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.

MY & DEPUTY SHONA PITMAN’S QUESTIONS FOR JANUARY 17TH; + A PETTY, COWARDLY ATTACK ON DEPUTY GEOFF SOUTHERN FROM ARCH-HYPOCRITE SENATOR PHILIP ‘THE EGO’ BAILHACHE…

TREVOR’S ORAL QUESTIONS

Below I list the oral questions that I have on the Order Paper for next Tuesday 17th January. Pitched to both ‘Chief Minister’ Ian Gorst and Chairman of PPC Constable Simon Crowcroft not surprisingly they both focus on the appalling attempt to sell out the States large majority decision of only March 2010 to put reform in the hands of a fully independent Electoral Commission.  See my last post for the full details.

QUESTION 1: Deputy T. M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Chairman of the Privileges and Procedures Committee –

“Will the Chairman advise whether the recent decision by the Privileges and Procedures Committee at its January 4th meeting to seek the agreement of the States to reverse its majority decision to have a fully Independent Electoral Commission and allow it to be chaired by a States Member was made unanimously and if not would he advise which Committee Members voted in favour of the proposal?”

QUESTION 2: Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of Chief Minister 

“What justification does the Chief Minister have for withdrawing his support for a fully independent Election Commission, and proposing instead that his Assistant Minister chair the Commission, especially given that this was a factor in garnering the support of several Members in his election for Chief Minister, and will he now be offering his resignation as a consequence of going back on this commitment?”

 NOTHING BUT THE BALD TRUTH WILL DO!

Forget the rubbish about a clear four to two vote that was claimed in the JEP. If my good – but clearly misguided friend, Simon Crowcroft says anything other than the truth i.e. that the decision to risk sacrificing all of Daniel Wimberley’s excellent hard work on the alter of Senator Philip Bailhache’s colossal ego actually was passed by just one crucial vote – that of Philip Bailhache - then the words ‘Sir, the Chairman is misleading the House!’ will be echoing around the Chamber. I’m sure I will have no need…

As for ‘Chief Minister’ Gorst it is really quite difficult to imagine what his response will be. It should be something like a short and humble: “I’m really very sorry. I apologise. I have gone back on my word about inclusive government. I have gone back on my word about revealing the details of the disgusting ‘golden handshakes’ paid out under by predecessor. I have been pressured to go back on my word to support a fully independent Electoral Commission. But today I am going to show that I do have some backbone and say “Sorry Philip, I’m not going to let you hijack this after all!” Should we hold our breath? Sadly I doubt we should…

SHONA’S ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1: Deputy S. Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Social Security –

“Will the Minister advise whether there have been long-standing problems within his Department concerning the loss of documents, data being mislaid and conflicting information given out to the public from different members of staff, if so, what measures will he be implementing to resolve this situation?”

QUESTION 2: Deputy S Pitman of St. Helier will ask the following question of the Minister for Housing –

“What action if any, is the Minister taking to ensure that Housing Trusts take responsibility for maintenance matters?”

TWO PROBLEMS THAT REALLY DO NEED SORTING URGENTLY

The only answer to Shona’s first question can really be an emphatic yes – and it really isn’t acceptable. It is also equally true to remember that this problem has not been of Senator Le Gresley’s making. It has been inherited from the former Minister, Senator Ian Gorst who proved wholly ineffectual in both accepting this and rectifying it. To be fair this was probably not helped by him choosing an Assistant Minister who was spectacularly useless, the now thankfully ousted by the public, former Deputy Angela Jeune. 

Hopefully Francis can give some assurances that he is finally going to sort things out. I mean, promising young cancer victims that the Department will meet the cost of resultant dental care – then going back on this. Just how low can government sink?

The second question is one that should have been tackled way back when the ‘partnerships’ with Housing Trusts was first set up. It wasn’t and I and a number of others have spent a great deal of time lobby the various Housing Ministers over the last three years to put it right. I am actually confident that Deputy Andrew Green will do what his predecessors failed to do so badly.

TREVOR’S WRITTEN QUESTION

Given the JEP’s disgraceful and desperate attempt to reinvent Det Sup Mick Gradwell as some kind of ‘whistle-blower’ these three questions to Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand about the ‘Abuse Enquiry’ are a nice little wake up call. I say ‘Abuse Inquiry’ rather than ‘Historic’ Abuse Enquiry because we really shouldn’t be buying into the media PR nonsense that this is all something old and long ago that doesn’t matter any more.

It isn’t. It is current. Just ask the victims still suffering everyday while clowns like Ben Shenton, Jimmy Perchard, Sean Power and co try to muddy the waters with innuendo about the News of the World. Which reminds me?  Come on boys, you had a lot to infer about Harper and wholly un-evidenced ‘leaks. Surely you would like to write in and condemn what we now know about the behaviour of Mr. Gradwell? Or is that…different?

I’ll leave further comment until after we have the answers. Though the one about how much of our taxpayers’ money the Minister has spent and how many convicted/disciplined Police Officers we have had as a result looks like it may be absolutely fascinating…

As for my other written question to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee this is an issue that I have pursuing for a long time, Not that you would know it from the JEP reporting! I will obviously be supporting Deputy Roy Le Herissier’s proposition but I think this work needs to be championed by PAC too. It is, after all, our taxpayers’ money that the Establishment Party is giving out to keep the silence of so many failed senior Civil Servants. It needs to stop and politicians and whoever else be held accountable.

QUESTION 1:   

“As a part of the Historic Abuse Inquiry did the investigators research and consequently obtain a full list of all individuals who were, at any time, on the Board of Governors of Haut De La Garenne (whether in paid or purely voluntary roles) under each of the various authorities under which the facility operated during the period of investigation?

Were all those individuals still living subsequently interviewed and, if so, will the Minister provide Members with a full list of those interviewed or advise where such information can be viewed?”

QUESTION 2:

“Will the Minister provide details of how much money has been spent on external inquiries and reviews in respect of alleged disciplinary issues since November 2008 and how many police officers, if any, have been convicted of any criminal or disciplinary charges as a consequence?”

QUESTION 3:

“What investigations, if any, have taken place in respect of the allegations that States of Jersey Police officers acted illegally during the investigation of the case of Curtis Warren and others; and if there has been an investigation, what was the total cost and the outcome?”

QUESTION 4:

“Will the Chairman advise whether the Public Accounts Committee intends to investigate and subsequently publish a report into the amount of taxpayers’ money used under the last Council of Ministers, under Senator T.A. Le Sueur, to provide ‘golden handshakes’ to senior Civil Servants leaving their posts early; further still, will the Committee be investigating the absence of detail on such payments within published States accounts?”

SENATOR PHILIP BAILHACHE – A MAN WHO HAS SPENT TOO MUCH TIME WATCHING ‘DOWNTON ABBEY’?

Disappointed that instead of improved transparency the new ‘critical friends’ running Scrutiny are going to make all of their non-hearing meetings closed to the public? Perhaps I can suggest an alternative? Get down to the next PPC meeting instead. Why? Well, if nothing else you will be able to see that regardless of what he spouted on the hustings, lecturing States Members about ‘respecting’ others what Senator Philip Bailhache says in public is very, very different to what he actually does! 

Indeed, no wonder he wanted the media – and just as importantly Daniel Wimberley and I who were also watching proceedings - removed before he would speak! Luckily this demand was challenged by Deputy Judy Martin or we would still not know exactly the low and underhand manner in which this horrible, arrogant little coward really works.

What am I talking about? Well, not content with trying to hijack the independent Electoral Commission (as documented in my last post) now Bailhache even wants to try and dictate who can sit on other sub-committees! Worse, sub-committees only being set up because he is too lazy and pompous to include them in the Electoral Commission’s work as Daniel Wimberley had set out in his successful proposition! Even worse again, of course, he wanted to try and have another member prevented from participating but wanted it done in secret so no one would be any the wiser! So much for all that pious talk of ‘respect’ eh Senator?

The target of the Egotistical One’s spite today was Deputy Geoff Southern. He had foolishly offered his services to contribute to a sub-committee being set up to look at election laws, campaign timescales etc. Bailhache’s objection? Southern (like my wife, Deputy Shona Pitman of course) had been prosecuted and convicted for the awful, heinous ‘crime’ of assisting a few elderly/disabled people to complete an application form to request that they could be registered for a postal vote in 2008

Of course, this isn’t a ‘crime’ in any known democracy in the free world. In fact it is actively encouraged. The candidate assisting the elderly/disabled person to apply to be registered to be able to participate in the democratic process is, of course, long gone by the time they are actually sent their voting slip several days later.

But leaving that aside Bailhache had then had the appalling arrogance and downright gall to insultingly compare Southern’s action with an analogy of ‘If you created a criminal law commission to look at burglary you wouldn’t invite a convicted burglar to join the commission.’

As I really had to ask of the PPC Chairman and this pompous little man when Daniel, the reporter and I had to leave for part B of the agenda. Having put forward my own name for the sub-committee hopefully we would be able to look at the legitimacy of such non-Human Right compliant local laws? Even more so the fact that why Deputies Southern and Shona Pitman were taken to court for ‘crimes’ they had stood up in the States and openly said that they would be left no option but to commit out of principle, wasn’t it funny that two other individuals in the very same St. Helier No. 2 district in 2008 did exactly the same – but didn’t get prosecuted.

Hell – Southern was even originally charged with one of these individual’s offences! We still have the relevant police documents. The only difference? The other two weren’t in the JDA.  Just for the record one individual had a five letter name beginning with the letter ‘A’. The other is detailed as having a three letter name beginning with the letter ‘R’ and is also described as having a beard. FACTS…

Still, sickening as all of this hypocrisy and spite is at least the ‘Historic’ Abuse Committee of Inquiry should be safe from hijack. I mean you, wouldn’t invite a former Attorney General who allowed a convicted paedophile to be sworn into the Honorary Police on to a body set up to investigate best practice on child protection matters would you…

Keep the Faith

Trevor

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

EDDIE POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS…

Or

WHY THE ESTABLISHMENT PARTY ARE SO TWITCHY CHALLENGED ON SUPPORTING TAX BREAKS FOR THE SUPER RICH?

(PART ONE OF MANY)

If anyone still doubted just how inadequate and completely morally bankrupt this Council of Ministers is then surely Assistant Treasury Minister, Deputy Eddie Noel’s stand-up comedy routine last month should have torn the last strands of wool from such people’s eyes. .

Unable (as usual!) to answer even the most straight-forward of questions on 1 (1) Ks convincingly Deputy Eddie Noel had then proceeded to tell the Assembly that a report - which he had claimed “verified” that our super-wealthy tax evaders benefited the rest of the community by between £50 and £70 million - was in fact so secret and so sensitive that not only could Members not see it…they couldn’t even be informed as to who had complied and written it!  

Such a publication it seemed would lead quickly to Armageddon! I really wish that I was joking about this but I’m not. As a former colleague was often want to comment: you really couldn’t make it up.  

Of course, I’ll be looking at the sham and semantics of the politics of tax evasion and avoidance (don’t get hung up on the manufactured differences!) at length as we build towards the most important election in Jersey’s history. But for now let’s just briefly look at perhaps the most basic of myths spun to make this sickening hypocrisy half-palatable to ordinary working people all of these years…

This being the pure fiction that allowing the wealthy a bigger slice of the pie across the world  automatically always leads to everyone else being better off.

The politics of stupidity & greed

The States Chamber is not the first legislature to be treated to the despicable antics of free-marketeer ‘politicians’ trying to keep straight faces whilst deadpanning through their teeth that – far from the natural, ultimate consequence of such greed-based ideologies – the economic meltdown of the past three years is in fact all really down to over-paid and bloated public service workforces. Oh...and those damned 'lefties' of course!

Indeed, how many times have we heard the likes of Senators Le Sueur, MacLean, Shenton, Ozouf - never mind his political glove puppet - infer this garbage whilst screaming cut, cut, cut and cut again? No mention of incompetence on the part of Ministers; the waste caused by inefficient little empires created by untouchable, very senior Civil Servants... Many of these politicians and the sycophantic head-nodders who support and keep them in office do know better, of course, but we’ll talk about that and why they keep so quiet in a future post?

Personally I have lost count of hearing this desperate mantra of protecting the status quo at all costs; all too often in tandem with this standard right-wing tactic of shameless ‘guilt or blame transference’. But it’s not as if this smokescreen even ends there. For hand-in-hand with such garbage always go the groundless barbs hurled at any like me and the other ‘progressives’ in the States - who believe equality and social justice should actually be more than just words on a Strategic Plan - that such criticisms are based on envy; ‘not understanding’ or plain old ‘Socialist’ embitterment!  Worst of all any critics must be anti-Jersey!

Confronting the propaganda

Oh but you would say that you might respond? Well, fair enough. So just to clarify the reality far from relying on the word of one of us so-called ‘radical lefties’ let us instead briefly consider the findings of a true, renowned expert in the field: award winning economist Ha-Joon Chang.

Chang isn’t anti capitalism – he is anti unregulated, free-market capitalism. Because he is acutely aware that .the spin peddled out of elitist self-interest that making rich people even richer still automatically make the rest of us richer too is demonstrably untrue!

Let’s put it this way. Chang knows, and illustrates in his writings adroitly, that alleged wisdom that ‘we must give the rich a bigger slice of the pie’ because it will then automatically benefit us all is absolute tosh! No, not an anti capitalist message at all: Chang just knows - as many of us ‘progressives’ here in Jersey know -  that there is simply a much better way to operate it.

We’ll look at what this needs to entail in future posts over the coming months. Likewise the ethics (or lack of them) that allows many of the politicians you and me have elected in good faith to then go on to sell ordinary, hard-working people short: down the economic river in fact. For now let’s just end with a snippet of what Jersey’s ‘Establishment’ Party, like their counterparts around the globe, hate and fear so very much: facts. And what interesting facts they are!

Some very inconvenient facts

Utilizing data from the World Bank Chang points out that whilst the world economy used to grow in per capita terms at more than 3% during the 1960s and 70s, since the 1980s it has been growing at around 1.4% per year. (For the record Chang’s data is from 1980 – 2009).

Put in a nutshell what Chang demonstrates is that while since the 1980s the rich have globally been given a bigger slice of the pie due to the right-wing spin that they would automatically create more wealth and help us all by making the pie bigger – not to mention giving the rest of us a bigger slice - they have actually slowed down the pace of the rate which the pie is growing!

Of course, what needs to be secured by politicians to even make such a concept potentially begin to work is to ensure that those lovely tax evaders/avoiders actually invest more as a result of their wholly unjustified tax breaks courtesy of world governments. Which brings us neatly back to ‘Eddie’ Potter and the Chamber of Secrets?

Would you buy a secondhand car if you couldn't look under the bonnet?

A report has been written which in the limited case of 1(1) Ks apparently demonstrates this very thing. Only… politicians elected by the ordinary people of Jersey are currently not allowed to read it for themselves. No – just the chosen few who advocate such policies in the first place…. Makes you proud. And to think - we haven’t even considered the matter of morality yet!  

But would Treasury Minister Ozouf offer more ‘enlightenment’ when I followed up, questioning him in the States this very Tuesday? Would the Bald Truth (sorry, couldn't resist it!) finally reluctantly unfold if we kept the pressure up? Would the Council of Minister’s protestations of a solid commitment to openness, transparency and ‘political inclusion’ turn out to be of any more substance than America’s proclaimed commitment to supporting democracies that don’t accept that their interests must always come a poor second to that of the USA?

Well, judge for yourself…

Earth-shatteringly we finally got to know who wrote this most Top Secret of reports! But more on this particular angle in the near future…And we also got the promise that we could even have…an ‘executive summary’ of the report!  But as for the report in its entirety and quite possibly sight of all the bits that don’t quite back up the Establishment party spin… What do you think?  Nah. Don’t be silly! This is Ministerial government - Jersey style. Asking for that…well, anyone would think I was an elected Member of a democratic government or something!

And yet perhaps the most interesting development of all was not the contents of the report itself at all. No. It was the fact that the cold, hard World Bank data that I gave - that I have given now on two or three occassions - telling us that pandering to bullying and spin from mega-rich parasites and their apologists with tax breaks doesn’t actually automatically benefit those of us who have to live in the real world wasn’t  even disputed! Now you might have thought that the JEP might have picked up on that within their report on Thursday...

Never mind. Trust me. This one will run and run…