and innovation particularly good. Lack of competitiveness therefore defines the Balearics.

And there is a further definition, one given by the report. Regional competitiveness is the ability of a region to offer a sustainable and attractive environment for business and residents to live and work Attractiveness for residents is unquestionably a factor in the Balearics. But a positive physical environment is as much a weakness as it is an intangible strength. It has bred a mono-economic culture of distorted tourism seasonality and other distortions - social, wealth and incomes, property ownership, land usage.

The apparent strength of the Balearic economy - 4.1% growth in 2016 - disguises so much. The inefficiency of the labour market, as highlighted by the report, is one of the most obvious. Improved employment there has been, but it is not stable employment. Nor is it well paid. The fact that economic growth has not been matched by improved pay suggests that an ingredient of growth - consumer demand - is limited. And where it exists, its source is more likely to be foreign - tourists and property owners.

Factors of Balearic growth are inconsistent. High levels of investment (private sector) are not matched by the public sector. The government, island councils and town halls are constrained by Madrid's requirements, while the government loses a significant proportion of its tax revenues through the funding which goes to poorer regions, such as Extremadura. This has a knock-on impact on the likes of infrastructure, which are not compensated for by Madrid investment.

But investment can run up against institutional impediments. Legal certainties are regularly referred to because business, e.g. the hotels, builders, are anxious about them. These stem from amendments to regulations at all levels; amendments either made or flagged up as possibilities. A different type of investment - in human capital - is lacking, as can be seen from the low numbers pursuing different forms of higher education. This has an impact on the capacity to innovate, while investment in innovation (where the government is concerned) is vastly lower than its rhetoric suggests. The current administration makes much of its commitment to innovation, yet the budget for this (Biel Barceló's department) is only one-tenth of the whole.

Exports in the form of tourism are the main lifeblood of growth, and given the apparent deficiencies in areas identified by the EU report, one is inclined to conclude that the Balearics achieve good rates of growth despite the obstacles presented.

The EU explains that a growing number of regions use the index in order to compare themselves with others and to identify strengths and weaknesses to shape their development strategies. There is also at the back of it a tool for Brussels to identify where funding is more pressingly required. But ultimately, very little of what the index reveals is either new or surprising. Putting things bluntly, northern Europe is competitive, while southern Europe isn't. How long have we known that?

And in the Balearics, how long have we known about economic reliance on tourism, about an absence of innovation, about patchy educational achievement, about institutional capriciousness? Still, there is always the attractive environment. If only competitiveness was just a factor of landscape, sea and sun.

The Weaknesses Of Transport Policy

May I ask a question? How many of you are particularly bothered whether there is a flat-rate inter-island flight tariff or not? May I ask a second question? How many of you are working yourselves up into a lather over a change to the residents' flight discount as it applies to certain group travel that is to be introduced later this month?

If there are any of you, then please raise your hands and make yourselves known. I'm guessing there have to be some. But relative to the amount of media attention both these questions are being given, the numbers, I would hazard a further guess, are disproportionately low. Put it this way, I am unaware of social media (or other forms of communication) having approached meltdown because of public angst.

Citizens' response to both questions has been less to do with the minutiae of the new arrangement for group travel and the proposal for an inter-island flat rate than with their politics. The Balearic government will be satisfied that this is the case. It has spent most of its time in office berating Madrid about absolutely everything. The flights' issues are part of the overall scheme of berating things.

Travel arrangements and deals for people in the Balearics should be as advantageous as possible. Living on islands in the Mediterranean demands that they should be. Government objections to the group travel discount change and its anger with Congress over blocking the inter-island flat rate are understandable within the context of seeking advantages. But both form part of the wider narrative that characterises the current administration. Madrid is the enemy and Madrid does everything in its power to make life difficult for the people of the Balearics.

The regional government wants a completely different overall deal for the islands. It's known as the special economic regime, a somewhat arcane device that involves financing, taxation, transport, infrastructure and more. Madrid is being obstructive in granting a new deal. But is it the enemy that it is made about to be? On financing, on investment, even on the flat-rate tariff, it has expressed willingness.

Penalising the Balearics, as far as the Palma government is concerned, is a political decision because of differing political ideologies and an unthinking one because Madrid fails to recognise the particular needs of the Balearic archipelago. There may be some truth in both these beliefs, especially the latter, but Madrid is commanded by a higher authority. The Rajoy government cannot willy-nilly ignore the requirements of Brussels.

The flat-rate tariff is subject to Brussels approval. The Spanish government cannot just sign it off. The funding for the tariff is subject to the Spanish government's budget, over which Brussels has its say. Twenty odd million more may not be a huge amount in overall terms, but if every region were to come up with schemes demanding such funding - and be granted them - then Brussels would come down on Madrid like a ton of bricks.

The fact is of course that the Balearic government is fully aware of this. European restraints are, however, generally ignored, as they do not suit the government's narrative of Madrid as enemy.

The flat rate had been mooted before the current administration took office, but it was made a policy of this government. It is one of its stellar projects to mark it out in the eyes of the electorate in much the same way as magicking up 120 million euros for Son Dureta will be. (On this, I note that the Partido Popular are asking the same question I have - where's the money going to come from?)

The government has made its demands, and goes further in that it wants the regular residents' discount (which applies to the vast majority of travellers) to be increased. All of this may come to form part of the negotiations over a new economic regime and financing system, but for now they are not negotiable items; they are demands.

Contrast this with another aspect of general transport policy, one over which Madrid doesn't have its say: the bus services to the resorts. The government, which says that it has never had any intention of pressurising anyone (i.e. the taxi drivers and so unlike its pressure on Madrid), has ended up by demonstrating its willingness to back down. The bus services will still go ahead but they are no longer what they were. Yes, they will serve some resorts, but rather than being resort bus services, they are, well, bus services. Four new ones that will meander through places like Algaida and Montuiri.

What really has all the fuss achieved? Very little. The services have been watered down. The government has been shown to be weak. And weakness sums up transport policy. Against the might of Madrid and Brussels, the government squeaks and is left with its constant sniping, designed for electorate consumption.

Forget Tourism, It's The Sustainability Industry

An odd thing about travel fairs is that they have official destination partners. Of all the countries represented, one rises above all the rest. Maybe they have a draw to decide which one, though I doubt it. The official partner for the Berlin ITB fair is Botswana. Lucky old Botswana. Will Spanish representatives refrain from going to the Botswana stand and asking about elephant-hunting packages? Ones fit for a king (a former one)?

Botswana would be a prime case for a sustainable tourism makeover, though it has almost certainly already had one. Sustainable consultants and advisors will have been sustaining themselves for some years, providing reports and recommendations to facilitate sustainable virtues. The sustainable tourism industry is a subsidiary of Tourism Industry International Inc, and it is a subsidiary that is doing very nicely for itself. It is self-sufficiently sustainable and capable of seemingly infinite sustainable growth.

The World Tourism Organization (WTO), the UN's über-advisor to Tourism Industry International Inc, champions sustainability. It has provided the support and wherewithal for the likes of Botswana to pursue sustainable tourism development. Indeed, it may have been that Botswana had been in mind when the founders of sustainability - some thirty years ago - invented the concept. It was originally all about development in the underdeveloped and developing worlds.

Nowadays it is far more than this. Far, far more. Hard-nosed businesspeople from hotel chains, airlines and tour operators subscribe to the WTO sustainable doctrine. As fully signed-up partners within Tourism Industry International Inc, they need to be. Tourism as globalisation has to portray its greatest benefits, as these businesspeople colonise parts of the globe which - once upon a time - one only heard of if they had stamps, were engaged in wars or were suffering from famine.

This colossus of an industry now principally has one thing on its mind (apart from money). Sustainability. This is why the subsidiary is doing so well. There may come a time when sustainability acquires such strength that it buys out Tourism Industry International Inc and becomes Sustainability Inc. Tourists will no longer be tourists; they will be sustainers. The world will sustain itself courtesy of this ultimately virtuous global industry.

In the Balearics we are of course doing our own bit. I say we, when I really mean the government. Not that everyone agrees that even the government is doing its bit. It's all bluster, say environmentalists such as GOB. If there were true sustainability, then the government would have reduced the number of sustainers (tourists) by now. The government, as in the tourism ministry and its promotional agency, has naturally therefore bought into the WTO's latest "big thing". And what could be bigger than the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development? The Balearic Tourism Agency was one of the first to climb aboard the sponsors' merry-go-round for this international year. Does this cost anything? Have Podemos been informed?

Such is the unstoppable growth of sustainability that it touches all parts of the tourism industry. Everything has become affected by the desperate requirement to display the sustainable badge of honour. This everything includes the stands in Berlin. There is, I kid you not, a whole page in the ITB exhibitor guide devoted to "sustainable trade show presence".

In a way this isn't surprising. The Germans more or less invented sustainability in that they were first movers in environmental do-gooding. How well I remember the old days of this with fondness. The local company in charge of waste was referred to as the "gestapo". Their inspectors would sneak around, checking the contents of rubbish containers to ensure everything was in its rightful place. The same company oversaw the town's dump, an industrial-scale operation with gigantic containers for every conceivable type of junk. The inspectors checked the contents of your car boot and directed you to the several containers you would need. More inspectors stood guard to watch the actual dumping. This was sustainability in action. Environmentally sound and rich in employment creation. There was a small army of inspectors.

The Balearic Tourism Agency will have taken due note of the page in the guide when it came up with its new stand and when it was taking account of the management of the stand. Its personnel at ITB will doubtless comply with advice to use certified organic products, to separate its waste diligently and put it in the corresponding recycling containers (remember the gestapo). The stand will be made from environmentally friendly building materials and paints. The agency will, if possible, "go paperless".

And when a jury of thirty junior tourism experts from the Cologne Business School go to evaluate the stands and make the best exhibitor awards, sustainability will be high among the criteria. After this, and when it's all over, the Balearics contingent, the Botswana people and everyone else will ... . Ah yes, get on a plane. I knew there had to be a catch.

The Alegality Of Fraud: Rentals

Alegality. It's not a word that's particularly common in English, but it does exist and is generally used, as would be expected, in discussions of legal matters. It also crops in respect of international business and globalisation, and is sometimes spelled a-legality. Its meaning, and I quote from the Urban Dictionary's definition, is "an unambiguously wrong, disruptive and often deliberately committed act for which there is not yet a specific law making that act expressly illegal."

The Spanish word "alegalidad" is much more commonly used. It most certainly isn't confined to arcane analyses of law. It is applied to more mundane, everyday issues, and there is a great deal of it. Alegality tumbles out of many a newspaper column inch. One has to conclude, correctly, that there is an abundance of issues for which law has not determined if acts are expressly legal or illegal, regardless of any ambiguous or deliberate wrongdoing. The mere fact that alegality crops up as often as it does leads one to also conclude that the law is often inadequate, ill-defined or not applied.

There often isn't application. Legislation, be it national, regional, municipal, can sit on the books having been approved and passed by the relevant legislatures without coming into force. This legislative inactivity is most common at the municipal level. Many are the one-time approved ordinances that one hears of which only some time later (several years in some instance) are officially adopted. In the intervening period, and despite there perhaps being previous ordinance, the potential for alegality increases, because no one is quite sure of the legal security.

The definition above is thus not always applicable locally. It isn't necessarily the case that acts are "unambiguously wrong". Yes there may be some taking advantage of a situation, but it is the essential ambiguity of legality that allows alegality to flourish, with responsibilities and powers of competing legislative bodies, to say nothing of the hierarchy of the courts' system, adding more fertiliser.

An example of mundane Mallorcan alegality was the car parking near Es Trenc. Much of what has now emerged after the ludicrously protracted process to arrive at a law for the nature park had to do with car parking. The upshot of the legislation is that plots which were once used for parking will not be, and they had been closed down because of their alegality. They weren't illegal but nor were they legal. The alegality had existed for years.

I was reminded of this legal ambiguity when rummaging through an archive of old newspaper articles. It was one from August last year. It had been kept because of its headline. It was a quote which said that "our tourism is based on alegality, illegality and fraud in law". The person who made the quote was Dr Juan Franch Fluxá from the law department at the University of the Balearic Islands.

His specific references were as follows: the alegality is exemplified by the likes of party boats; illegality can be found in the renting of apartments to tourists; fraud exists with those who use the tenancy act to rent to tourists and do so via Airbnb. "An unacceptable absurdity," he concluded.

What was interesting about Dr Franch's quote was that he didn't refer to rentals in terms of alegality. Yet alegal is how they have often been described. As an example, the CCOO union spoke at the end of 2015 of holiday properties being rented in an alegal fashion amounting to 25% of the regulated (legal) offer. The use of alegal has therefore created its own ambiguity regarding holiday rentals. But another member of the university's law department, Avel-lí Blasco, has also been unequivocal. Tourist rental in apartment buildings is not "alegal", it is "illegal".

The point is that one wonders how rentals of this type ever acquired a description of alegal. They have been proscribed in Balearic law for years, and if they hadn't been, then why was the law being used to fine owners? Perhaps it has been the case that certain interests have wished to promulgate the notion of alegality.

The use of the tenancy act is a different matter. Dr Franch's strident assertion of a fraud in law is something with which one take issue. If owners abide strictly by the terms of the tenancy act - no publicising as tourist/holiday accommodation and no services - then how can there be fraud? But what he was getting at was owners who abuse the law and seek to conceal the real intent, whether the property is being offered on Airbnb or any other website.

Rather than fraud in law necessarily, the tenancy act has created the scope for alegality insofar as it is a loophole. The national government should, indeed must, amend the act. If it doesn't, then legislation, such as that envisaged in the Balearics, will always be open to abuse. And yes, fraud.

Spending The Tourist Tax

The committee for the impulse of sustainable tourism has 32 members. The executive committee of this committee has 16 members. Which of the two really makes the decisions on spending tourist tax revenue? The question is asked because it is supposedly the larger of the two. The executive committee, though, came up with its projects for how the revenue should be spent. By no means was everyone on the larger committee happy. The same was presumably the case with the executive committee.

The government's apparent desire for transparency has led to an absurd mix of committees - one half the size of the other and with its membership roughly reflecting the make-up of the larger committee. The key members of both committees, where the spending decisions have been concerned, are the government ministers (with Biel Barceló the president of both committees), the island councils' representatives, the unions, and the representative of the farming advisory council. Between these there are ten members on the executive committee. On the larger committee there are eighteen. Majority rules twice over.

There is the distinct sense of a sham about all this. The government loves to talk about the involvement of "social agents" (business, unions, associations), but it is clear that what the government wants, the government gets, regardless of what some social agents (and others) might think. The priority given to water projects was probably fair enough, but as for the rest of the spending, it isn't representative of all those who comprise this committee. Indeed, there is an impression that certain social agents carry greater weight than others, such as the single representative of the farming community rather than town halls, business and even the environmentalists.

The government can legitimately point to the low amount of revenue from last year, which should be twice as much when the committee meets to decide 2017 spending, but who's to say if the wishes of all will be satisfied next time round? One doubts that they will. Part of the problem with the approach the government has adopted - the numerous "purposes", the array of interests represented on the committee - is that it raises expectations that are then dashed and lead to arguments and controversies.

Palma town hall has had its nose put out of joint more than most. It hasn't received a cent. Mayor Hila would like Palma to be added to the four islands in there being a guarantee of revenue distribution. He has made a comparison with the situation in Catalonia, where Barcelona has a 33% allocation. Whether Palma deserves to be given some form of preferential treatment is up for debate (personally, I don't think it does), but one wonders if there hasn't been an underlying context to the city's failure to get any revenue: the relationship between Hila and President Armengol. It was only a few weeks ago that the government didn't agree to investment for Palma under the law on "capitals". Comment at the time referred to the difficult relationship.

But more than this, there is the somewhat unseemly attempt by town halls (not just Palma) and by others to grab a piece of an admittedly not very large honeypot. When they don't have their wishes satisfied, you end up with the arguments. On top of this, there is Barceló insisting that tourist tax legislation has been introduced and implemented and that the revenue is now being spent: all within the space of fifteen months and "without any problem". Who is he trying to kid? The committee is just one example of a problem.

The Contradiction Of Airport Policy

Palma's Son Sant Joan airport topped 26 million passengers last year. It was a record. Roughly another million may be added this year. Another record. And when the figures are released month by month this year, which they are in laborious detail showing percentage rises for this, that and another thing, the mongers of saturation doom will assure us that the island has reached and passed the point of touristic redemption. If only the numbers arriving at the airport could be limited, they will wail, while wiping away the tears of non-sustainability.

Something curious happened on Monday. One says curious, but it wasn't so curious to hear a Balearic minister calling for a cut in airport charges. This demand has been made before. A justification of bringing about an increase in Balearic competitiveness also wasn't curious. Lower costs (in theory) for the travelling public and freight, and competitiveness is gained. But it does rather depend on which part of the public is doing the travelling and what the freight is for.

What was curious was when the minister, Marc Pons (transport), referred to boosting Balearic competitiveness as a tourist destination and to promoting additional traffic. Did we hear this right? He wishes the records to keep on being broken and thus intensify the cries of the saturation mongers?

Pons may of course had in mind the promotion of more traffic for the off-season. But if he did, then he is still firmly in saturation territory. There may be (are) certain members of the Balearic government, its president for example, who have come up with the ludicrous notion that summer visitors can somehow be shifted to the winter, but that is not about to happen. More visitors in winter mean more visitors, period. In any event, he was also calling for an increase in the off-season tariff discount from 20 to 25%.

Although one struggles to appreciate how much difference a 2.6% reduction in charges over the next five years, which is what he was calling for, would really make, he clearly believes that it would make a difference: greater competitiveness and more people. He has an ally in this regard in the form of the National Competition Commission. It has been demanding that Aena drop its charges by two per cent and it has been at loggerheads with Aena for a while. Basically, the commission thinks the airport authority overcharges, while there is also the issue of accounting for airport operations, with Aena being required to fully adopt a dual-till system by 2018.

What Pons was really driving at was the fact that Palma and the other two Balearic airports each year generate more than 1,150 million euros of airport taxes that go to Aena and which have no benefit for the Balearics. His 2.6% reduction would save the travelling public roughly 30 million euros a year; this public being both resident and tourist. But while he couched all this in terms of greater competitiveness and more employment, the bottom line - once more - is the desire for airport co-management, something that has always been remote and becomes ever more remote if the national government decreases its shareholding in Aena, which it has suggested that it will do. The consequence of this would be that the state would no longer be the majority shareholder, albeit that it would retain a significant holding (probably 40%).

But where this becomes ever more curious is in the apparent contradiction with what has been said in respect of the so-called tourism saturation. Biel Barceló is not alone in having explained that because the regional government does not co-manage the airports, it cannot adjust the number of tourists arriving. The implication is that were there to be co-management, then the government would seek to reduce flights.

Whether it would be able to is a wholly different issue. The national government and Europe would have its say, and the competition commission certainly wouldn't look upon it favourably. Even if there were to be a policy of reduction, courtesy of co-management, it would only take a change of regional government for the policy to be reversed. The Partido Popular, which has been as much in favour of co-management as the left (Jaume Matas believed he was getting somewhere on this with the Zapatero administration back in 2005), would doubtless free things up again. Apart from anything else, this would all cause great uncertainty for scheduling.

Fundamentally though, how would such a policy square with the Pons advocacy of greater competitiveness and greater traffic through a reduction in airport taxes? On the one hand there is talk of limiting arrivals; on the other there is talk of their increasing. It's baffling. Securing a better deal for passengers is an admirable aim, and the additional tourists would no doubt be grateful. Curious.

Bruisers Without Guarantees

In the distant days of student politics it was common for the ranks of the dominant drunken, doped-up, hirsute, Marx/Trotsky/Mao-quoting brigades to be joined by hardened unionists. These were mature students, often very mature, as in old. They wore donkey jackets, generally eschewed beards in favour of ragged stubble, stamped around in heavy boots, drank brown ale and could devour vast plates of steak and kidney pie and cabbage. They were, to use the vernacular, bruisers, who were held in high reverence by the comrades on account of being the real thing. They were agitators from the coal face, and occasionally the mine itself.

One is reminded of those glorious days by the antics of one Joan Canyelles, whose appearance suggests a certain bruiser quality. He was until the other day the legal secretary of the Podemos Balearics committee for democratic guarantees: a Mr. Enforcer among other enforcers, having no truck with revisionist tendencies and adhering strictly to party lines determined by the Madrid politburo.

It is eminently possible that we would have been none the wiser of Joan's existence, if it had not been for last week's revelations. Joan, who does have a beard, is one of the Podemos cadre who only come into the public eye when things go awry. Would we have ever been aware of Montse Seijas, if she hadn't been expelled by High Command? I would suggest that we wouldn't have been.

"El Mundo", not - it is fair to say - naturally sympathetic to Podemos, got hold of a recording which revealed Joan's bruiser qualities. Its contents have been described as blackmail in seeking to silence any revisionism and thus criticism of party direction and of Balearic leader, Alberto Jarabo.

Specifically, he had told a member of the Balearic citizen's council - someone else we would never have heard of, Carmen Azpelicueta - to basically not attend meetings of the council. If she was a "good girl", then "we will look for a job for you". Apart from anything else, the reference to "good girl" did not reflect well on Podemos feminism. There again, the traditional bruiser from years gone by found contending with feminism a mite difficult. Joan appeared to have been cut from the same donkey jacket cloth.

Once exposed, Joan resigned, saying that he had acted totally independently and accepting that he had used "incorrect language" in having transmitted "manifestly imprecise information". Podemos then let it be known that disciplinary proceedings had been taken against Carmen for having attempted to defraud voting for the primaries to be on the list of candidates for election to the Council of Mallorca.

Joan's resignation left the committee of democratic guarantees so short of enforcers that Podemos have had to dissolve it. Guarantees cannot be guaranteed. Madrid's High Command will be doing the guaranteeing, at least for now. Meanwhile, questions were being asked as to quite how independently Joan had acted. The recording was styled with the use of the first person plural, i.e. "we", and inferred that Jarabo was aware of the so-called blackmail.

One of the remaining enforcers, the altogether less scary-looking Alejandro López, wondered why the recording had come to light. It was, after all, made a fair time ago. Insisting that Jarabo knew nothing, he suggested that the recording had been leaked in order to damage the image of the party, as if its image needs any more damage being inflicted. Which brings us of course to what is likely to happen tomorrow - the dismissal of Xelo Huertas as president (speaker) of parliament.

Into all this has stepped a Podemos within Podemos, a group known as "the Podemos that we want", which has armed itself with its so-called Manifesto of Sineu. It is demanding the immediate cessation of the party leadership and a review of the expulsions of Huertas and others. It then goes on to charge the leadership with indulging in "McCarthyist persecution", of surrounding itself with "henchmen who execute unspeakable deeds" and of having a "mafia-style conception" of its role.

The bruisers of 1970s' student politics would have relished such intrigue. Infiltrators, which they were and were duly noted as such by the university's administration, their role was partly (mainly) to foment greater agitation. Yet for all the direction that may have been coming from outside forces, typically the Communist Party, university politics never rose above a state of being unreal. Podemos, the bruisers and others, are for real, and they determine the direction of the Balearic government.

The Legal Nightmare Of Holiday Rentals

Have there ever been two pieces of legislation more complicated than those for the Balearics tourist tax and holiday rentals? Quite probably, but for the most part they do not pass into the popular consciousness. These legislative initiatives most certainly do, and they are of course linked.

The most complicated aspect of the tax is the way in which the spending decisions are being made. With holiday rentals it is the implementation, which no one ever said was going to be easy but which has all the potential of tangling the government in knots that courts will be only too willing to attempt to unravel.

The zoning concept for accommodation places to be permitted as holiday rentals in theory has some merit, but it will be the practice which decides how meritorious. A lack of clarity is emanating from the tourism ministry and the Council of Mallorca (the latter charged with determining the zoning, except in Palma, which is its own zone) with regard to what impact the zoning may have on existing legal rentals. Biel Barceló has intimated that some of these could be "de-registered". If so, then it would be an outrage.

An indication of the complexity of what is being envisaged can be found in the way that Palma is proceeding. The legislation has yet to be approved, but the town hall is pre-emptively studying the zones within the city. Assisted by the university, it is considering - neighbourhood by neighbourhood - how authorisation is to be granted for rentals in apartment buildings. A key element of this is to ensure that certain areas - the old town most obviously - are not turned into tourist accommodation "theme parks". The guiding principle is that there should be a mix of uses so that blanket authorisations (or prohibitions) will not apply anywhere.

The federation of residents' associations, which seemingly can't keep quiet for a minute just at present, has railed against the legislation, the potential for communities to be taken over by holiday rentals and the speculative nature of property acquisition with rentals in mind. The federation has a legitimate point, but the Palma study - what one can make of it - may well end up spoiling the ambitions of speculators. If it were to do so, then the government can anticipate seeking to make nice returns on the fines. The illegal supply will not magically evaporate, and one only needs to look at the situation in Barcelona to know that it will not.

Palma's approach may well act as a template for the Council to consider, but it has an even more complex task, given that the nine zones involve different municipalities, some which have tourist resorts and some which most certainly do not. Then one comes to how many properties will end up being authorised. The 43,000 places imply some 10,000 (possibly fewer), which doesn't seem like an awful lot for the whole of the Balearics. Ibiza will probably reject any, as the council there doesn't want them, whereas Menorca is keen, but divvying them up according to the zones (and Palma) sounds an administrative (and potentially legal) nightmare.

The government, apart from anything else, wants these places authorised so that it can add to the tourist tax kitty. Yet Barceló has been saying that regardless of a rental's legality or not, the tax will apply. This therefore includes rentals under the tenancy act. Legally, it is hard to see how this can be done, given the non-touristic definition that can be permitted under the tenancy act. It may yet be, though, that the Balearic government (and others) can persuade Madrid to amend the tenancy act and impose a minimum of a month on tenancy agreements, which is what Barceló is wanting.

We should have an initial idea of what Palma is proposing by the middle of the month, around the time that the period of submissions for the rentals' legislation comes to an end. Greater clarity may then begin to emerge. Or will it?

The Non-Tourism Tax

The vice-president of the Balearics and minister for tourism, innovation and research; the minister for the presidency; the finance minister; the employment, trade and industry minister; the minister for the environment; the director generals for tourism and budgeting; three representatives from both the CCOO and UGT unions; four representatives from CAEB, the Balearic confederation of business associations; two from Pimeb, the federation of small to medium-sized businesses; two from Felib, the federation of local authorities (town halls); two from environmentalists GOB; one from Friends of the Earth; one from the University of the Balearic Islands; one from Arca, the association for the protection of old urban centres; one from the agriculture council; one apiece from the four island councils; one from Palma town hall.

These are the 32 members of the committee for sustainable tourism impetus, the grand title given to the group which decides how tourist tax revenue is to be spent. How many of them are involved in tourism in a direct fashion? Very few. There is tourism minister Biel Barceló, who is the committee's president; Pilar Carbonell, the tourism director general; Inma Benito of the hoteliers via CAEB; Joana Maria Adrover, Palma's tourism councillor. One can make a case for, for instance, Cosme Bonet from the Council of Mallorca, but tourism isn't in his job title; it is buried inside his portfolio for economic affairs.

The representation reflects the pre-determined nature of sustainable tourism impetus; it owes very little - directly - to tourism as such. And the proposals for spending which have been presented to the committee reinforce this. There are 236 in all. Under ten per cent - 22 - fall under the broad "purpose" of tackling tourism seasonality, developing tourist products for the low season and promoting sustainable tourism. You may note something rather odd about this latter category. Is promoting sustainable tourism not the same as sustainable tourism impetus?

We did of course know that the annual plan for sustainable tourism impetus would give priority to water projects, a decision taken by the government (which is of course well represented on the committee). Its motivation, its impetus was the direct consequence of the drought. Needs must. And while there cannot be too much objection to this, it emphasises the unfocused nature of tourist tax revenue spending, if a crisis of Mother Nature can demand funding to compensate for previous failures of investment.

The committee has at its disposal the initial 30 million euros that were collected last year. In order to allocate funding from this pot, it has to whittle down the 236 proposals with a total value of 218.4 million euros. It will have more to play with from this year (at least double), but the comparatively small amounts in overall government budgetary terms raise the question as to why so many people are needed to oversee the spending. What other tax requires such a diverse committee? Spending decisions are otherwise made by smaller committees: parliament's and the government's.

There is much to be said for the committee's inclusiveness, but how consensual can it truly be when there is representation of polar opposites? I previously described it as a camel to decide on a camel of spending, and I see no reason to revise that opinion. The inclusiveness has been defined as participative, but is it little more than a grand PR stunt, one which has spread this participation through a cascade to spending committees set up by individual town halls? Ultimately, the cabinet has to approve the committee's decisions. The cabinet has five members on the committee.

The whole exercise gives the appearance of everyone wanting to play with a new toy, and a not very valuable one at that, given the number of projects. Barceló has said in the past that revenue will not go towards large and more expensive projects. One can perhaps therefore already rule out the purchase - for 12.1 million euros - of the Es Canons finca in Arta, which the town hall there has proposed. There are others which may naturally fall by the wayside because, even given the camel-like nature of the spending "purposes", they struggle to qualify. I give you, for instance, Petra town hall's project for three million euros to be spent on municipal facilities. Or what about Palma's 1.59 million for a cover to be put on one of its swimming pools?

Barceló has made much of the fact that tourists are used to paying taxes. While true, there is nowhere which makes such a fuss about its tax as is occurring in the Balearics. This is because most taxes are spent on general services. When, for instance, Rome introduced its tax, it was totally unabashed in saying that it was to help pay for the likes of cleaning and waste. Catalonia, oddly enough, spends the tax on tourism. In the Balearics, it's less than ten per cent. If that.

Everything Changes ... Ideologically

Regulatory change is the normal state of affairs when there are changes of government. But the extent of this change will depend on how different parties A and B really are. If ideologies are set to one side and there is a pragmatic centre ground of only minor fluctuation, then change will be slight, which has the advantage of mostly everyone knowing where they stand. Institutions, organisations, societies generally abhor upheaval and uncertainty. They like things as they are, but they don't always stick to this line of thinking. Change is deemed necessary.

In football, to use a trite example, you can get situations such as Crystal Palace. Upheaval, essential in order to keep the filthy lucre of the Premier League flowing in, means the booting into touch of an Alan Pardew fannying around and going nowhere (except down) by the heavy boot of a Big Sam. He may unfairly be characterised as a Route One advocate, but let's accept that he's sort of Route One and a Half, whereas Pardew was Route M25, going round and round in circles and unable to see light at the end of the Blackwall Tunnel.

To return to politics, ideologies do of course hold sway. Party A adheres to its set, as does Party B. Ne'er the twain do they therefore meet. Which would be simple enough to understand, except when there are Parties C, D, E, F and possibly G to take account of as well. Among this array, there will be voices which insist that they are not engaging in ideologies and are being pragmatic. Which is a load of nonsense. It is pragmatism that suits the party which is declaring it, as also does the constant cry of consensus. This is fine so long it's my consensus and not yours, which doesn't make any sense but can do when one or other parties are browbeaten into finally giving up arguing and going along with the consensus for the sake of a quieter life.

This is the situation which exists within the Balearic government, in the Balearic parliament, at the Council of Mallorca and at the town hall in Palma (as well as some other town halls). On the ruling side there are PSOE, Més and Podemos, with Podemos either formally part of the administration or not. Each has its ideologies, with Podemos having the oddest. They are, as often as not, ideologies of putting a spanner in the works just for the sheer hell of it. Normal rules of political protocol don't apply.

On the opposition side, there are the PP, El Pi and the C's (plus Party G in the Balearic parliament, the Gent per Formentera, all one of them). Each of them, with the exception of the Gent who ideologically aren't anywhere near the other three, occupies territory of varying degrees of right of centre. Of them, El Pi can be the most contrary. It does rather depend on which part of its regionalist-nationalist inner ideology happens to be dominating on a given day.

Which brings us to how change comes about. El Pi sided with the left in pushing through the change to Mallorca Day by the Council of Mallorca. Yet previously, when its chap was heading the Mallorca Day committee before he resigned because no one was listening to him, it had been on the side of keeping 12 September. There must have been a realisation that on ideological nationalist grounds there could be no alternative but 31 December, so the votes were duly cast.

The PP, also divided on inner ideological grounds, has said that it will change the day back again. And why would they do that? Well, because they'll be able to, one supposes. Because they've opposed 31 December, there's no better reason to later revert to 12 September. Personally, I believe 31 December makes complete sense, but sense is not what we're talking about. It's ideologies which matter along with the impulse to change things just because you can. Més say that 31 December will be better because the citizens will take more interest, which is further nonsense. The citizens won't. Theirs is a justification raised so as to disguise ideological motives.

What else is batted across the political ping-pong table? The name of Palma is one. The PP, aided and abetted by the C's, will add "de Mallorca" once more. Why? Well, because it's practical to do so, which may be true but is also right-wing speak for saying we don't like what the left are doing.

And so the list goes on, no one ever quite knowing where they stand. One side says Catalan, the other side says Castellano, so changes the rules only for them to be changed back again. Everything changes because it can be changed, even current governmental agreements for change. Just ask the ideologues of PSOE, Més and Podemos.