Friday 27 September 2013

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.

25 comments:

  1. 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.

    That's a bigger statement than even you realise - because if it's true it opens the door to creating eg "the deputy for St John And St Mary", which would allow the other anomalies to be ironed out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you're right James.

      The voices from those country Parishes will cry "foul play!" but it would be useful to have sensible Constables of other small, but not that small, Parishes to essentially tell them to shut up.

      Delete
  2. Sir

    "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."

    It's not easy Sam. It's actually very complicated because there are lots of issues that people need to take into account when deciding who to back and reform is just one of them. Employment and the economy will take priority for me.

    I suspect those that see reform as their priority will be more likely to live in St Mary than St Helier.

    Why reduce the Senators to 6? Seems the only reason I can think of to do this at this point is to ensure support from the element in the house that is anti-establishment.

    "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. "

    Well I think they can have it both ways if your best attempt at persuasion is "tough luck!". Good luck with your campaign.

    You may see this as a stroke of genius because you like the idea of this being passed by the States but what chance does it stand of getting through with 26 pours (if it needs that many)? If the chances are low then I would say this is far from a stroke of genius and has the potential to make PPC and the whole reform process an even bigger joke than it already is. There is a possibility that anyone who campaigns on a platform of reform next year will be laughed out of the parish hall.

    7 senators will probably vote against it
    9 constables
    9 deputies
    1 abstentions
    1 absent









    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your first point is a good one which is why I'm not overly keen on it being on the same day as the election.

      I can tell the country Parishes to deal with it because I don't live in one and I never intend to ask anyone from them to vote for me.

      I think this proposition has the biggest chance of success because it isn't radical. Of the 28 who voted against Option B, this new proposition only needs to not lose more than 2 members support. It probably won't happen, but it will be much more likely to than any other proposition for reform.

      Delete
    2. "I can tell the country Parishes to deal with it because I don't live in one and I never intend to ask anyone from them to vote for me."

      But you do want them to support this proposition?

      Delete
    3. There is nothing any one can do or say to make them support it, so why bother trying?

      We may as well just be honest.

      Delete
    4. Comments in JEP by St Mary folk tend to contradict your cynicism.

      Delete
    5. What comments?

      If the people of St Mary want to come out and say they support St Mary losing it's privileged status so the whole island can be equal, I will be the first to sing their praises.

      Delete
    6. But you just said "There is nothing any one can do or say to make them support it, so why bother trying?"

      Delete
  3. "The only reason for opposing them is not believing in fairness."

    I believe in fairness, but I'd oppose them as I don't want the Senators reduced until the Clothier issue is put to the electorate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then it seems you believe in Senators more than you believe in fairness.

      Delete
    2. I think its unfair to reduce number of Senators by 40% in this manner.

      Delete
    3. The number of Senators has nothing to do with fairness it's about aesthetic preference. It's a cosmetic issue.

      I'm happy for some Senators to stay, but my priority is getting the rest of the members distributed fairly.

      The "interim reform" is a fairer system than what we have now.

      Delete
    4. "The number of Senators has nothing to do with fairness it's about aesthetic preference. It's a cosmetic issue."

      If that's the case then why reduce them? Unless its to buy the backing of the anti-establishment crowd.

      It's ironic that the Senators are the most fairly distributed bunch of all.

      Delete
    5. The logic that PPC's report uses is the same logic that Senator Philip Ozouf has used several times in debates on reform.

      His judgement is that if we have 8 Senators elected on one day, the candidates that come in 7th and 8th position will not have any legitimacy because their number of votes will be minuscule compared to those that come 1st and 2nd.

      Apparently when we elected 6 Senators, people on average only used 4.5 votes or something like that (would have to double check the exact amount) so increasing the number elected to 8 doesn't help and means voters are more likely to cast their spare votes to random names on the ballot or vote for people for the wrong reasons.

      Personally, I'm happy to keep Senators at 8 if we adopt the Single Transferable Voting system, which I think negates the argument Ozouf and PPC are making. But I'd be lying if I said I was bothered enough to care either way.

      Delete
  4. Little technical point- Is St Helier on zero in the interrim graph as I can't see any red?
    Thank you.

    I'm not a JEP reader but I was in a waiting room yesterday and I read the opening paragraph of the editorial last night. I stopped after one paragraph because really it read like this-
    'Oh what bullshit this little boy Macon and his left wing lunatics are proposing. This group, so deviod of brainpower, so against the grain of us up and proper Jersey public who know best, bla, bla"

    Well actually Mr Editor, I am a member of the public and I think, in light of;
    - everything your cherished hijacker leader has ruined plus
    - turkeys not voting for Christmas plus
    - the love of build-in-bias which the Jersey well to do's are so accostomed to and so resistant to drop.

    it's a excellent proposal.
    ....Putting Clothier to referendum is a fantastic idea and I was always suprised it wasn't the basis of the previous referendum- oh hang on a minute....... if it had been an independent commission, they would probably have gone down the Clothier or similar route - but of course, the Electoral Commission was hijacked. Indeed, no wonder we got a shambles and with your attitude and determination to scupper this PPC, I won't be suprised if no progress is made on this either. SO here is my 'not thank you' in advance.......but.......if your paper swings to become a fair, investigative and balanced paper, then I will not only thank you personally, I will buy it on a regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, St Helier is on 0.05% so it doesn't show up on the graph. (That means that in this reform St Helier will have exactly the representation it's population dictates it should have).

      Totally agree with you on the JEP. I'm going to write a blog this weekend on it and send them a letter.

      Delete
  5. Sir,

    Will you be inviting St Mary's parishioners along to your public meeting so you can say 'deal with it - tough luck' to them?

    On a serious note, how can you describe this as "A stroke of genius" whilst also admitting that "This one may have a slight glimmer of hope"? You are implying its probably going to fail with all that that entails.

    Surely the word genius should be reserved for reform propositions that actually have a good change of achieving something? No Matter how much I like a proposition if it is incapable of being implemented then it fails my genius test.

    Here's my own proposition: I propose that draught beer is pumped into every household (chilled of course) with free installation (use the GigaBit budget) and no usage fees. Genius!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any islander is welcome to the meeting. I suspect there will be plenty of Parishioners in St Mary who know how absurd our electoral system is and who don't want to be over-represented. After all, Option A did get over 100 votes in St Mary, which was more than I thought it would.

      Of all the reform propositions, it is the most intellectually water tight (which does count for something in my books) and I think of all the propositions, it should be the one most likely to win. It might not, but I don't call it impossible.

      In Jersey there is no such thing as a reform proposition that is guaranteed (or even likely) to succeed. So the threshold for "genius" is lower.

      Delete
    2. How can it be "intellectually water tight" when it fails to address so many issues. i.e one member representing 30,000 people and another representing 1600 etc

      Delete
    3. Sir

      I think my draught beer proposition is more 'water tight'.

      Delete
  6. Sam

    You have got a little carried away, if I may say so!

    You write: “The only reason for opposing them is not believing in fairness.”

    No, there are two other reasons.

    The first reason is that it cements the position of the Constables in the States. But they should not be there.

    a) because their mandates are so vastly different – 1700 versus 33,000;

    b) because most of them (2/3rds) are not elected, they are returned unopposed, and

    c) because they are not elected as politicians and the evidence is there for all to see in their lack of commitment to the work of a States member as both I and Clothier demonstrated by analysing what they do (work which our beloved Electoral Commission point-blank refused to do)

    The second reason is that PPC’s system still gives us the public NO say in who gets to be in the government, NO say in who becomes a Minister.

    I know you can say that – “ah well, this is a short-term fix”. Well, maybe, but your statement I quoted is still incorrect


    You write: “The number of Senators has nothing to do with fairness it's about aesthetic preference. It's a cosmetic issue.”

    No it is not, if you view the Senators as the “Ministerial Pool” from whom Ministers MUST be drawn. To go with this idea, candidates for Senator would have to be limited in some way – I have proposed that they should all have to have sat in the States for a term. That provides the “step-up” which I think many in the public would like to see, and it would make sense of the position of Senator, which like it or not, is the most popular with the public. And this is why the issue of HOW MANY Senators there are is also a vital issue.


    A commenter writes: “How can it be "intellectually water tight" when it fails to address so many issues. i.e. one member representing 30,000 people and another representing 1600 etc”

    I agree. But I thought your piece on the JEP’s editorial is great, it is really shocking the way they dumb down on this issue.

    I will have to see what I think on this PPC package.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you proposing that there should, in effect be a "front bench" of sorts whose members must specifically express their intention of a ministerial position? Do the "back bench" deputies (and constables, ugh) get to scrutinise everything they propose? As far as I'm aware, that already occurs. So why not have everybody elected on as equal a mandate as possible to a single category of member? Jersey just isn't big enough to warrant what will essentially amount to a "second chamber"...
      And if the country parishes really want to keep their constable then they should lose their MSJ as a matter of fairness and more equal representation island wide.
      If they want to keep their MSJ then lose the constables as ex officio members!
      Of course, there'd be nothing stopping a constable running for MSJ...

      This proposal is the most sensible thing worth a reasonable chance of happening since Clothier, I don't agree with all of its suggestions/wording &c. However I do firmly believe that it's the lesser of all the evils out there in the political milieu...

      Delete
    2. Daniel, you know well that I agree with everything you say, but I'm not arguing PPC's proposition is an excellent States system, I'm arguing that it is a small step of progress. Of that I think there is no doubt.

      Delete