Tuesday 20 August 2013

Clothier Back on the Agenda


After the proposals by Deputy Pitman and Senator Ozouf for reforming the States in time for the next election, Deputy Southern has come forward to say what many of us have probably thought for over ten years - "Just implement Clothier!"

His full proposition and report can be read here - http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2013/P.098-2013.pdf

It is compelling, to say the least.

The Clothier panel was the only genuine independent electoral commission we have had in recent times to come up with a fair and democratic way of composing our States of Jersey, without being beholden to financial and political interests, unlike the last electoral commission.

There was nothing wrong with its recommendations then and I often hear people say that there is still nothing wrong with its recommendations today.

The idea of having a single class of States Member elected in constituencies that provide as close to "equal votes" as is possible using the Parish boundaries is entirely sensible and is certainly worth considering again.

Throughout the recent reform debate most people I spoke to expressed the legitimate view that the whole process was a waste of time because of the Clothier Report being cherry picked. The report itself said that it's recommendations were to be treated as a package, and not as individual and independent proposals. So when the States adopted it's recommendation of Ministerial Government without the corresponding changes to the electoral boundaries, it had the effect of consolidating power and disenfranchising the public.

Executive power was concentrated in the hands of a few, relegating other members to the back benches, when before they would at least have been able to get on committees and have an impact on policy.

Jersey's democracy took a backwards step with that move, and thankfully we have avoided the next intended backwards step of "Option B" which aimed only to continue the consolidation of power whilst duping the public into thinking we had adequately resolved the reform question.

I suspect that the idea of revisiting Clothier will resonate with the public who are fed up with the States wasting time and money on reform, when the answer has been available for over 10 years, and especially when there are much more important issues facing Jersey right now (today we have the news that Huelin Renouf has gone into liquidation). There is no point in a new electoral commission being established and PPC are never going to come to a conclusion that will differ significantly from the various proposals we have seen over the past few years.


Some Minor Changes


The principles in the Clothier Report are timeless, but what isn't timeless is the population of each Parish. Over the past ten years they have changed quite a bit, and so adjustment is needed to make sure the new "Members of the States of Jersey" are distributed fairly.


Deputy Southern has proposed this as a fair distribution -


Population
Proposed MSJs
Residents per MSJ
Deviation
St. John
2,911
2
1,456
28.6
St. Peter
5,003
2
2,502
-22.7
Grouville
4,866
2
2,433
-19.3
St. Clement
9,221
4
2,305
-13.1
St. Brelade
10,568
5
2,114
-3.7
St. Ouen
4,097
2
2,049
-0.5
St. Helier
33,522
17
1,972
3.3
St. Saviour
13,580
7
1,940
4.9
St. Martin
3,763
2
1,882
7.7
St. Lawrence
5,418
3
1,806
11.4
St. Mary
1,752
1
1,752
14.1
Trinity
3,156
2
1,578
22.6
Total
97,857
49


Average


1,997



It's not perfect. But you aren't going to get any better than that without increasing the number of States Members to somewhere in the 60s, and I doubt anyone would accept that.

The only way Jersey is going to get a perfect system is if we accept that electoral boundaries don't have to correspond with the Parish boundaries, but arguing that is a lost cause. It's just not going to happen.

So this is the best we can do with the cards we've been dealt.

To compare it with the current system, see this chart (note - I have used numbers of electorate per Parish here, rather than residents like Deputy Southern has done) -



Electorate
Current number of MSJs
Electorate per MSJ
Deviation from average
Proposed number of MSJs
Proposed Electorate per MSJ
Proposed Deviation from average
St. John
2,280
2
1,140
-33.2
2
1,140
-26.9
St. Peter
4,010
2
2,005
17.5
2
2,005
28.5
Grouville
3,870
2
1,935
13.4
2
1,935
24
St. Clement
7,170
3
2,390
40.1
4
1,793
14.9
St. Brelade
8,590
4
2,147
25.9
5
1,718
10.1
St. Ouen
3,200
2
1,600
-6.2
2
1,600
2.6
St. Helier
26,890
11
2,717
59.3
17
1,582
1.4
St. Saviour
10,590
6
1,765
3.5
7
1,513
-3
St. Martin
2,970
2
1,485
-13
2
1,485
-4.8
St. Lawrence
4,280
3
1,427
-16.4
3
1,427
-8.5
St. Mary
1,340
2
670
-61
1
1,340
-14.1
Trinity
2,370
2
1,185
-30.5
2
1,185
-24
Total

41





Average


1,706


1,560






You can very clearly see that almost every Parish is drastically improved under this new system (with the exception of two).

There is only one word I can think of to describe this - Progress.

That is what we need for Jersey's electoral system right now, progress. This proposition provides that. If we keep dreaming of the perfect solution, we won't get there. Instead right now we just need to focus on making improvements that can one day lead to the perfect system. The status quo is not capable of agreeing to a perfect solution, but if it is lobbied hard enough, it might agree to improvements.


Constables


It is impossible to attribute any particular view or preference to the public using the referendum results. There is no way to get inside the heads of every voter and see why they voted the say they did. But regardless of this, some are trying to say that the combined vote of Option B and C is evidence that the public wish the retain the Constables.

I think this is totally flawed. There is no way of telling who was voting for Option C because actually they only wanted to keep the Senators, or who voted for Option B simply because they hate the current system but can't see a future system that doesn't include Parish representation of some sort.

"Parish representation" and "the Constables being in the States" are not the same thing. My experience talking to islanders who didn't vote for Option A in the referendum was that it was Parish representation that concerned them the most. I frequently heard "but what if my Parish doesn't get a representative?" What this Clothier reform does is address those fears and allows every Parish to have a representative. It will then be up to each Parish whether they want their Constable to be one of those representatives or have another person fulfil that role. What could be more democratic?


An Uphill Struggle


Of course, the only important question left to ask is "can it win the vote?" and that is where things get sketchy.

For a start, it has been proposed by Deputy Southern rather than PPC. It was meant to be PPC's job to come up with the new reform proposals and for them to have put forward Clothier like this, it would have given it much more credibility.

Unfortunately there are some people out there (too many of them happen to also be States Members) that are so petty they will automatically vote Contre to anything with Geoff Southern's name on it.

You see already on some forums people's first instinct is to talk about Geoff Southern and say nothing on what he is actually saying. This is what I have described in the past as "the worst of Jersey politics". It really is a shame that after all this we still have people who are willing to ruin a sensible reform just because of their petty grudges against a politician who, regardless of whether you agree with his politics or not, is actually bloody hard working.

We also get the stupid headline from ITV saying "Abolish the Senators"... Why did they choose that inaccurate and misleading headline rather than the more accurate "Adopt Clothier Recommendations"? Such a headline was only ever going to make the public ignorant of what was actually being said and encourage pejorative thoughts. This is what we have to deal with in Jersey.

Keeping the States Members on board who are democrats but opposed getting rid of the island wide mandate is going to be difficult, but that is something to work on.


In the next few days I am hoping to try and trigger a Parish Assembly in St Saviour to discuss the three reform proposals and have a vote on it. I need 4 signatures to do so, which I can get easily, but if you want to be one of them (don't worry, being a signatory to it doesn't oblige you to do anything whatsoever), do let me know!


Sam

4 comments:

  1. Clothier was always so much better than the hijacked EC rubbish. The fact that the EC's ToR's were so narrow was deliberate IMO to avoid something as simple as a decision by an independent EC to offer Clother full package Yes / No. I'll be delighted if Geoff's proposition gets passed by the SoJ. A significant problem is, as you say, it's Geoff whose proposing it so its got a harder climb by default (due to the rediculous attitude of the other States Members). It will be interesting to learn how Crowcroft comments on this proposition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The process of the Electoral Commission was clearly nothing compared to Clothier, though having said that I did prefer "Option A" to Clothier because I think multi-member districts are a good thing. But there is no denying that Clothier is a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

      Crowcroft seems to have a very strange attitude to reform now and is denigrating the new PPC whenever he can. I'm not sure he can be seen as an ally on this any more.

      Delete
    2. As a former (and probably future) St. Helier resident, I'm massively disappointed with the recent shenanigans of Const. Crowcroft...

      This post reminds me of when I was first sounding out the political situation in Jersey with you, Sam... I remember you telling me about clothier, and that my response was something along the line of "well why don't they just bloody well implement it??"

      Delete
  2. Can you indicate where Constable Crowcroft is making these critical comments.

    Clothier never really considered the issue of the unequal size of constituencies.This we can now see is a major failing. Its typical of Jersey that they will not embrace the new knowledge unearthed by the EC in their research. Its a form of anti-intellectualism. Just look at the nonsense written by Senator Farnham with his recent amendments to to P93 and P94, it was as though he had read nothing or if it was read, then did not understand it. Then the Option C campaign was for stick in the muds. Frustratingly these sorts get elected and Jersey is run accordingly with its head in the sand.

    ReplyDelete