A Rebuttal to JEP Propaganda 4 Re Reform

[EDIT - 30/09/2013 - I have added the letter I sent to the JEP regarding this editorial at the end of this blog post]

Just when you thought the JEP couldn't stoop to new lows, they surpass our expectations again.

Perhaps the most absurd editorial I have yet to read -

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/comment/2013/09/26/reform-piling-farce-upon-fiasco/

This comes after a few weeks where the JEP has actually done some excellent reports about the catastrophic failings in Jersey's mental health service with countless islanders who are incredibly vulnerable being totally let down by the system.

This is the sort of the thing the JEP should stick to, not these absurd editorials written by people who are clearly paid too much.

But here we go, one bit at a time -

"In essence, the 47-Member structure now on the table would, if approved, consist of six Senators, 12 Constables and 29 Deputies. However, the allocation of Deputies among the parishes would be changed to increase St Helier’s quota while – and this beggars belief – depriving St John, Trinity and St Mary of this category of representation"

It only beggars belief if you're totally ignorant on the subject. Though in fairness, that is probably a fair excuse for the JEP's editors.

I'm sorry but "category of representation" means nothing. What matters is just that second word - representation.

When in the States, Deputies and Constables do exactly the same thing. Their roles are identical. In most Parishes cases, they even represent exactly the same land mass.

In the small Parishes without many people living there, a second representative is superfluous.

"But if the idea of depriving three parishes of representation were not idiotic enough, the committee’s proposition goes further"

This is the part that annoys me the most.

No Parish is being deprived of representation.

The editor of the JEP is misleading the public of Jersey.

The Parishes will still keep their Constable. That is representation.

What he means by "depriving three Parishes of representation" is "depriving three Parishes of their unearned and undeserved privileged status".

What this editorial completely ignores is that in a proper democracy there is meant to be a correlation between representation and population. The fact is St Mary has one States Member for every 876 people, whereas St Helier has one for every 3,047 people.

If St Mary wants to keep a Deputy and a Constable, then to achieve equality St Helier would need 38 Deputies. I cannot for one moment imagine anyone thinking that is feasible or desirable.

So since St Mary wants to keep their Constable, they must sacrifice their Deputy. It is only fair.

How on Earth can we expect to have a sensible and informed debate in Jersey when the editor of our only newspaper peddles such nonsense? He was just being misleading, plain and simple, and he should retract it.

One final point on this I will make is that it is strange witnessing the editors indignation when he himself lives in Trinity which is a rotten borough that doesn't have contested elections for either Constable or Deputy on a regular basis. 

"Given the fiasco of the last referendum on States reform, the idea that there should be another will set jaws dropping in every corner of the Island."

Just because one referendum was a fiasco, doesn't mean all referendums are doomed to be fiascos. That's just illogical.

There are several key differences between the new referendum and the last one -

1. The last referendum was based on a biased report made by people with a financial and political interest in a particular outcome. The next referendum is based on a report that was written by independent people.

2. An option on the last referendum was objectively and quantifiably unfair, the next referendum option will be a fair system.

3. The last referendum was held on it's own and had a terrible turn out. The next referendum will be held on general election day and will be guaranteed to have a higher turn out.

4. The last referendum used a new voting system that made it harder to get a clear answer of what the will of the people was. The next referendum will be a simple yes/ no question that will lead to an unambiguous answer.

Of these factors combined makes this next referendum the referendum we should have always had from the start.

"As those jaws drop, their owners will very likely be thinking thoughts along these lines – they took no notice of what people said last time, so why on earth should the process be repeated?"

Again, the editor is being misleading. They did take notice. They took notice of the fact that most islanders weren't interested, they took notice of the fact that the majority who voted did not vote for Option B and they listened to the concerns of those that had legitimately opposed Option B on the grounds of unjustifiable unfairness.

The States voted the same way the public did. A majority against Option B. That's just a fact, but it's obviously beyond the JEP to understand it.

"The argument that the issue should be consigned to the background until there is enough breathing space to return afresh to the whole matter and start again from scratch is compelling. Only that radical approach offers the prospect of delivering realistic and acceptable results"

How very convenient for those that benefit from the current system.

The fact is, St Helier's under-representation is in dire need of being corrected. They need more Deputies to give constituents the attention they need and the louder voice they deserve to get the issues that affect them addressed. The current system doesn't do that.

PPC's proposal gives a short term fix, with a pathway to fixing it long term. How could anyone oppose that?

The current system is broken and we all know it is. The answer is not to sit back and allow it to perpetuate itself for more years.

But finally, the last part I'll address is the first paragraph of the editorial -

"The latest proposals for reforming the structure of the States Assembly, put forward by the Privileges and Procedures Committee, can be described very simply – they are an insult to Islanders’ intelligence."

No. The only insult to islanders' intelligence is this pathetic editorial piece, filled with illogical vitriol and downright untruths.

It is the JEP that is taking islanders for fools and feeding them this garbage expecting them to believe it.

But since they have hegemony of the printed media, it is up to us ordinary islanders to spread the truth by word of mouth. So I urge any one reading this to make sure they bring the points home when talking to their friends and colleagues about these issues.

I regularly get strangers wanting to talk to me about topical issues, and when they get all of their information from the JEP, it is normally incredibly easy to change their opinions in just 30 seconds by politely giving them an alternative point of view they hadn't considered before. Unfortunately there are a lot of people on the island so it takes more than just one kid with a blog to make a difference.

I intend on writing to the JEP and will publish the letter when it is done.

In the meantime, I better get ready for my gig tonight!


Sam




Letter to the Editor of the JEP -

Dear Editor,

I read the JEP’s editorial comment article “Reform: Piling farce upon fiasco” on Thursday with disbelief. I have not read such an ill informed and mischievous editorial for quite some time in the JEP and I had, perhaps misguidedly, thought those days might be passed us, given how good and balanced the JEP’s coverage of all sides of the referendum debate was.

 

What PPC have proposed for the States is a masterstroke. Everybody on this island knows that our electoral system is utterly broken. It is too complicated, it encourages voter apathy, and (worst of all) it is unfair. To go into the next election with this system unaltered would be unconscionable, but it has to be recognised that there just isn’t enough time to come up with a comprehensive reform in time for 2014.

 

Instead, PPC have proposed to go into the next election with the current system, however the Deputies seats will be reallocated to take into account the huge changes in population there have been since 1948 to make sure they are spread around fairly, whilst keeping the Constables in the States. It is simply illogical to argue that a system made in 1948 should be kept intact for 2014.

 

Fairness is what PPC is trying to take a step towards, so it is very disconcerting to see the JEP opposing it. You make the outrageous statement that somehow St Mary, St John and Trinity are being “deprived of representation”. This is utterly ridiculous. The role of the Constable in the States is identical to that of a Deputy. In small Parishes having a Deputy as well as a Constable is simply superfluous. They will still be represented; the difference is that they will be represented to a degree that is more in line with their population.

 

The population of St Mary is 1,752, meaning they have one States Member for every 876 people. Contrast this with St Helier with a population of 33,522 meaning they have one States Member for every 3,047 people. How anyone could argue in the 21^st Century that this is fair is beyond me. Any proposal that doesn’t make some steps to redressing the under-representation of St Helier is doomed to failure. But PPC has accepted this point and said that any progress must be on that basis. Contrary to your column, that is not idiotic, it is common sense.

 

Under their interim reform, St Mary will have one States Member for every 1,752 people and St Helier will have one for every 2,394 people. No matter how the JEP attempts to spin it in your editorial columns, that is progress.

 

The reform process has been an absolute sham ever since Senator Bailhache hijacked the Electoral Commission which was originally supposed to be independent of States Members and therefore able to reach conclusions without worrying about their own financial and political interests. We’ve already had an independent electoral commission; it was called the Clothier Panel and it’s about time we were offered a say on that. I look forward to voting “yes” next year in the referendum we should have been given 10 years ago.

 

PPC’s proposals represent the best way forward for democracy in Jersey. It is the JEP’s editorial column that insults islanders’ intelligence, not PPC.

Regards,
Samuel Mézec

4 Le Jardin a Pommier

La Rue de Patier

St Saviour

A stroke of genius - P.119

On Wednesday evening the Privileges and Procedures Committee published their proposition for reforming the States of Jersey

The whole proposition can be read here - http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2013/P.116-2013.pdf

In short, here is what they are proposing -

- There is not time to implement a radical reform in time for the 2014 election, so there should instead be a modest "interim reform" as a temporary measure.
- The 29 Deputies seats should be redistributed amongst the Parishes to achieve as great a voter equity as is possible with the current electoral system.
- Reduce the number of Senators to 6.
- Keep the Constables.
- On the day of the 2014 election, there should also be a referendum asking the public to answer yes or no on adopting the Clothier Reports recommendations.

Unfortunately the media coverage has made this very unclear and has, as usual, focused on a few selective soundbites that are automatically going to help foster negative feelings.

The distribution of Deputies in the "interim reform" is as follows -

Parish	Population	Constables	Deputies	Total MSJs	Population per MSJ	Deviation from average
St Helier	33,522	1	13	14	2,394	-0.05
St Saviour	13,580	1	5	6	2,263	-6.37
St Brelade	10,568	1	3	4	2,642	9.31
St Clement	9,221	1	3	4	2,305	-4.63
St Lawrence	5,418	1	1	2	2,709	12.08
St Peter	5,003	1	1	2	2,502	3.52
Grouville	4,866	1	1	2	2,433	0.66
St Ouen	4,097	1	1	2	2,049	-15.23
St Martin	3,763	1	1	2	1,882	-22.13
Trinity	3,156	1	0	1	3,156	30.58
St John	2,911	1	0	1	2,911	20.44
St Mary	1,752	1	0	1	1,752	-27.51
Average -					2,417

Losing an unearned and undeserved privilege

The controversial point there is going to be the fact that the three smallest Parishes will be left without a Deputy and St Lawrence is losing a Deputy, with only St Helier and St Clement given extra Deputies.

This may not be diplomatic of me (but frankly I'm sick of making the point), but I have three words for those in the country Parishes that want to keep both a Constable and a Deputy - Deal with it.

Tough luck. 

You can't have it both ways. 

If St Mary only has 1,752 people living there, it is absolutely absurd that they should have two States Members. A Constable is a full States Member, like all the others. When they walk through the doors to the States Chamber, they are equal to every other member and can do anything they can. They serve no other administrative purpose in the States to Deputies or Senators. So to carry out the function of representing the people in St Mary, they do not need one of each category.

When St Mary has one States Member for every 876 people, but St Helier has one for every 3,047 people, you have an unfairness that has to be addressed.

In fact, miraculously, candidate for Constable of Grouville John Le Maistre made this same point at the hustings earlier this week. He said that the smallest Parishes didn't need Deputies when they are so small and already have a Constable.

It's a logical position, but we will no doubt be subjected to all sorts of cries of "injustice" from those Parishes over the next few weeks who seem oblivious to the inherent and unfair advantage that they currently have and want to keep.

They are not entitled to an advantage, they are only entitled to equality. Their over-representation cannot go on any longer.

If a country Parish wants to hold back the islands democracy so they can keep their undeserved special privileges, then they should increase their population. If St Mary wants to keep a Deputy, they should donate several large fields to the States for them to build social housing on. See how well that goes down.

Here is how PPC's proposed "interim reform" compares to the current system -

Parish	Population	Current MSJs	Pop per MSJ	Deviation	Total MSJs	Pop per MSJ
St Helier	33,522	11	3,047	42.72	14	2,394	-0.05
St Saviour	13,580	6	2,263	6	6	2,263	-6.37
St Brelade	10,568	4	2,642	23.75	4	2,642	9.31
St Clement	9,221	3	3,074	43.98	4	2,305	-4.63
St Lawrence	5,418	3	1,806	-15.41	2	2,709	12.08
St Peter	5,003	2	2,502	17.19	2	2,502	3.52
Grouville	4,866	2	2,443	14.43	2	2,433	0.66
St Ouen	4,097	2	2,049	-4.03	2	2,049	-15.23
St Martin	3,763	2	1,882	-11.85	2	1,882	-22.13
Trinity	3,156	2	1,578	-26.09	1	3,156	30.58
St John	2,911	2	1,456	-31.8	1	2,911	20.44
St Mary	1,752	2	876	-58.97	1	1,752	-27.51
			2,135			2,417

It is abundantly clear here that PPC's interim reform is much fairer than the current system, though it does still leave some cracks to be ironed out

Referendum on Clothier

And ironed out they shall be, with a referendum to ask the public a simple yes or no question on adopting the reforms proposed in the Clothier Report.

Frankly, this was the question we should have been asked 10 years ago.

The States adopted all of the recommendations to change the machinery of government, but didn't adopt the changes to the make up of the States, despite the Clothier Report very clearly saying that their recommendations were intended to be considered as a package and not cherry picked.

This referendum seeks to put us in the position we should have always been, and I for one will very enthusiastically vote "yes".

And what is more, if the answer to the referendum results in a "no" I will be able to accept that result with my conscience clear, because it would not be a vote to make our system worse (like the victory for Option B in the previous referendum was), but simple a "no thanks, we're not keen on this particular vision". Fair enough, back to the drawing board. At least the interim reform will mean the new States will be better placed to achieve a better reform in the long run.

I have mixed feelings about the referendum being on the same day as the 2014 election. It is good because it ensures a higher turn out but it makes it impossible to conduct the referendum campaign separately from the election campaign.

I'm hoping to stand in the next election, and I'd rather campaign on issues that actually matter to people, like fixing unemployment, ending the rapid rise in population and investing in projects to secure Jersey's long term economic and environmental prospects. I don't want to have to trot out the same old arguments again about reform. But so be it. If that is what is going to happen, then we should grasp hold of the opportunity with enthusiasm.

To those that cynically just presume the States will ignore the result again (even though in my opinion they didn't ignore the last one), the answer is very simple - elect candidates who say they will abide by the result. Easy.

Winning the vote

But of course, we can talk as much as we like about these ideas from PPC. But will they win the vote?

I'm assured that the parts of the proposition to implement the interim reform and the part to hold a referendum on Clothier are likely to be voted on separately by the States. So even members who are against Clothier can still vote for the interim reforms if they want. So the two issues aren't combined in a way that makes them both likely to be lost.

I've titled this blog "a stroke of genius" because that's what I think this proposition is.

What matters is getting these interim reforms through the States. They are modest changes and don't radically alter the nature of the system, they just shift it about a bit. What we need now more than anything is a step (no matter how small) in the right direction. These interim reforms do make the system slightly better and should be supported on that basis alone.

The only reason for opposing them is not believing in fairness. Okay, in our States that is actually quite a big handicap. But hopefully the scale of the change being as small as it is may bring together the different factions of the States to vote for it, because it's not a drastic change, just a minor alteration.

All of the other reform options that have been proposed by private members are almost certainly doomed to failure. This one may have a slight glimmer of hope.

In the weeks leading up to the debate I'll be lobbying hard and hopefully holding a public meeting with Reform Jersey to discuss it all.

Until then though, peace!

Sam

P.S. Sorry for not yet writing my "What Really Happened" piece. It's on it's way, but this unexpected proposition has gotten in the way.