TO 'B' OR NOT TO BE - A DEMOCRACY

States prepare to debate Bailhache's strategy for a legal dictatorship...


'Does the PPC Chairman accept that both of the amendments to Option B being put forward (by myself and Deputy A.K.F. Green) ensure much fairer, more equal representation in regard to parity of weight of vote for St. Helier in comparison to other parishes ad, further still, that both more strongly protect the functioning of the so-called 'Troy Rule'?'

The oral question to the Chairman of PPC detailed above leads in to what is not only the last debate before the summer recess; but also something of a rarity for this Assembly - a full and important week of debate. I say this even with my Ministerial Mole's tip off that Chief Minister Gorst suddenly pulled his pitch for a fully fledged Foreign Minister until September because he knew he was on a hiding - not least because of the embarrassment of Bailhache-Gate.

He is, according to the Mole, hoping all will have been forgotten by then. It won't of course and I'll be making sure of that this very Sitting. Not only are there rumours that Senator Bailhache will nevertheless finally make a personal statement next week (I sincerely hope he does) but I am also asking the PPC Chairman why - given that they do not even need an official complaint - he hasn't yet initiated an investigation into the matter.

Fact is its high time Senator Bailhache dropped the petulance, made his apologies to the two businessmen and then resigned. No, he need not apologise to me for his slurs and insults. An apology from a man with zero political credibility like the Senator is something I can live quite happily without. 

St. Helier's representatives truly under the spotlight...

Still, though the big debate of the week certainly is the aforesaid Option B proposals truth be told there is actually very little that hasn't already been said about why Option B in its unamended form simply must be blocked by progressives at all costs. To be fair its also equally true that just as many hares have been set running by Bailhache, Ozouf and the Constables in the hope of managing to slip it through.

Thus my only point - OK, two inter-related points actually - for people to be clear upon are these.  

If Philip Bailhache gets his way then the people of St.Helier - a third of Jersey's population let us not forget - will have their say in what happens to this Island politically hamstrung for at least a generation; possibly even two. They will, at a stroke, be made second class voters wholly at the mercy of the smaller. less populated country parishes dominated by self-interested Establishment supporters.

The second point to remember is this. The 10 St. Helier Deputies and the parish Constable, Simon Crowcroft, together have both a chance and  an obligation to vote for either my or Deputy Green's amendments and thus, just perhaps, save the day for democracy. This is, after all, about protecting the interests of the people we are meant to serve.

Alright, our capital's fate is not in our hands alone.. But what is true is that any St. Helier representative who fails to vote in their constituents' democratic interests next week; but instead bows to Emperor Bailhache's '3 line whip' for legal dictatorship needs to be driven from office come 2014. Driven from office if needs be with flaming torches and pitchforks.

Will any be that foolish or hypocritical? Word in the States is that the only St. Helier representative who will definitely stab his constituents in the back will be St. Helier No. 1's Deputy James Baker. Yet beware: there are also whispers that Rod Bryans and even Constable Crowcroft may bend the knee to Emperor Philip and join him in the hope of future patronage.

Let's hope this is wholly incorrect. Though it must be said such action would certainly be a Godsend to any candidate wishing to stand against one of them in 15 months time...

The 'secret court case' against former Senator, Stuart Syvret and the hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money no one in authority wants to be held accountable for...

On Friday morning I had a meeting with the Attorney General. He wished to clarify that neither he nor his office have any control or involvement relating to the shed loads of taxpayers' cash - our cash - that's been handed out so four private individuals could bring a secret Data Protection Law case (in reality a glorified defamation case) against former Senator Stuart Syvret.

Always happy to correct my position I would flag up here that I was grateful to the Attorney General for his clarification; and am equally happy to say sorry if I got any wires crossed on the involvement of his office. Yet the fact is one clarification only creates even more questions in a case like this.

Questions like: who is ultimately responsible for complying with requests from the Data Protection Commissioner's office that result in monies in excess of its entire annual budget being made available?

According to the Attorney General this used to come under the Treasury Minister but now comes under the control of the Chief Minister's office itself. OK then, Senator Gorst - looks like come Monday all eyes will be on you! But I have also asked Senator Ozouf as well. Will I get a full and proper answer to my questions?

Who can tell - and if the Chief Minister once again hands answering this written question over to Senator Routier the likelihood is that we'll all be even more confused than when we started! Yet if the plan is to once again fob us off with vague waffle I trust the Chief Minister (and Treasury for that matter) will also consider this.

If I don't get some proper answers we'll just have start all over again come September. And keep on asking the same questions until we do. After all, I know a whole army of taxpayers intrigued to know if any kind of background checks were carried out - this to ascertain if one particular 'man' and alleged 'victim' afforded financial assistance at their expense actually has complaints against him of Internet bullying and abuse  longer than a proverbial toilet roll!

Keep the Faith

Note: My full list of questions - both oral and written - for next week's Sitting can be read on the States Assembly website. 




EQUALITY OF VOTING & THE CONSTABLES - Trying to make a silk purse out of the Electoral Commission sow's ear...



So just what is wrong with the hijacked Electoral Commission's recommendations which we are due to debate at the next States Sitting on February 19th?

Well, nothing if you buy into the letter from former Senator Jimmy Perchard published in the Jersey Evening Pravda this past Thursday (no doubt triggered by his reading my tweet about Geoff Southern's amendment to make this a one question referenda in standard fashion). We should all leave well alone according to Mr. Perchard because the Commission was 'appointed' by the States.

A fair and resonable view? Well not from the vast majority of people that I speak to. And actually not an argument that is even remotely sustainable if you have any genuine concern that above all else a voting system must be as fundamentally fair to all as it can reasonably be made.

Trouble is, as I have been at pains to highlight, all too few within our (MSM) mainstream media want to put their heads above the parapet to tell the public that in reality what Senator Philip Bailhache and his underlings on the hijacked Commission have put forward is neither fit for purpose nor even the best that could be achieved in creating a reform option wishing to retain the Constables.

Am I making this up? Of course not!

But first let's be quite upfront here. No matter how passionate one feels about the role of the Constables - or any of the 3 types of States Member's role for that matter - this can never justify selling out a section of the community; in reality making their votes worth less than others simply because of where they happen to live. Yet this is what Senator Bailhache and co are trying to fob us off with.

Take the nonsense spun to try and justify the Commission utilising statistics based on so-called 'eligible' voters in concocting their proposals rather than actual population. On page 13 of the Commission's final report they state: ‘Equality and fairness are key elements of any truly democratic electoral system’

Interesting this - because I would suggest that not a single individual within the States Assembly would dream of rising to speak at an election hustings to publicly proclaim anything other than their full support for this principle. The 'eligible' voters stats that Bailhache and his colleagues base their arguments on will already be out of date by the time of the 2014 elections. Heck - they are out of date already!

The truth is out there somewhere - in fact it's in a graph just below...

Yet just a cursory glance at the figures utilising full POPULATION statistics in each of the Commission's proposed 6 large districts shows how precious little more than lip-service has really been paid to this principle. Indeed, forget the bull that to utilise these population figures might have taken the Commission 'outside it's terms of reference'. This is all part of a callous attempt to mislead the public by watering down the true extent of the system of first and second class voters the Jersey Establishment want to create - not just to maintain but hugely strengthen their grip on power.

A feat they hope to achieve of course by creating an ever-wider divide between the weight of votes available to those in 'country' parishes - who largely tend to vote for the political right. And 'town' dwellers who generally tend to lean more toward the political left. Anyone doubting the con lurking beneath the spin and excuses that what is before us now is the best compromise achievable need simply study the figures I lay out below.

The first thing you will hopefully notice is that these obviously include both Deputies AND Constables - something the Commission has been very keen to try and avoid doing with its pitch to the public. I mean, Senator Bailhache and his colleagues have massaged away 6,632 people deserving of representation off the St. Helier 'books' at the stroke of a pen. How convenient...

  

District No	Parishes/Vingtaines	Total Population	Number of Representatives	Public Per Representative
No.1	du Mont Cochon du Mont a l’Abbé de Haut du Mont au Prêtre du Rouge Boullon	17.543	5.5	3,189
No. 2	Bas de Haut du Monte au Prête, Canton Bas de la Ville, Canton de Haut de la Ville	15,942	5.5	2,898
No. 3	St. Clement Grouville St. Martin	17,850	8	2,231
No. 4	St. Saviour Trinity	16,736	7	2,391
No. 5	St. Lawrence St. John St. Mary St. Ouen	14,178	9	1,575
No. 6	St. Brelade St. Peter	15,571	7	2,224

People are being sold a lie...

Surprised? Everyone not a close follower of politics that I have shown these figures to has been. Which at the end of the day has no doubt been the whole reason to try and keep them largely under wraps. People are being sold a lie - a lie that tells them if you want to retain the Constables then something has to give; and sadly that 'something' is the equality of vote for the population of St. Helier!

Just 'half a Constable' for each St. Helier district whilst some have 3 and even 4 - sorry, there's just no way of balancing this out...

Of course, it would be very easy to write post after lengthy post highlighting all that is wrong with the Commission's contentions - for a lot there is. Yet for now let us purely confine our thoughts to the following questions. Could the shambles Senator Bailhache and his hijacked Commission have set before us in fact be improved upon to any significant degree - and improved upon with comparaitive ease? Improved upon to still allow an option that both keeps the 12 Constables AND allows the poor people of St. Helier to have a vote largely in line with the other districts?

The truth is that it can! Not only this but in reality the benefits that would be achieved by just one very simple modification would actually 'head off at the pass' two other problems that a great many people - even supporters of retaining the Constables - are greatly concerned about.

So what is this oh so difficult to achieve modification?

It is simply this. Instead of the largely inexplicable call to reduce the Assembly from 51 to 42 modify that figure slightly to 46. Then in line with the true statistics outlined in the table above allocate those 4 extra seats to the the two large St. Helier districts that the Commission currently proposes need to be sold massively short. Not only does such a modest move bring these second class citizens of the island's capital far more into line with the other districts; it actually ensures that two of the biggest related  worries about political reform can be put to bed at a single stroke.

 

One: An Assembly of 46 would enable the highly important ‘Troy Rule’ principle to be retained. Something that will prove nigh impossible with a reduction to a 42 x Member States Assembly - certainly if all of these new Ministers are invented: Justice; Children's; Foreign!

Possibly why Senator Bailhache is suggesting it - we can all be one big, happy family and any prospect of 'opposition' can be cut  off at the knees. Indeed, with a Chief Minister with probable sole power to 'hire and fire' a dictatorship/one party state in all but name... 

                                   

Two: This slight increase by just 4 x Members to 46 would also offer potential to even allow one Member to take on the role of Speaker. A role that like it or not will soon need to be filled with the inevitable coming necessity of achieving a full and true separation of powers i.e. ending the dual role of the Bailiff as Head of both Judiciary and Legislature.

Not only the above, of course, but even though many believe the argument about 'saving money' by reducing numbers is largely a red herring if it undermines both democracy and political efficiency this amended version of the Commission's Option B would still reduce the States current wage bill in the region of £230,000. You have to ask: why ever did the good Senator and his Commission colleagues not think of it in the first place?

Perhaps, dare I suggest, because just like the wholly unnecessary 'retain the status quo' proposal of Option C - instead of a 'none of the above' option - the real intention was to con the public at large into voting for what would give the Jersey Establishment Party what it craves above all else: the Constables still in the States and a weakened St. Helier vote cementing that hugely consolidated grip on power!

Now if only someone would put a couple of amendments in to allow a States debate to show people what is really going on...