Friday, 19 April 2013

Option A Anthem and a rally in the Royal Square

Badlabecques to Release Referendum Anthem

Jèrriais-singing folk band Badlabecques have recorded a song to help drum up interest in the Jersey Referendum. The band are keen to promote debate and highlight the importance of fairness and democracy in our island.

‘The Option A Anthem’ is in English and Jèrriais, and is a re-working of a song by another Jersey group -Sergeant Pipon's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Kit Ashton, lead singer and founder of Badlabecques, says:
“I don’t think enough people realise what’s a stake here. Democracy is so important if we want to see a better society in Jersey. We want people to engage in rational debate then get out and vote no matter what, and we believe if you care about fairness and equality then Option A is the only one to vote for. It’s the only democratic Option, and it gives Constables the choice of either standing for the States or simply focussing on their Parish work. It’s fair and simple, whereas Option B is deeply unfair and Option C is just the current mess we have at the moment. Option A all the way!”

Christine Vibert, Secretary of The A Team says:
“We are delighted that Badlabecques have released the ‘Anthem for Option A’. All of us in the A Team are big fans of Badlabecques so it’s really great they’re showing their support through music. Let’s just hope everybody listens!”

The band are also keen to stress the cultural element of the debate.
“Whether it’s local music, Jèrriais, or politics, culture must evolve or die. If we want to retain what’s best about our island – our community life and rich heritage – then we shouldn’t be afraid of positive change, but embrace what will help us all move forwards together.”

“The Option A Anthem” will be released at 7pm on Friday, 19th April, as a free download via the band’s website:

They will also perform at the ‘Option A Rally’ in the Royal Square on Saturday 20th April between 12pm and 2pm.


  1. At the forthcoming hijacked referendum PLEASE use BOTH votes.

    A #1 ......... AND ........ C #2

    Voting C as 2nd choice is NOT a vote against A because your 2nd vote does not count unless your first choice is knocked out in the first count,

    Your 2nd choice vote ONLY counts if your first is knocked out ...... USE IT !

    Do you want B to win because you didn't use your backup vote?

    The current system (i.e. "C") is bad and undemocratic but least it is not "B", which is designed for Bellyaches 1000 year Jersey Reich.

    Even the C campaign says change is necessary but not this [hijacked] change.

    Voting C and A will also lead to change but probably not for another decade
    So .... Please vote ...... A ......... AND ........ C

    “A” can be easily made acceptable just by not reducing the house - more Deputies per district or keep the Senators
    A reduced house may lead to a bigger civil service.

  2. I note Philip Ozouf has stated (in favour of 'B'):-

    " The new districts will be like mini-senatorials where candidates cannot simply be uncontested and get elected with a few hundred votes."

    He omits the fact that is exactly how some States Members get in, as Constables.

    1. Philip Ozouf has been by far the most pathetic of all Option B supporters because of that constant rubbish he's been saying. At least Senator Bailhache has had the courtesy to admit Option B is less democratic!

  3. My take on things - it's just silliness - if I'm allowed my point of view :)


  4. So it looks as though Jersey will soon have an even less fair system of government, where some uncontested Constables have an even larger percentage voting power, whereas there will no doubt be some future elections where some candidates will poll more votes than an uncontested Constable and not get in, how bizarre.

  5. Perhaps later, as you continue the 'fight', it may be worth highlighting what happened at the last election. ie: votes per each voting States member and then do it again after the next election, and highlight those who get into voting on the public's behalf with an uncontested Parish vote, with what may be less than 100 votes anyway.

  6. There is a very simple solution for stopping Constables getting elected unopposed. If your mandate is as popular as you believe, get somebody who represents that mandate in each parish to oppose them and, when you win, you will have your States representation.

    I thought you were in favour of representative democracy ? This is your opportunity to prove it by getting your candidates to stand, or will you just continue to whinge from the side lines about how unfair this all is ?

    1. That's a ridiculous position that totally misses the point.

      The Constables are undemocratic not just because they mostly don't face election, but because even when do face election, their electorates vary so much.

      If all 12 Constable elections were contested on a high turn out, it would still be unfair.

      St Mary - 1,340
      St Helier - 26,000

      Get it?

  7. To the troll who is attempting to put words in my mouth, the only people I have insulted are people like Philip Ozouf who had insulted me yesterday in front of some voters he was deliberately scaremongering to. I stand by the words I have used to describe him because he has been a poisonous contributor to this whole debate and has insulted myself personally and by extension, all the young people in the island who are democrats unlike him.

    1. Also, I am a human being who sometimes employs swear words. Get over it and stop feigning outrage.

  8. Sam, they are not swear words, I believe the correct political description is a robust conversation, the type that can often be heard in the tough world of politics.

  9. I don't have twitter, so please excuse posting here:

    'Why do right-wingers persistently say that raising the minimum wage will lead to unemployment? There is no evidence to back this at all.'

    Is this statement is factually correct ? There has never been a study anywhere that found any link between a higher minimum wage and higher unemployment ?


  10. In your words 'There is no evidence to back this at all'

    The report which you quote itself acknowledges the work of Neumark and Wascher who conclude:
    'Although the wide range of estimates is striking, the oft-stated assertion that the new minimum wage research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. Indeed, in our view, the preponderance of the evidence points to dis-employment effects'

    By their calculation, of the 33 studies 'providing the most credible evidence, 28 (85 Percent) point to negative employment effects.'

    Now they may well have referenced 5 of their own studies, and the studies may well have been less US-centric than many others, and lacked reference to more up to date studies, but this obviously makes a mockery of your 'no-evidence' comment.

    As of course does Wolfson and Belman's forthcoming meta-study, also referenced in the CEPR report, which out of 40 studies, found 14 which supported negative employment effects, thirteen which found no effects, 1 positive effects, and 12 a mixture of effects.

    Could you also confirm that the publishers of your report, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, is the same CEPR which is part funded by George Soros, and in the past has 'opposed welfare reforms, supports 'Living Wage' laws, rejects tax cuts and consistently lauds the professed achievements of socialist regimes, most notably Venezuela' and whose neutrality and impartiality in publishing this piece of 'research' could thus be described as questionable ?

  11. Ay comments regarding the last post 03 may 12.34 ?

  12. 'There is no evidence to back this at all' regarding a minimum wage having an effect on unemployment rate.

    Caught bang to rights lying on twitter I would say.


    Shouldn't have said there was "no evidence", should have said there was only crap evidence.

    The OECD is pretty confident that sensible minimum wage laws don't do anything to make unemployment higher. But a high minimum wage would, but that's fine, I'm not arguing for £20ph to be set as the rate.

    The fact is, neo-liberals and libertarians predicted Armageddon in 1997 when Labour suggested a minimum wage. When they introduced it it had virtually no impact on unemployment whatsoever, all it did was bring people out of poverty and cut the governments benefits bill for those in work. Check mate.


  15. I understand all of that thanks, however it would be nice if you would acknowledge that your statement 'There is no evidence to back this at all' was misleading and inaccurate.

    1. See my above comment and in future bear in mind that Twitter is limited to 140 characters.

    2. The ability to apologise properly for attempting to mislead takes only character, not 140 characters.