With the onset of the Covid pandemic, travel in Europe collapsed. When the pandemic eased, travel exploded in volume. People apparently wanted to compensate for the months during which they had been confined to the “inside”. The travel industry could recoup the losses they had experienced during days of total shutdown.

Then the tide of inflation burst. Price rises rolled through with an urge that had not been seen for decades. People now needed to pay much much more to keep their houses warm and to buy the food they were used to. Inflation was making the cost of these two outlays too high. Many expected that travel would take a hit as a result.

This did not happen. Indeed, travel continued to gather momentum. A few weeks ago, I was surprised when two Ryan Air officials complained that their firm had to increase its prices overall by 10 per cent a year for two consecutive years. When I asked how this increase had affected their sales, they told me that there had been no impact at all. Actually they had registered an increase in sales of travel.              

***

PERSONALISED POLITICS 

Politics has always been practised on a personalised basis: unlike football, another competitive game, it was always taken for granted that personailities would be targeted for attack in a big way. But up to some time ago, this used mostly to happen with respect to leaders and those close to them.

It does not seem like this is still the case today. The personalisation of political attacks has spread and people who participate in political action without being protagonists are also being targeted.  Everything counts when it comes to mounting such attacks on the other side.

No doubt, the social means of communication have helped to power this trend. With their help, one can communicate personal information to everybody else; one can comment about all and sundry, including criticism most vicious and personal; one can follow what everybody else is saying about Peter and Paul. Within one’s personal enclave, all have become or can become protagonists.

Which is why personalised shootouts have spread across the board, at all political levels.                     

***

TOO MANY FOREIGNERS

That a substantial number of foreign citizens are living here is well known; the fact is rarely disputed. The query that arises is whether really and truly there are too many foreigners. I believe that a majority agrees this is so; a significant and intelligent minority however argues that put in this way, the question is meaningless.

For how shall “too many” be defined? According to which criteria are we bound to agree that this or that number is enough?

For instance, in tourism over the years the maximum number of tourists that we hoped to attract to this country rose from a few hundred thousand to two million and now, if I understand correctly, we’re reaching out to get 5 million.

As I see it, the query should not relate to how many foreigners we can “carry” but to whether foreign citizens who arrive to live here or for a holiday are giving or can give a worthwhile contribution? Are we allowing or helping them to do so? Are we ensuring that their contribution is really worthwhile?