Having been laid low with the flu for a few days the States Sitting of 26th June 2012 really looks like it might be just the tonic to put a smile back on my face.
I mean, not only does the ‘vote of censure’ e-mail fisticuffs that have been flying around between Senators Ferguson, Ozouf; Constable Refault and Deputy Tracey Vallois seem to suggest that for once the part-time ‘politicians’ of the Establishment Party are actually going to have to put in more than a half days shift in the Chamber – but in both question time and public business alike there are even some really interesting issues to be explored as well…
I mean, not only does the ‘vote of censure’ e-mail fisticuffs that have been flying around between Senators Ferguson, Ozouf; Constable Refault and Deputy Tracey Vallois seem to suggest that for once the part-time ‘politicians’ of the Establishment Party are actually going to have to put in more than a half days shift in the Chamber – but in both question time and public business alike there are even some really interesting issues to be explored as well…
8 out of 10 cats say that Jersey is a Tax Haven…
In his bestselling book ‘Treasure Islands’ Nicholas Shaxson put forward a very good definition of what he felt a tax haven to be. This was, and I quote, ‘a place that seeks to attract business by offering politically stable facilities to help people or entities get around the rules, laws and regulations of jurisdictions elsewhere’.
Throw in my own additional caveat that suggests that a second key giveaway is that those behind a tax haven will always both deny the charge furiously AND attempt to discredit and even viciously smear any who dare put forward such an argument and you have to say it all fits Jersey like a glove. As anyone who fully appreciates the basics of what lies beneath so much of our Off-Shore ‘business’ activities will, of course, know full well - even without the recent K2 headlines in the Times.
However, knowing this truth and admitting it publicly are two completely different things. After all, such a political admittance at a Ministerial level could be very bad indeed for the carefully contrived whiter-than-white ‘well regulated Finance Centre’ image. Which probably explains why Chief Minister Gorst has now joined long-time ‘haven deniers’ like Senator Ozouf and his Assistant Minister Deputy Noel in putting out the strident message that there is in fact, apparently, no place in Jersey for ‘aggressive tax dodging!’
You see, Lucy Mason had it right for once. Senator Ozouf (or ‘Phil’ as I like to let Lucy think I call him!) and I really do agree on some things: tax avoidance/evasion by multi-millionaire parasites really should be stamped out! Meanwhile, let’s also hope that the Chief Minister makes some kind of statement to scotch these strange rumours that he is actually planning to grab a share of Jimmy ‘K2’ Carr’s lucrative stand-up comedy routine by heading for the stage himself…
How to spot a politician not worth a vote at the next election…
Thanks to my good friend Deputy Mike Higgins (actually Mike genuinely is a ‘good friend’ - when I used the term in the States to describe the Constable of Grouville recently it was only to win a dare!) the population now have a quick but sure-fire way to assess which politicians will be worthy of your vote come 2014. Forget manifestoes, posters and even the hustings. Thanks to Mike you really won’t need to bother with a single one belonging to any sitting States Member!
What do you need to do? Simples – just watch to see who votes AGAINST Mike Higgins’ move to finally make public the transcript of the 2008 ‘in camera’ debate that shows that former Police Chief Graham Power was suspended on wholly false and contrived grounds. This will provide cast-iron evidence that any such person is both completely untrustworthy and wholly supportive of corruption. What could be simpler?
If you want to know the truth probably best not to ask a mainstream media journalist…
Writing in the ‘Evening Andrex’ columnist Paula Thelwell suggested that should one want to discover the truth then the last person you should ask would be a politician. Sweeping comment as this is (come on, this is the JEP we’re talking about!) such a view is one that so many of our Council of Ministers certainly regularly do inadvertently give some weight to. Indeed, if Paula was ever to sit through our fortnightly States ‘Questions without notice’ or as most of us call it ‘Questions without answers’ she would likely conclude her case was already 100% proven.
Nevertheless, be this as it may if there is one particular profession that even puts these Establishment politicians in the shade then, sorry Paula, I’m afraid it just has to be… good old mainstream media journalists. And no, I’m not even talking about the JEP’s long history of misrepresenting; lying about; and even downright smearing of ‘anti-establishment’ politicians who might dare to challenge the status quo. Though, of course, anyone who wants to see how far that goes back need only to read the late Norman Le Brocq’s book published way back in 1946. What I’m talking about is the constant misrepresentation of facts that those at the Establishment party house journal obviously don’t like.
For a recent example just consider the newspaper’s article only last week reporting what were apparently the key issues that the public were calling for in giving evidence to the ‘Electoral Commission’ at their first public hearing at the Town Hall. Reading Jo Hutchinson’s report you would have certainly thought that it was about moving the election to a Sunday and reducing the number of States Members. Yet these were actually only a side-show.
What the real concerns were that kept coming up again and again from some very articulate men and women from the public were these. Removing the Constables from the States (unanimous) and doing away with the ‘loaded’ and immoral system we have had for decades that means that a vote in the small country parishes carries far more weight than that of the urban parishes such as St. Helier. Yes, essentially people just wanted a system that was fair. Judging from the sour looks from the politicians on the ‘Commission’ this sadly wasn’t what they wanted to hear at all.
Funny how Jo missed all of this? You could almost begin to suspect that there might be some kind of hidden agenda…
Why do some lawyers think they can be a law unto themselves?
As regular readers will have noticed I have an oral question lodged for Tuesday that seeks to shed some light on why a number of politicians keep getting complaints about some lawyers refusing to provide itemised bills. In first pointing out that this question has nothing to with my own lawyer I have to say that this problem really does need investigating urgently. Fortunately a number of colleagues are increasingly agreed on this. After all, as a constituent put it to me: they had in recent months been to their dentist; had their car serviced and had some work done on their property.
Three very different trades and yet all had given detailed, itemised bills outlining exactly what they had done to reach these final totals. Clearly highly professional services. Then you come to a lawyer and a bill that dwarfs all three arising from the other professions by many tens of thousands of pounds. Yet incredibly this ‘lawyer’ expects a person to pay them without any proof whatsoever of the work that they claim underlies the staggering figure! Not only unprofessional and wholly unacceptable I have to say that I fully agree with my constituent – such individuals and/or firms really should be prevented from practising. Makes you wonder if the Minister at Economic Development got an itemised bill for the ‘fulfilment’ advice that cost us six whole times more than Guernsey paid for the same service?
Nothing like a bit of consistency…
Finally, to close I really had to mention how very good it is to see Senator (Sir Philip) Bailhache once again sticking so doggedly to his election commitments to making the States a more efficient and better place. No, not the one where he lectured us about how we all needed to ‘respect’ each other. Then straightaway implied ex-Senator Syvret was not fully compos mentis for no apparent reason other than the former Health Minister evidently held different views to him.
But that other one – you surely must remember it? Sir Philip went on about it all of the time. Complaining about how ‘some’ States members were so undisciplined that they kept on bringing back issues for debate that had only been decided a comparatively short time before. Issues decided by the States at that after many long hours of debate; and as the Senator reminded us angrily, cost the public significant amounts of money in the process.
Of course, obviously Sir Philip couldn’t have meant issues like his recent hijacking of the independent Electoral Commission? Or holding the Plemont debate all over again as he now wants to do? What was that old proverb about ‘do as I say – not as I do? Indeed, you really might think that a ‘political correspondent’ like the lovely Lucy Mason might pick up such hypocrisy and write a full page spread about it? I mean they’re not ‘establishment poodles’ at the JEP, you know – Lucy told us so only two weeks ago…
Keep the Faith
Trevor
