A guest posting from former Deputy, Daniel Wimberley

The man who thought he had given the people of Jersey a fully 'independent' Electoral Commission. Please read it - the posting throws a great deal of light on how this excellent and much-needed initiative has been hijacked by those who want to hold on to power at all costs.

Keep the Faith.

Trevor

10 OUT OF 10 FOR THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION? 

 
NOT QUITE

How are the electoral commission doing their job?  How are they engaging with the public?  How are they avoiding bias or the perception of bias?  Why have they not set out the principles of reform in their consultation document?

Questions like these are about process.  The process followed determines the outcome.  Bad process – bad outcome. Often politicians deride such questions, saying things like: “ah, these are not important questions. What matters is employment, income support, housing etc.” And what they see as the killer retort: “this is just navel-gazing.”

These are remarks made by politicians of the “we do not want any change” variety, I hasten to add. Change often depends completely on having the right process. Example: if there had been proper open consultation on how to replace the old Bellozanne incinerator, we would not have ended up with the bonfire in a box at la Collette.

The whole question of electoral reform is a question of process – How do we elect our States members? Is it fair? Does voting the way we do make a difference?

To say that it does not matter as much as the bread and butter issues like population, housing, jobs, is to miss the point spectacularly. Who sits in the States determines all the other issues.

So process is vitally important. Which is why I wrote to the Commission and asked them a series of questions about how they are doing their job.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Before the hearing on August 17th I asked the Commission these questions:

1    I asked whether the issue of “how do we promote a debate on electoral reform throughout society?”, had ever been on the commission's agenda.  If so, what strategy has been agreed?

2    I asked what steps had been taken to ensure that their processes and methodology were free from bias, as far as this is possible.

3    I asked  why their consultation document contained no explicit mention or discussion of the fundamental principles of electoral reform or of the purposes of having elections, and hence no context to help people understand the issues and come to a view.

4    I asked whether the issue of “what are the fundamental principles of electoral reform?” ever been on the agenda of the Commission and if so, where could the public see the outcome of those discussions.

5    And I asked why the public consultation was begun before the expert critique of the present system and other work had been completed and available to the public.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So how did it go?

They did acknowledge from the outset that I had the right to talk to them about whatever I wanted to, and to put the questions.

However they first tried at length to get me to drop it. ‘We would much rather hear what you have to say about the classes of member, the term of office etc. etc. Why talk about this stuff?’
But the questions are important, see above, so I did not drop them.

So, question 1 – public engagement

They insisted that they spoke a lot about how to engage the public, they are really trying to get people to put in submissions.  It was in their minds. So, no strategy then. Which kind of shows.

As Mike Dun pointed out at the same hearing – no agenda for the audience, no sound system in a hall with very bad acoustics, no notice outside the building inviting people in. The email to those on the website’s email list – this is people who WANT to be kept informed – telling them of the hearing went out at 14.00 the day before. Same story for the Chief Minister’s appearance.  There is still no mention of upcoming hearings on the Commission’s home page. 

The media covered Ian Gorst’s appearance, even though it was not on any published schedule, and had been arranged at one day’s notice, whereas there were NO mainstream media to hear what leading commentators Mike Dun and Nick Le Cornu; four States members Sean Power, Trevor Pitman, Geoff Southern and Alan Breckon; two former States members, one of them a leading light in his day Reg Jeune, the other the originator of the Electoral Commission, Daniel Wimberley. Clearly they have failed to get the media committed to the cause of informing the public.

When asked if the media would be informed about the hearing we were told that what was sauid would go up on the website. “But that is one month away” we cried. I wonder how many of our esteemed media will print something one month old?

And they should be going well beyond “informing the public”. They should be trying to create a buzz around their work. Yet there is no on-going blog or blogs on the website informing the public of the evolving story of submissions and evidence. There are no focus groups reaching out to the “hard-to-reach”. There has been no research to find out, for example, why people do not vote.

And yet public engagement is vital. Electoral reform in Jersey is controversial.  It is also complex.  Mandates, constituencies, numbers of votes, classes of member, all interrelate and it is not surprising that people seem to want things that are contradictory.  And so it is essential to have the widest possible public debate so that the island can arrive at the best way forward. There should be as wide as possible agreement on this way forward, and even amongst those who do not agree, a recognition that the process was indeed fair, open and thorough.

And yet, no strategy at all.

Question 2 - bias

One of them, Mr. Storm I think, said that bias is in the eye of the beholder. He completely ignores the fact that people have every reason to think the Commission is biased. Three States members are on the Commission, and all of them of one political stripe. Having outsiders overseeing the process, as I have suggested, “would not change anything” according to him.

‘Trust us’ was the message. In the age of banks fiddling the LIBOR rate, newspapers engaging in wholesale illegal hacking of phones whilst completely denying that they were doing so, Tony Blair’s “reasons” for going to war in Iraq, Terry le Sueur and Philip Ozouf misleading the States again and again – trust us rings a little hollow. In fact it will not do any more (if it ever did). The question of how to ensure freedom of bias was a serious one. I put it to them and they just did not get it.

Questions 3 and 4 and 5

How can people come to a sensible view, and even understand the issues at stake if the principles of electoral reform are not stated in the Consultation document? Then they can say “yes, I agree with those fundamental principles” or “no, I do not agree” But at least the whole debate is starting out in the right place. Otherwise we are all at sea without a paddle and it shows.

They said that they had a tight timetable and the experts were going to report soon. So the Commission was not able to put their views into the Consultation document. I pointed out that they could have asked the experts to summarise what for them were the key elements of any electoral reform (and I would add now, a brief critique of the current system in Jersey) and that could have gone in to the consultation, and the other stuff they are going to report on, such as how things work elsewhere could have followed on later.

The fact is, they could have put this stuff into the consultation document and failed to do so. My interpretation is that they (or the chairman in particular, and the others did not spot it) did not  want a discussion of basic principles, but preferred a mish-mash of views which allows them to say – “everyone disagrees, here is what we propose.” That is what it looks like.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So on tackling the reality and perception of bias, on excluding any discussion of principles in the consultation document, and on engaging the public, the Commission have not done very well.

Trevor optimistically said in his appearance at the same hearing that he hoped that in spite of everything something worth-while would emerge.

Let’s hope so.

PRINCE CHARLES IN JERSEY – HOW MUCH DO ROYAL VISITORS REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE ISLAND’S HUGE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT?

If this post seems an odd one to put up a couple of weeks after the event then the only excuse that I can offer is this one. It was motivated by a discussion over sharing a quick beer on the way home with a couple of constituents; after the excellent Havre des Pas Seaside Festival on Sunday evening.  Ultimately in fact by a comment from a young woman contrasting the smiles of ‘ordinary’ people at this event; with the smiles of the self-proclaimed local ‘Great & the Good’ that were largely given pride of place two weeks ago to pretend that THEY were the true face of Jersey - and what has made it so special. Or used to. 

The question raised was certainly a good one.

Just how much will Prince Charles or his Lady wife really know about the actions of so many of those who smile and preen - but are actually so desperate to hold on to the power they have hijacked in our Crown Dependency of Jersey for so many decades? Not only this, but as my constituent’s partner added ‘how much will the Royals really care to try and find out’?

To this the obvious further addition I suggest might well be: and how much effort would they then make to try and see matters were put right if they did come to know of the cancer eating Jersey from the top down? After all, ‘Old Gods almost dead’ these local Establishment Party ‘Big Wigs’ may be but the damage that they have caused – and continue to cause - is staggering.

One would like to think that there would be a Royal response.

Of course, the Royal visitors are meant to be strictly apolitical. Yet you do have to ask yourself this further question. If Senator Philip Bailhache could simply duck in and out of this constraint every time he wanted to meddle in democracy and maintain the status quo whilst Bailiff - then shouldn’t our Royal Family also be able to do just that when their subjects are quite clearly being sold down the river by people who are as arrogant, elitist and vested interest-driven as they are generally inept at their jobs?

For given that all too many local people would now suggest that Westminster’s constitutional commitment to ensure ‘good governance’ here appears to be largely no more substantial than all but forgotten words on a faded piece of paper; shouldn’t the Crown to which Jersey has for so long pledged loyalty actually be doing a little more ‘top down’ to make things right?

Let’s consider just a handful of examples from recent times…

Do the Royals know that in Jersey our independent Electoral Commission has been stolen away from us by people who have already decided that fair representation and political transparency comes a very poor runner-up to ‘tradition’ and secrecy?

Do they know that victims of appalling abuse whilst in the ‘care’ of the States have their evidence ‘go missing’; or that even when an individual is named by more than a dozen people the Attorney General of the day won’t take the matter forward as in ‘the public interest?

Do they know that in Jersey individuals who are savaged in Official reports for diabolical failings in preventing child abuse at Victoria College are allowed to sit in judgement of others as Jurats for 14 long years without anyone ‘at the top’ saying or doing anything?

Do the Royals know that if you say the wrong thing; look under the wrong stone you can have your career threatened; ended – even have illegal police raids on your home?

Do they know that ‘anti-establishment’ politicians in Jersey actually get prosecuted -  make that ‘persecuted’ - for helping a few elderly/disabled people register a request to later receive a postal vote (a breach of both Human Rights and the law in every other democracy under the sun)? Whilst other Establishment candidates who did exactly the SAME and even in the SAME district are not prosecuted?

Do they know that in Jersey when it suits the Establishment Party only a ‘prosecution’ case will be heard and the defense just doesn’t count in case it undermines the desired result?

Do they know that whilst we have the incredible generosity of someone like David Kirsch in the island we also have dozens of multi-millionaire tax dodgers (costing other jurisdictions millions) who are allowed to pay less tax here than their gardeners and domestics - and yet do nothing to warrant such preferential treatment? All of this, of course, whilst the Establishment Party of 2012 spin their hollow propaganda about ‘all of us’ needing to ‘tighten our belts’ as much-needed frontline public services are slashed?

Do the Royals know that Ministers can be proven to have lied in the States to justify suspending a Chief of Police – yet too many Members are still so spineless they vote to keep such news secret from the public?

Do they know that if you want to find out the truth (and see some decent journalism as well for that matter!) you are better off coming on here or on the Citizens’ Media sites of Voiceforchildren, Rico Sorda and a growing group of others – rather than reading the likes of the Jersey Establishment Post; or tuning in to local TV or radio?

No. The Royals probably don’t. But it’s long past time that they did know of such things. These and a whole lot more. It’s up to us to make sure that they finally do. If only because we can then judge them on the consequent response to helping to set matters right.

Like I said – call me naïve if you wish – but I would like to think that respond appropriately they might…


Keep the Faith.

DEMOCRACY IN JERSEY IS ALIVE… BUT IT’S PROBABLY IN INTENSIVE CARE!

With apologies for not having had time to get around to the intended new post - as a stop gap - I thought it might be interesting to look back briefly at some of the more intriguing happenings of the past two weeks since I wrote. And, indeed, at a couple of the joys lying ahead for us in the Chamber this coming week.

Will he/won’t he/will he/won’t he – will he Chair the sub-panel…

As I have already explained to readers for obvious reasons I will not be expressing any thoughts on possible, eventual outcomes to the current Scrutiny review.

There was never any chance of this happening once we had decided to go ahead and I certainly didn’t need the rather foolish and ill-informed – and thankfully, of course, wholly dismissed – objections of the Home Affairs Minister to remind me of this. That said, and also given some rather confused reporting in the media, I certainly can and may well comment briefly in future on what is already now in the public domain via both these media outlets and Scrutiny’s own website.

However, first I very briefly want to comment on an incident that – following hot on the heels as it did of Senator Le Marquand’s attempts to remove me from the Chair – made up my mind then and there that once this important review has been completed I will be resigning from Scrutiny immediately. Indeed, not just resigning for the immediate future but also that I will never again play a further part in the Scrutiny process until the whole current machinery of government that has turned the ‘ministerial’ period into a right-wing farce of unaccountability, secrecy and elitism has been overhauled.

This incident revolves around comments made by former Chairmen’s Committee President, Senator Ben Shenton during the meeting at which the Home Affairs Minister’s objections to me chairing the review sub-panel were discussed. Put quite bluntly these comments - which both I and others present - felt both wholly inappropriate and profoundly shocking boil down to his opinion that Scrutiny shouldn’t be: ‘wasting time interviewing a pipe fitter.’ This being a reference to Mr. Rico Sorda.

I have to say that in my nearly three years on Scrutiny I have interviewed a lot of what might be termed ordinary working people; people who were not wealthy or  holders of well paid, high profile jobs. Regardless of this these people have generally been of the very best witnesses in terms of providing insights into how issues or problems directly affected people. The fact that many were just ordinary parents and not ‘experts’ with letters after their names was wholly irrelevant. They told it how they saw it – and more often than not told it all the clearer for this fact.

The bottom line to all of this is that in my view all and everyone is worth listening to. For when it comes to Scrutiny the final acid test will always be that opinions/arguments/claims and counter claims will stand or fall by analysis of the evidence.

The inference that only those with power or status are worthy of being listened to or taken seriously is one that I find both unacceptable and deeply offensive. Certainly an inference of a world view that I feel to be wholly incompatible with the ethics of government Scrutiny. Viewed alongside objections that I feel to be politically motivated, once the work to which I am committed is completed I genuinely feel that I wish to play no further part until this undervalued and flawed governmental process is overhauled and given the resources and value it undoubtedly should and must merit.

In the meantime I think the Senator owes Mr. Sorda a sincere and humble apology. But I doubt he is man enough to give it…

‘Reform’ debates on hold until after the Electoral Commission…

How many times have we all heard the nodding dogs within the Chamber complain that they really were all ‘reformed out’ – that the public were sick to the back teeth of us Progressives ‘wasting everybody’s time’ with such debates? Hundreds? Thousands? Indeed, I have the distinct personal impression that I have heard this very thing from Senator Philip Ozouf on at least a few dozen occasions.

So guess what? Yup, I brought this very proposition, Not that you would have known it from the complete lack of coverage in the JEP who have also echoed this sentiment ad infinitum. Consequently, any reasonable person might well have expected that this proposition would sail through easily. Oh no! You see the problem was that - rather like the Barclay’s wanting democracy but only if it served their purposes – the Great and the Good of the Establishment Party only wanted to stop reform debates that didn’t serve their purposes.

Supporting me would have meant they couldn’t retain any small degree of credibility they had left if they then voted for the ‘Save our Senators’ farce. Having tried unsuccessfully to make a mockery of Standing Orders to move Deputy Carolyn Labey’s (or was that Lyndon Farnham’s?) proposition ahead of mine lodged a full three weeks earlier – the result was entirely predictable: it was defeated. Still, let’s just remember who voted against and hear no more such protestations from these hypocrites during the next three years. Which brings us very neatly to…

The ‘Save our Senators’ debate…

Of course it is true that a whole book could be written about this saga -not least being the fact that the tiny petition and handful of ‘outraged, disenfranchised’ letter writers confirm the reality that 99% of the public actually really don’t give a fig. But anyone still harbouring lingering doubts that failure to support the proposition only half jokingly dubbed ‘Projet 666’ would automatically lead to democratic Armageddon in the island might be given a reality check by considering the following.

During the debate – the sixth on related issues that have now cost the taxpayer many tens of thousands of pounds - one of the Senators whose seat would undoubtedly likely be seriously at risk, Senator Terry Le Main, was accused of snoring loudly whilst Deputy Paul Le Claire was making a speech! Understandable, perhaps, to anyone who has heard one of the Deputy’s ‘playing both sides’ speeches but hardly appropriate all the same.

Then, of course, we had another one at risk after six years of living off his father’s political reputation - Senator Ben ‘The Invisible Man’ Shenton. Not only was the usually publicity hungry Senator strangely reluctant to accept full credit for having come up with the original idea to cut four Senators (back in the days when he was popular – heck, even I had voted for him!) but in repeating the desperate spin yet again that this was actually all a horrible plot led by wicked Deputies, with the debate over the Senator again did what he undoubtedly does the best: vanished!

The Protectors of Democracy? Get real – we need these people like a ship in a stormy sea needs a hole below the waterline.

The vote of Censure on the Chief Minister…

Thirteen failures was the description used to report it. Thirteen disasters may have been more accurate. Whichever you prefer the most surprising aspect of all of this was the nature of the dozens of contacts I received from the public. Were they all lambasting me for this ‘effrontery’ to one of my betters? Well, no actually. Apart from BBC Brigit and former Senator Dick Shenton (who to be fair was probably eager to write something to distract from his son’s spectacularly appalling attendance record at states sittings over the past six years).

They were actually all 100% supportive. Indeed, the only criticism, and one repeated many times was that I was quite wrong to only highlight thirteen! One multi-millionaire – actually a 1 (1) K I believe – even wrote to me to ask angrily why I wasn’t also seeking to hold the Chief Minister, Senator Terry Le Sueur, to account for his failure in costing the Island’s taxpayers millions of additional pounds by his shambolic handling of the incinerator contract!

Of course, the motion’s defeat was always inevitable. But one or two things did prove very enlightening in the course of the debate and are thus worth commenting on. The first was the expected total absence of any real focussing on the seriousness of the thirteen issues at hand by those who leapt to the Chief Minister’s defence. Much like the wholly warranted vote of no confidence brought by Deputy Shona Pitman in the former Bailiff three or four years ago – the issues were simply swept aside.

What mattered, apparently, was that the Chief Minister was ‘a really good chap’. Not only this – but as I was a full time politician and wasn’t a wealthy part-timer I really ought to know my place and shut up! For the record I have no doubt that the Chief Minister really is a nice chap. But that, I’m afraid, was hardly the issue and government should be mature enough to rise above such nonsense.

Another point that really is worth highlighting was the extraordinary speech of Deputy Paul Le Claire. Here was a ‘Progressive’ who just short weeks ago had been e-mailing a lot of us begging that we all support him because he wanted to bring votes of no confidence in…well, just about everyone actually or so it seemed! But now, without the Testicular Fortitude to go forward with his apparent convictions, he was to stand up and spectacularly about turn to tell the listening world how I really wasn’t showing the States in a good light by my motion! Was I surprised? Sadly I have to be honest and say – not really. As I have said before. I think it is what they call trying to ‘play both sides’. As a disgruntled constituent e-mailed me: a dangerous game so near an election…

Commonsense GST exemptions on healthy food – in the very same week Senator Ozouf wants us to support 1 (1) Ks to pay as little as 1% tax…

Poor old Treasury & Resources Minister Philip Ozouf. As a committed proponent of long-discredited free-market policies that would still seek to con the public that giving the wealthiest ‘a bigger slice of the pie’ automatically makes all of the rest of us better off he really can’t have foreseen that this despicable proposal would be up for debate - in the very same week that we would also have to discus GST exemptions on essential healthy food. But here we are.

Indeed, this one will be a challenge for even Philip’s finely honed Machiavellian manipulation of his colleagues. Look out for all the stops being pulled out. If someone – as happened last year – has to pay £250.000 minimum tax with my amendment on the sale of a company bringing in profit in the region of £90.000.000 + it will, indeed, surely be Armageddon for the island. Won’t it? The rich will surely flee in their droves! Civilisation will rapidly fall!  And yet…

Actually doing something intelligent, proactive and highly moral to actively encourage and assist those on low incomes to shop and eat more healthily – with the long-term result that the action will eventually save the Treasury and taxpayer millions through reduced strain on the health service etc… Nah, this would simply be a step too far. Predictable outcome or not – I really can’t wait for the black is white and white is black nonsense from the Minister and his cronies during the debate!

Just remember to make a nice big list of the names who support the wealthiest but who give another kick to the poorest – circulate it to your friends and make sure you don’t give any of these hypocrites a single vote come October 19^th!

Keep the faith.

Trevor