Thursday, 10 December 2015

One Year On - Examining The Record - Part 2



Following my examination of the records of the Senators over this last year, taking on their own interpretations of what they have achieved, I'm now looking at the Constables.

As you might have guessed, this post will be much shorter than the others.

It is well known that the Constables contribute very little to States proceedings. All the statistics demonstrate this and anyone who denies it is issuing a politically motivated lie.

They make up almost 25% of the States and are not responsible for anything close to 25% of the questions, speeches or propositions.

I am totally against paying States Members different amounts, however the Constables presence in the States makes me question that point of view. They all admit in their contributions how much work they dedicate to their Parishes. That work is supposed to be honorary and all their honorary colleagues do not get paid for it. Yet they receive a wage for being States Members, despite dedicated much more time to the Parishes.

The time when the Constables cease to be ex officio members of the States cannot come soon enough.

I suspect that once the issue of the Bailiff in the States has been dealt with (will happen shortly after the next election I believe) it will pave the way for sorting out the Constables. That will be in time for the 2022 election.

Although that's just a prediction, don't hold me to it!


Here are the high/lowlights -




Being chair of both PPC and the Comité des Connétables has led the weird situation where Len has had occasions where he has had to write letters to himself in different capacities. I'm not making that up. Bizarre.

I don't agree when he says we have made progress on reform of the States. The substantive issues have not yet been debated. We've only held consultations with States Members in which many of them have demonstrated how utterly clueless and conflicted they are.

Some members genuinely believe that apportionment of Deputies should be done based on voter turn out, instead of population. You just can't reason with people like this.

Thankfully he and his colleagues are dealing with dog mess though. Thank goodness the big issues are being dealt with.



What exactly does Simon get for being so complementary about a Chief Minister who hasn't actually done a single damn thing for St Helier yet?

He's singing his praises for saying he'll support St Helier and will get the States to pay Parish Rates, yet nothing has tangibly changed yet.

Save your praise until positive change actually occurs. Until then it just looks weird.

The Future of St Helier group has demonstrated to me that it simply wants to tinker round the edges without any serious consideration about giving St Helier itself the powers and responsibilities it needs to deal with the issues we face ourselves without being told what we can and can't do by a Chief Minister from St Ouen and a Planning Minister from St Martin.

Lisa Simpson: You promised to take us to the lake.
Homer Simpson: I promise you kids lots of things. That's what makes me such a good father!
Lisa Simpson: Actually, keeping promises would make you a good father.
Homer Simpson: No, that would make me a great father.




I copy John Refault's statement for one reason only.

He mentions at the end that he is looking forward to his Parish senior citizens Christmas lunch.

Refault voted to abolish the Pensioners Christmas Bonus and next week will be voting against Reform Jersey's proposition to reinstate it on a means tested basis so poor pensioners still get it.

I hope they give him an absolute earful at the Christmas lunch. He deserves nothing less.



Having said that, I have nothing else to add to any other Constable's statement as very few of them actually attempt to answer the question they were asked.

Coming soon - St Helier Deputies.


Tuesday, 8 December 2015

One Year On - Examining the Record - Part 1


The Jersey Evening Post has quite sportingly offered each States Member up to 200 words to be published on what we have been up to since the general election now almost 14 months ago.

The first instalment was published today and I thought I would produce some commentary on them given the total lack of any sort of concrete analysis of the political landscape today and how some members have just been plain dishonest with the public in what they have written.

Things should get even more interesting tomorrow when they publish the Constables responses. I'd be amazed if they managed to produce 200 words between them, let alone each!

I won't repeat this commentary for every States Member, but will just stick to the highlights.



"The first task of each new Council of Ministers is to develop a plan for Jsrsey, to consult with Islanders on the plan and to present it to the States Assembly."

In his very first sentence Senator Gorst has demonstrated already why he has no right to describe himself a democratic politician.

Developing a plan for Jersey should come before the election, not after it, like virtually every civilised democracy on the planet does it. Is he honestly suggesting that it is normal in a democracy for politicians to get elected with no plan, then make it up afterwards? That is the precise opposite of how it's meant to work.

The whole point of elections is that different political factions consult with the public, draw up plans and then put those plans to the public. The one who presents the most appealing plan will win the election and be able to crack on with implementing it.

In Jersey we instead elect people based on who seems like a good bloke, then let them waste hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money producing a plan over several months where our government operates with no overall strategy.

It's utter madness.

"Now we have proposed detailed tax and spending plans for 2016 in our budget."

They have also announced plans to extort £40m from you with a new Health Tax, £10m with a Waste Disposal Tax and who knows what else in userpays charges. So far they can't give us an ounce of detail on what form these taxes will take (some of them haven't even admitted they're actually taxes yet) and none of which they gave even a fleeting mention of in their election manifestos.

"I am proud that ministers are working together as a team [read as 'party'] to support out economy, protect the vulnerable and ensure Jersey is fit for a successful future."

Protect the vulnerable!? REALLY? Protecting them by forcing through £10m of benefits cuts to pensioners, the disabled and single parents without doing any research whatsoever on the effect on poverty levels this will have.

With that final sentence he has insulted the intelligence of every single Islander.




Not much to say here apart from providing the following link - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates



There isn't a huge amount to say on this. Much of it is very agreeable. We all support improving and modernising regulations to allow emerging industries to succeed and much of that legislative change would be happening regardless of who is in power.

The one point to make is that Senator Ozouf exercises an incredibly large amount on influence on the government's agenda, yet he is not accountable to the Assembly because he is merely an assistant minister. This is clearly unacceptable.



"It concerns me how difficult it is for politicians, workers and the general public to be heard by those in the executive and make a meaningful contribution."

Got it in one.



It sounds like Senator Routier is involved in a whole host of long running projects which so far all appear not to have amounted to anything. Maybe it's time someone else took up his role and started actually achieving tangible improvements.

"Meeting service users has improved our understanding of the needs of people with disabilities."

I wonder if they mentioned anything to Senator Routier about him breaking his election promise and voting against a proposition to secure a commitment to introduce free bus passes for disabled Islanders?



"We've agreed a workable Strategic Plan and set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan how we intend to fund our priorities - health, education, infrastructure, economic growth and St Helier."

Actually the MTFP did no such thing. It set out spending for 2016 and left us with no detail for the following years.

Of the little detail the MTFP actually revealed, it demonstrated an effective £250k cut in the education budget. My scrutiny panel lodged an amendment to restore that funding and avoid a cut this year, which he voted against. So much for supporting investment in education!

"We have identified an extra £20m over the next four years to allocate to new policy initiatives that aim to boost Jersey's economic performance."

He has also done no impact assessment whatsoever of the potential effect on economic growth that will be had by increasing taxes on middle earners (reducing their ability to spend in the economy) and increasing unemployment by sacking countless public sector workers, sticking them on the dole and therefore reducing their spending power.

"We are now seeing wages going up,"

This is simply not true.

"record levels of employment,"

Yes but only because we have a record high population. This is statistical sophistry.

"and economic growth of five percent in 2014."

Yes, which was acknowledged to be because of one-off changed to business structures in the finance industry. We are scheduled for 0% growth next year.

More dishonesty from one of our most senior ministers.



I like how his first listed achievement is the setting up of a quango (i.e. a body which will take responsibility away from him) and then lists all the new quangos he hopes to create.

The Island is in deep trouble if these people think the answer to everything is to just set up a new quango.

I'm also not sure he should be boasting about plans to create Film Jersey, given his predecessors record on this...

As usual though, there isn't an ounce of substance in any thing Senator Farnham has said. He literally has no policies whatsoever (apart from setting up quangos) and just got elected by saying "I'll support tourism" without saying how he'll support tourism. This is partially why the Island is in such a mess.



Interestingly Andrew makes no mention whatsoever of the fact he is about to land you all with a hefty bill for a new Health Tax.

Does anyone remember him mentioning this plan before the election? I don't.

He says he wants to raise £40m with this new tax. We don't have any detail whatsoever about what form this will take so we can't calculate exactly how much extra you'll be having to pay, but it equates to about £1,000 for every home. But then they can't force the poorest Islanders (who don't earn enough to pay tax anyway) to pay it, and they'll probably exempt their rich mates like they did with the Longterm Care Charge, so it will more likely be £2,000 for each middle class family.

Who here voted for Andrew Green so they could pay an extra £2,000 a year in tax?


Stay tuned for further instalments in this commentary over the coming days!

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

"Our failing government system" unedited letter to the JEP


The unedited version of my latest letter to the JEP on our failing government system -


As I read the JEP coverage of Senator Maclean’s new idea to tax foreign companies trading in Jersey I couldn’t help but feel a sense of déjà vu. Haven’t we been here before?

I remember in September 2008, when I was 17 years old, sitting in the hall at Hautlieu School for the senatorial hustings hearing Alan Maclean and the other ministers giving exactly the same platitudes they are giving today. 7 years and 3 elections later and we are still not an inch closer to a solution to our tax problem. In fact, things have steadily gotten much worse under these ministers’ leadership.

How long are Islanders prepared to put up with election after election of candidates coming forward with all sorts of nice statements like “I’ll find a way to tax foreign companies”, “I’ll support moves to take GST off of food” or “I’ll oppose the development on the Esplanade” only for those candidates to break every one of those promises and expect to get re-elected 3 years later by just repeating the same lines again and hope the public have forgotten all about it?

Sadly this is what inevitably happens when we have a system of so-called “independent” candidates who can get away with simply saying whatever it takes to get elected, then go ahead and do whatever they wanted anyway.

Deputy Vallois made it clear when she resigned that she doesn’t believe the ministerial system can work without party politics, and she is absolutely right.

Some who don’t like the idea of parties might therefore suggest that we go back to the committee system. But of course the problem there is that it was the committee system that dreamt up the 0/10 tax system which has caused this £145m black hole in the first place!

Whatever your views are on Reform Jersey’s particular brand of politics, it is clear that the Ian Gorst-led government is failing this Island and has been dishonest at every step of the way. Islanders who are more ideologically aligned with Gorst’s brand of conservatism (as opposed to Reform Jersey’s social democracy) should demand better from these people.

We need a system where competing visions for the Island contest power with comprehensive packages that have been subject to consultation before the election and which they are ready to just get on with and implement if they are elected to government. We spend far too much time talking and not enough time doing. Full party politics would streamline our government system and produce better results.

Gibraltar is currently having a general election where the main parties have produced manifestos of over 50 pages, analysing every detail of the current government’s record and providing all the minutia for their plan for the next 4 years. The best vision will win and Gibraltarians will get what they voted for.

If a rock with only 30,000 people can do it, Jersey with 100,000 people can do it even better!


Deputy Sam Mezec, Chairman of Reform Jersey

Thursday, 15 October 2015

One Year On - My 'Report Card'


So it's been exactly one year since those who came out to vote in St Helier No. 2 district put their faith in me to serve out a full term in office, just a few months after offering me a trial run after the March by-election.

Although it's been one hell of a learning curve and a (mostly) enjoyable experience on a personal level for me, I believe that this has been the worst year for Jersey politics in a very long time.

The one thing I can't stand in politics is people who break their promises and just say whatever they think the person listening to wants to hear.

The past year has already shown that some candidates elected never meant a word of what they said and for them the political office is merely about their personal aspirations and not about actually playing a part in the democratic process to further the causes that the community are concerned about.

I won't name them but it's obvious who they are. To those who voted for them and are now disappointed I say - don't become disillusioned. Angry, yes, but not disillusioned. Your vote is your weapon and the experience of this States Assembly should motivate you to wield it differently next time round.

Those who stood for senior positions in the States had a very clear and effective election plan and it was this - lie and prevaricate as much as possible.

You can still find most of their "manifestos" online and can see that they contain virtually no mention whatsoever of the plans that they must have had in store since well before the election.

When you have been in government for 3 years and know that you are facing a forecast blackhole of £145m, you know exactly what the score is and you know what the direction will be to solve it. Yet not one of these people decided to put it in their manifesto what their plan would be.

There was no mention in any of them of the £45m worth of tax rises and userpays charges. There was no mention of £10m of cuts to benefits for the most vulnerable Islanders. There was no mention of the hundreds of people who they intended to sack.

I can only think of a few commitments which were actually made.

One was Andrew Green's commitment that if he was made Health Minister he would commit to reviewing the options for a site for a new hospital in the first 100 days. It's now almost 365 days and we are still waiting.

Senator Ozouf made the "1,001 Days Manifesto" one of his pledges. So when Reform Jersey lodged a proposition to put that commitment in the government's Strategic Plan document, he and his colleagues all voted against it.


Today one former candidate has suggested that members should do a report card to show their progress in achieving what they had set out in their manifestos. So here is my attempt.

Both of my election manifestos are available by clicking on the "Election History" tab at the top of this page.

Since my elections were so close together I will refer to both.


My Report Card -

From my manifestos

"If elected, I will be active from day one, looking out for your interests".

Promise kept. Immediately after being elected I was contributing to States debates. I lodged a question for my first sitting (some members have never asked questions at all), I gave my maiden speech in my first sitting (some members took years to make theirs) and my first proposition was lodged within a few weeks of being elected. Being a States Member is a privilege and I have used my position to attempt to advance the causes I was elected to pursue.

On the States paying Parish Rates - "The Treasury Minister has committed to bringing forward a proposition to achieve this. If he does not fulfill this promise I will lodge it instead"

As other members have lodged propositions to achieve this it was not necessary for me to do it myself, but I have supported every single one.

"I will propose that the Chief Minister is directly elected by the public".

Promise kept. I lodged a proposition to this effect just weeks after being elected. Sadly a majority of States Members voted against me.

"I/Reform Jersey will oppose any attempt to increase GST and support any measure to remove it from food and utility bills".

Promise kept. Shortly before the general election Deputy Tadier (on behalf of Reform Jersey) lodged a proposition to remove GST from utility bills which we supported. However it was a majority of States Members (many of whom had previously promised to support removing GST from food and utility bills) voted against it.

"We support the introduction of a 'Living Wage', higher than the minimum wage, enough for someone to live off without having to rely on Income Support"

Promise kept. We have previous proposed increasing the minimum wage to a higher level than the government proposed, and it is my intention to see us do this again when the next opportunity arises.

"I will oppose cuts to public services that will hurt the vulnerable and those on low incomes".

Promise kept. I have consistently done this at every single opportunity and have lodged my own propositions in support of this. Most recently I opposed every single part of the Medium Term Financial Plan and supported all amendments designed to make it more progressive.

"I will oppose the proposed development at Gas Place. Instead, I support extending the Millennium Park with an underground car park".

Promise kept. I have attended and spoken at planning application hearings on this subject and have supported every proposition in the States to prevent the development from going ahead and to commit the States to extending the park over the site.

From Save Our Shoreline's pre-election questionnaire -

(On the Esplanade development)

"I am skeptical of the need for such a drastic development and the risk of the States taking on such a large project without any certainty about secured tenants for the offices etc."

No promise made, but I voted in the States to halt the development on these exact bases.



Whether you agree or disagree with my politics and my policies, at least they are clear and I have stuck to them. That must surely be worth much more than somebody who stands for nothing and achieves even less.

Opposition is frustrating because you don't have the power to enact what you said you would, the only thing you can do is vote according to those promises and hope the rest of the States does the same. Sadly this isn't the case in Jersey. The only possible solution is to pledge to support my Reform Jersey running mates in the 2018 election to stand on a joint platform that we have a clear track record of sticking to.

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

The Future of Jersey's Honorary System




Last night at the Town Hall I proposed Geraint Jennings for election to the office of Procureur du Bien Public of St Helier.

The job of a Procureur is to look after ratepayers money better than they would their own. They are also able to deputise for the Constable in his or her absence. The role is honorary and they receive no payment for their services, merely the gratitude of a grateful public for their service.

Geraint is the author of a paper (see Appendix 1 here) written on the history and potential future of municipal reform in St Helier, to enable the capital of this Island to take on more powers and responsibility in affairs which concern residents and businesses and to provide a better democratic framework to allow this to happen.

He envisages a 'Conseil Municipal de Saint Helier' to replace the currents odd and incoherent system of Roads Committee and Procureurs. In other words, he will be the turkey who votes for Christmas, as he believes in a new system which is fit to meet the needs of St Helier for decades to come.

I stress that he is not a Reform Jersey candidate, however I am supporting him in this election as I believe his manifesto is the one which, if implemented, would best secure the ability of St Helier to provide for our residents and businesses what they need.

The election is on the 9th September at the Town Hall. I hope those who support positive change will vote for him!



Whilst this was going on, in another Parish they were holding elections for Centeniers (the senior honorary police of the Parish).

In St Helier our three incumbents were re-elected and those who were there were very grateful for their voluntary service over the past three years and for their commitment for another three ahead of them.

However, in St Saviour they once again failed to find a single candidate for the vacant post, having missed their previous deadline and having to be fined £5,000 by the Royal Court.

This follows a huge amount of work done by Constable Sadie Le Sueur-Rennard and the Parish to engage with the public and attempt to find a candidate who was willing to offer their service.

Previous to that St John had also come very close to being fined, having only found a candidate just before the deadline.

So naturally there has been a whole lot of talk about the future of the honorary system.

Various commentators have come forward with various suggestions. Hugh Raymond (President of the Honorary Police Association) has said that the age limit for Centeniers could be lifted and perhaps restrictions on which Parish you can service in may be lifted.

I think there may be some merit in those suggestions, on the basis of practicality, however I have yet to see any commentator get to what I believe is the real issue here.


Jersey has a long history of honorary service. Most of it I believe is something to be proud of, with only a few elements having an overall negative impact.

The fact we have so many people who are willing to give up their time to take up a community policing role is good, not just for that community, but also saves a huge amount of money that would have to be spent on extra professional police.

In our municipal administrations we have many people who have given up time to serve on the Parish Roads Committees or as Procureurs. The equivalent positions in the UK also do not accord salaries.

Historically being a States Member was also an honorary role. This, in my view, was always wrong and Jersey paid the price for it. We did not have a working class member of the States until 1966. Right up until the early 2000s when salaries were introduced, the public of Jersey were denied a proper democratic choice by the fact that an office carrying such a workload was not remunerated and therefore something that only those of an independent means could do so effectively.

I recently heard a Constable say that he considered his role to be honorary. I had to bite my tongue to avoid pointing out to him that that was nonsense, but those who believe things like that aren't often open to allowing facts to change their mind.


You would think that because Jersey's population is the highest it has ever been, and that these offices have existed for hundreds of years when our population was minuscule, that the greater pool of people to ask to volunteer, there would be a greater number of candidates, yet the opposite is the case.

Here is the elephant in the room that no one has thought important to mention yet -

People are more stressed out about their jobs, pay is worse and poverty is up.

Years ago most families could get by with one breadwinner, unemployment was lower than it is now and finding a new job if you lost yours wasn't so difficult.

We had the news today that unemployment has risen once again. This follows further news that of the jobs which have been created over the past year, 50% of them have been zero-hours contracts.

Is it any wonder why somebody who is struggling to pay their extortionate rent, is stressed out by their job and is facing even further tax rises might not have the inclination to want to take on the burden of giving up lots of hours of volunteering?

What will revitilise our honorary system is to accept that Jersey has been letting down our working and middle class residents and been decreasing their standard of living for years. It isn't a uniquely Jersey problem as many other places have seen that cultural shift too, but we have the ability to turn our economy round by pursuing policies which will actually improve ordinary people's lives, not make them harder.

If the government makes people's lives easier they'll be more likely to want and be able to volunteer to do something good for their community.

It's not rocket science.

Friday, 24 July 2015

Letter to the JEP - in response to John Boothman



On the 15th July the JEP published the latest in a series of letters in which John Boothman attempts to demonstrate why Reform Jersey's figures on how much a tax rate of 25% on earnings above £100k are wrong.

One of the things I find most frustrating in politics is when people attempt to discredit your position by saying things which are not true, in the hope that because they've said it some people will believe them.

John Boothman's letters have been a prime example of this. Nothing he has said in any of them has been true and had he done any research he would have quickly found that out, yet he persisted with not just one letter but three.

So on the 16th July I wrote a letter to the JEP for publication to clarify these figures and explain how they are arrived at and why Boothman's attempt to come up with figures was completely flawed.

Since it's been a week and the JEP have not published that letter, I produce it here, along with a link to the Freedom of Information request that I reference.


Dear Editor,

I did not originally intend on wading in on John Boothman’s ongoing debate with my Reform Jersey colleague Deputy Geoff Southern over how much a 25% rate of tax on earnings above £100,000 would bring in, however his latest attempt to rubbish our figures was so far off the mark that I feel it necessary to intervene. 
Mr Boothman began his latest set of estimates by saying “If we assume” before attempting to draw out the figures of what earnings in those bands actually were. 
Unfortunately for Mr Boothman, there is no need to make any assumptions because we have access to all the relevant figures thanks to a recent Freedom of Information request. 
That request shows us that the number of people with a Jersey taxable income in 2012 of over £100,000 is 4,535 and that their income is a total of £935m. If you deduct the first £100,000 for each person that gives a total income in the ‘over £100,000 bracket’ of £481m. An additional 5% income tax on earnings over £100,000 would therefore have raised £24m in 2012. This corresponds with Deputy Geoff Southern’s revised figure and is approximately 60% higher than Mr Boothman's estimate of £15m. 
This week’s revelations about the Council of Minister’s financial plans for the next 4 years should shock and offend any Islander with a social conscience. 
They are targeting pensioners, young people and the vulnerable, incidentally none of whom are to blame for the fact we now find ourselves with a £145m looming blackhole. No Islander will go untouched as they introduce new taxes which none of them had the good grace to warn the public about before the election last year. 
The government’s fiscal incompetence has been laid bare for all to see and they are desperately trying to rectify it by pursuing a brand of austerity more economically bankrupt and mean-spirited than even their counterpart in the UK is. 
Reform Jersey believe that if we want to continue to live in an Island which looks out for the vulnerable, with well-funded public services which we can all rely on, it’s time to look at our tax model. 
If Mr Boothman has a change of heart, he will be more than welcome to come join us and our friends in advocating an alternative which benefits the many, not just the few.

Deputy Sam Mézec
Chairman of Reform Jersey

 Freedom of Information request - http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=1391

Monday, 6 July 2015

Response to Stephen Regal in the JEP




On the 6th July the JEP published not just one, but three letters criticising me for having the temerity to set up a group whose purpose is to suggest that the government might want to cool it down when engaging with a country in the Middle East which regularly invades its neighbours and massacres large numbers of civilians. You'd have thought that might be considered a noble enterprise, but apparently not to some people (one a former States deputy would you believe?).

Needless to say, not a single argument employed in those letters stands up to any scrutiny (most can be disproved in 30 seconds on Google) and they have actually done the opposite of their purpose which is to have disenthused those of us who care about the Palestinian tragedy.

I have sent the JEP a response to the first of the three letters in which the writer says that I would fail to rise to the challenge of criticising the Arab dictatorships too. I've simply drawn his attention to three occasions where I have not only rose to the challenge, but probably surpassed it too.

But the most serious of the letters was from Stephen Regal. His lengthy letter was possibly the poorest argument I have ever read on the Middle Eastern conflict and I cannot let the outrageous things he said go unchallenged, though it is impossible to do so in a letter short enough to be published in the JEP, so I have produced it here instead -



Mr Regal wrote his letter without making the slightest attempt to get in contact with me to investigate what the purpose of the new group was going to be, what my views on other conflicts in the region were or what experience I have. This makes his claims that I am somehow ignorant to be almost comically ironic.

He begins his letter by stating that he wished to take issue with my statement “last year as Israel was launching another of its regular bombardments of the Gaza Strip killing hundreds of innocent children…” Well the first thing to point out there is that, as a matter of objective fact, there is nothing to take issue with there as it is all completely true and verified by both Amnesty International and the United Nations (not organisations I’d recommend taking umbrage with).

Last year Israel launched the paradoxically named “Operation Protective Edge” in which 2,251 Gazans were killed, with 65% of them civilians (United Nations figures). Conversely, 74 Israelis were killed, 6 of them civilians. To put it another way - for every one Israeli civilian killed there were 244 Palestinian civilians killed.

At the end of 2008 Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in which around 1,400 Gazans were killed, 926 of them civilians. Conversely, 13 Israelis were killed, 3 of them civilians and 4 soldiers killed by other Israeli soldiers. To put it another way – for everyone one Israeli civilian killed there were 309 Palestinian civilians killed.

Israel’s incursions into Gaza are both regular and deadly. Therefore my statement was completely factually accurate and left nothing whatsoever to take issue with, unless you seek to deny (or in this case cast doubt on) that fact.

So let’s move on –

The next paragraph begins with “Sadly Deputy Mézec fails to mention the fact that-”. Let me get this out of the way first – there are trillions of facts I failed to mention. Why? Because I had to condense my statement to the media onto one side of A4. They then further condensed it down into a quarter of a page in the JEP.

Just because I failed to mention a particular fact does not mean that I automatically reject that fact.

Prior to Israel’s engagement [sic] in Gaza last year more than 2,500 rockets had been fired at Israeli civilian targets in the period immediately prior to Israel’s operation and more than 10,000 rockets in total”.

I’ll be clear – I utterly condemn every single rocket that is fired by a militant group in Palestine. They are wrong to do so and they should stop immediately. I could not be more unambiguous.

What betrays any hope of intellectual calibre from his argument is the inference written across every word of his letter that because I did not fit anything about the crimes of Hamas in my one side of A4 that I am somehow an apologist for them.

Hamas are a deeply nasty organisation who I have no truck with. Were I a Palestinian I would be a supporter of a secular and non-militant Socialist political party instead. What I am intending to form in Jersey is a Palestinian Solidarity Group, not a Hamas Solidarity Group. The fact he equates the two as being the same shows how ignorant he actually is and displays the same mentality that is actually causing such strife on the road to peace.

As an elected politician here in Jersey how would he wish our elected government to respond if our nearest neighbour behaved in such a manner?

There is no need to try to ask us to imagine this hypothetical scenario because what he is describing has actually happened!

For decades the United Kingdom was subjected to terrorist attack after terrorist attack committed by the Irish Republican Army. They murdered a member of the Royal Family and came close to murdering the Prime Minister, all in the name of the political cause of ending the British state in the north of Ireland.

What did Britain do in response? Did we bomb Dundalk? Did we send the SAS into Dublin? Did we enforce a blockade on the Republic of Ireland, stopping basic necessities from getting in?

No, because Britain is a civilised country. Instead, we learnt that the only way that you make peace with your enemies is by talking to them and recognising when their demands are legitimate.

The demands of the Palestinian people are legitimate. Their country was stolen from them. Their people were cast asunder to the four corners of the Earth. Millions of their compatriots live in refugee camps where they are subjected to inhumane conditions (and sometimes even massacre at the behest of the Israeli Defence Force, as with Sabra and Chatila).

But if we really do want to talk about hypotheticals, let’s have a go -

Imagine tomorrow the Breton diaspora from around the world decide that they are going to invade the Channel Islands on the tenuous basis that our Islands were once part of Brittany over a thousand years ago.

After a brief bit of fighting most of us Jersey folk end up retreating to Alderney.

Those of us left in Jersey are banned from forming political groups which advocate allowing their families displaced in the war to come back home. Meanwhile, anyone who claims Breton heritage is allowed to come to Jersey to occupy a home once lived in by a Jersey family, regardless of whether they have ever even set foot in this hemisphere.

Once in a while the Breton air force sends it’s bombers (paid for from billions of dollars of American aid) to bomb our already densely populated area, killing huge numbers of civilians in the process. They do drop leaflets beforehand to let us know they are going to bomb, but then they shoot at any of us who dare attempt to leave the Island by boat to seek safety.

The Breton regime in Jersey openly admits that the purpose of the blockade of Alderney is designed to keep the population as malnourished as possible to ensure that they are not capable of effectively fighting back.

When Jersey people in Alderney dare have the temerity to say they’d like their Island back, the world lambasts them as terrorists, whereas the Bretons who occupy their Island are called the victims.

There is the Palestinian nakba for you.

Bearing in mind Israel does not occupy one centimetre of Gaza, having unilaterally withdrawn in 2005.”

Unilaterally withdrawing after how many decades of occupation and stealing of land to place Israeli settlers there? The incredulity of that whitewash there was pretty lame.

But this as a statement is further evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of his argument.

It may well be the case that Israel does not currently physically occupy the Gaza Strip (let’s conveniently ignore the occupation of the West Bank for now) but in case you hadn’t noticed, they run the strictest embargo on the planet.

Gaza’s airport was destroyed by Israel, so nothing gets in or out by air. Israel tightly guards its sea ports, so nothing gets in or out without Israel’s permission (in fact just a few days ago they refused to allow a charity convoy in, though they managed to stop them without killing anyone, unlike last time).

After Operation Cast Lead Israel told the United Nations it would allow materials in to rebuild the homes they destroyed, yet years later the UN confirmed that 75% of what they had pledged to do had not happened.

The electricity supply to Gaza is turned off if they are struggling to power the air conditioning in Tel Aviv.

And I know what some will be itching to say. “Aha, he hasn’t criticised the Egyptians who also share a border with Gaza which they refuse to allow goods through either!” Wrong. I deplore the Egyptian dictatorship as I deplore all of the Arab governments whose human rights records are appalling.

To say Gaza is not occupied is clearly a matter of semantics. Israel still more or less controls what can and cannot happen there. It may as well be occupied.

Here is my favourite bit though – “He also fails to mention that BDS targets only Israel in spite of the horrors perpetrated by the so-called Isis against all and sundry”.

Really, Mr Regal? REALLY?

If anyone can point out to me any shop on the high street that is selling goods provided to them by ISIS I give you my cast iron guarantee that I will never shop there again in my life.

How are we meant to boycott ISIS when there is nothing to boycott in the first place? They don’t sell us goods, they don’t provide us with software and the British government has already banned us from heading to their controlled territories on holiday.

He fails to mention the excesses of the Syrian regime in its ongoing civil war”.

Yes, it wasn’t on my one side of A4.

In other forums I have regularly criticised the conduct of Bashar al Assad who I believe to be a class A maniac and whose demise cannot come soon enough (on the condition that he isn't just replaced by ISIS or another religious fundamentalist ruler).

Not one word does Deputy Mézec utter regarding the activities of Iran and its nuclear aspirations

Well partly because it doesn’t have any but he hasn’t let facts get in the way so far so why start now?

Benjamin Netanyahu is about the only person on the planet who still believes that Iran is after nuclear weapons. Even Mossad have told him that it isn't true. He simply pedals the lie and drums up fear because it's about the only thing he can make political capital out of given how extremist far-right his political views are.

But it’s incredibly ironic for someone to lament the right of Iran (a country which has not invaded another country in over 200 years and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) to obtain nuclear weapons whilst defending a country which has hundreds of illegally obtained nuclear weapons and last invaded another country just over 200 days ago. The hypocrisy is excruciating.

Oh and by the way, I’m a unilateralist. I oppose all countries possessing nuclear weapons. But I wasn’t sure where to fit that fact on my one side of A4.

or Russia’s takeover of large parts of Ukraine

Again, not much room for it on my one side of A4. But it’s quite rich for someone to be indignant about one country occupying another country’s territory in a letter in which you are defending Israel.

Sadly one can only put one construction upon BDS singling out the only democratic [sic] country in the Middle East, that is resurgence of the centuries old basic anti-Semitism

Oh dear, here we go…

I believe that when it comes to BDS there are few greater advocates than the British Labour Party MP Sir Gerald Kaufman who has in recent years spoken out about the war crimes committed by Israel and in support of boycotting Israel until the electorate there feel their standard of living going down as a clear consequence of their refusal to elect governments who are genuinely interested in peace.

Can somebody please explain to me how Kaufman, whose family was murdered in the Holocaust and who grew up an ardent Zionist, is anti-Semitic? I’m fascinated to see a justification of how such an accusation can claim to have a place in what should be a civilised political debate.

I’m not saying that Deputy Mézec is anti-semitic

Quite right he is not. If he had I would not be writing a blog, but would be on the telephone to a lawyer.

I have no doubt whatsoever that there are people whose support for Palestine is motivated by their hatred of Jews. If one of these people ever attempts to infiltrate the Palestinian Solidarity Association, once I’ve calmed down my initial urge to punch them, I will throw them out and they will never be allowed back in again.

Anti-Semitism is a vile form of racism. But it is not the same thing as wanting to see an end to the crimes being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.

In fact some of the most important contributors to the Palestinian struggle have been Jews.

Sir Gerald Kaufman as I mentioned before, Miko Peled, Norman Finkelstein, the list goes on.

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that opposition to the crimes committed by the State of Israel is the same thing as hating Jews. It is not, and it could prove to be a very costly supposition to make.

I can’t particularly be bothered to explain in detail why the list of products Mr Regal has claimed we should be boycotting is nonsense given the headache I already have, but I will point out the hilarity of his claim that we’ll have to boycott phones because Motorola has Israeli connections (I use a Samsung by the way…), that is about as intellectually robust as the rest of his argument.

Above all perhaps Deputy Mézec’s time would be better spent exercising his mind dealing with issues we Islanders face here at home

I wonder how often Mr Regal reads the JEP. I’m in it virtually every other day for this reason or for that reason. Whether it is about the political party which I have formed to campaign on a platform of social justice, or the propositions we bring to the States with the explicit intention of benefiting lower and middle income earners in Jersey, or the huge amount of constituent casework that we are known for, often taking up cases for people who don’t even live in our constituencies.

If he is genuinely concerned about issues of social justice and would like States Members to do more to help Islanders here, why doesn’t he direct some of his indignation at the low calibre of States Member that is mostly elected here (with very few exceptions) or to our actual democratic system which perpetuates ineffective and inefficient government which has gotten us to the point of building up a £125m deficit and upcoming tax rises for ordinary working Islanders plus £60m of cuts to public sector jobs. Might that not actually be a better cause to use a platform for speaking out on?

As it happens, I had guessed that this Palestinian group project would probably take up around 2 hours of my time this whole month. Thanks to these objectors, it’s now 3 and a half hours as I had to spend time correcting the record.

Rather than blindly and awkwardly entering an arena of which he has little knowledge and even less experience

Once again he shows that he has no intention of pursing a line of argument fit for anyone who considers themselves to be an adult.

Mr Regal and I have never met. He knows virtually nothing about me. He has no idea at all how many times I may or may not have visited the region. He has no idea who I have or have not met who has been involved in the conflict. He has no idea what books I have or haven’t read. He has no idea what I have or have not witnessed.

All he knows is that I have reached a conclusion which is different to his, so he has assumed that the only reason I could possibly disagree with him is because I’m some sort of ignoramus who shoots from the hip without doing any research.

That is the very definition of ignorance.

As for my experience, I am going to outright refuse to enlighten him. I’d prefer to leave him in the dark because it shows how robust his argument is that he has to resort to playing the man not the ball.

Deputy Mézec should be aware that disengagement is not the ultimate way to solve a problem

I have two words to disprove that – South Africa.

The boycott South Africa movement played a huge part in ending Apartheid.

The regime there realised that there was no future for Apartheid so long as it became an excuse for the international community to stop dealing with their country and to cause economic hardship for the white community whose dominance they wanted to preserve.

Boycotts can and do work (and they're a lot less violent than some of the alternatives). I believe that it is the best option for securing peace because all other options have had almost 70 years of failure.

Anyone is entitled to disagree with that. But what Mr Regal has attempted to pass off as an argument against it has fallen short in every conceivable way.


Finally I want to offer any of my objectors a challenge –

The first meeting of the Palestinian Solidarity Association was hijacked by a group of well organised Christian fundamentalists who came to deliberately obstruct us. We were shouted down and some attendees were accused of anti-Semitism. But we have not been set back and we never will be no matter what mob we run into because we have the facts on our side.

Given that they chose to write letters to the JEP for publication to slander myself and spread more misinformation into the public domain without first attempting to contact me and offer a chance of reconciliation in a sensible and constructive way, then let’s have a public debate.

One hour, live on BBC Radio Jersey (I’m sure they’d be happy to facilitate it). Let’s do it, if you think you can handle it.

I know that I am right and I know that I am speaking on behalf of countless Islanders who are fed up of seeing their government strive for their 20 pieces of silver as they act with no regard to the suffering of millions of people around the world.

I have the privilege of working with a group of people whose message is simple – not in our name.

History will judge us and my conscience is crystal clear.

Wednesday, 17 June 2015

The State of Democracy in Jersey




Yesterday the States Assembly voted 17 to 26 (with 2 abstentions) to reject the proposition lodged by Reform Jersey's Deputy Montfort Tadier to hold off on beginning to construct the first building for the International Finance Centre (IFC) on the Esplanade car park until the scrutiny review being conducted into the schemes viability had concluded so the States could make a final decision based on the facts.

Regardless of anyone's views on whether we need to build these offices or not, it is completely reasonable to say that when it would only take a few weeks to finish that review, things could stand to be put on hold so we know all questions are answered before the public takes on potentially tens of millions of pounds of risk.

It was a terrible day for environmental campaigners as well as those who care about fiscal prudence and good government.

I won't rehearse the arguments which were made, but instead will commend the excellent work done by various campaigners and Save Our Shoreline Jersey who did an absolutely sterling job.


What I want to talk about is the state of democracy in Jersey today.

The 2013 Annual Social Survey showed that 75% of the public did not have faith in the States of Jersey. At the last election 70% of eligible voters did not vote. We have a gerrymandered electoral system which gives voters in the countryside more power than voters in urban areas. Anyone who tells you that none of this is a problem is either a liar or a fool. Jersey has a perpetual crisis of democracy.

It is that crisis which inspired me to get into politics so that I could play my part in working towards a system which gives all voters equality and provides accountability to those in government.

Yesterday has demonstrated exactly why democratic reform is desperately needed and why the current system is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

It was claimed by Constable Crowcroft in the run up to the debate that going ahead with the IFC was the result of democracy because the ministers who supported it all won re-election in October.

The Chief Minister was re-elected last year with the support of 18% of eligible voters. That's 82% of the public who did not back him. He receives staunch political support from the 12 Constables, 11 of whom were elected uncontested.

But here are the clinchers -

Check the election manifestos of our most senior ministers at www.gorst.je, www.alanmaclean.je and www.ozouf.je and you will find not one single word about the IFC. Not one.

How anyone can patronise the public by calling this process democratic is beyond me.

But it gets worse.

Here is the list of which members voted against Deputy Tadier's proposition -


Of these, many are not particularly surprising.

But two will be a surprise if you are one of those who voted for them based on what they told SOS Jersey before they were elected.

Both Deputy Murray Norton and Deputy Peter McLinton when asked if they supported offices being built on the Esplanade said "no". 

And here it is -



They couldn't have been more unambiguous and, it transpires, they couldn't have been more insincere.

Not only did Deputy Norton vote against the proposal, but he actually gave a very passionate speech about how we absolutely MUST build the IFC and even slagged off the protesters (never a smart move).

When I go round knocking on doors at election time I am confronted by so many people who say "what's the point? Politicians say anything to get elected then just do what they want anyway." I try and explain that we aren't all the same and that I will vote exactly how I say I will in my manifesto (and my record shows that I have done exactly that).

I now have this to contend with. Two Deputies who portrayed themselves as not being part of the club and as being people who would be a breath of fresh air, then at the first sniff of power they vote exactly how the Chief Minister tells them to. How can I claim any member of the public is wrong to be cynical when I'm on the doorstep trying to tell them voting is worth it?

All of the assistant ministers where whipped into force (although Deputy Vallois abstained, but that's even worse frankly...). These so-called "independents" vote how the Chief Minister tells them to.

Never has it been more clear that we have a party political system in Jersey. The only difference is that Reform Jersey does what it says it will do at election time, the Jersey Tories lie their way into power and betray the public at every chance they can get.


Only slightly less annoying than the ministers/ assistant ministers abusing democratic process like this is the non-executive States Members who don't seem to even realise what their job is.

Deputy Richard Renouf of St Ouen, who is an Advocate by trade, said of the States of Jersey "we are the government of this Island". He is wrong. The States of Jersey is NOT the government of this Island, it is the parliament of this Island. It is the Council of Ministers which is the government, where the parliament appoints them and then holds them to account.

The fact a lawyer doesn't understand what his job is is utterly damning on the caliber of our parliamentarians.

If the purpose of the States Assembly is to simply rubber stamp whatever the Council of Ministers decides and to ignore any Scrutiny, then frankly it may as well be disbanded. It serves no purpose if it isn't capable of holding the government to account.


The next three years are going to be hell for ordinary Islanders.

Despite lying to the public during the election, Ian Gorst and his cohorts are hell bent on raising taxes on all of us at the same time as cutting back public services to the bare bones.

There is little to be done because our so-called politicians are probably the least capable we have ever had.

The challenge now is to build up a true democratic movement which can attempt to challenge their hegemony in 2018.


Reform Jersey are having our AGM on the 25th June. Sign up for free as a member and join the only political party in the Island which gives a damn what the public think.

www.reformjersey.je

Wednesday, 13 May 2015

Reform Jersey Press Release - the 'Living Wage'

Living Wage – what we were not told.


Reform Jersey member, Deputy Geoff Southern today accuses the chief minister of misleading States members, the media and members of the public over the presentation of the report into the viability of adopting a living wage for Jersey.

Although on the surface the report appears to be a neutral and technical document” says Deputy Southern, “it is in fact a highly political and skewed view, designed to put as many blocks as possible on the path to the adoption of a Jersey living wage.


The research conducted ignores the two central aims of the minimum wage:
  • to reduce in-work poverty and dependence on benefits, and
  • to lift working families out of relative low income (poverty)

The report avoids dealing with the former by ignoring completely the evidence from the 2014 London living wage report which shows an hourly rate to meet basic living costs excluding benefits of between £11 and £15.84 for families with children and between £6.50 and £13.45 for those without.

Similarly, the London report suggests that to lift families above the poverty line would require hourly wage rates, excluding benefits, of between £11.60 and £15.84.

In suggesting that Jersey already has a living wage and need do little more, the Chief Minister reneges on his promise to protect the poor and vulnerable. He governs by spin,” says Deputy Southern.

Wednesday, 6 May 2015

Reform Jersey response to Zero-Hours contract report



In June 2013, JACS expressed the following concerns about zero-hours
contracts –

“We are concerned that some employers are using zero-hour contracts in circumstances that may not be appropriate.”

As a result, the then Social Security minister agreed a proposition to investigate the use of zero-hours contracts which included the following terms:

csubject to the outcome of consultation with stakeholders, to bring forward for approval suchdraft legislation as is deemed necessary to restrict any proven misuse of zero-hours contracts.

“In a skimpy 12-side report, the current Minister, Deputy Susie Pinel, has failed to address any of the serious issues raised by the use/abuse of zero hours in Jersey” says Deputy Geoff Southern. The report fails to assess, or even address, these vital questions:

  • Why 1 in 10 workers has a zero-hours job in Jersey, (UK 1 in 50)?
  • What the extent of inappropriate use of zero hours is?
  • How do variable incomes interact with the income support system?
  • What do low incomes mean for Sickness benefit thresholds?

The department fails to ask the right questions and therefore comes up with no proposals for regulation, merely a code of practice, which in the absence of any policing can safely be ignored by a rogue employer.Stakeholders, whether employers or employee representatives, have not been consulted, apparently.

No attempt has been made to investigate the impact of zero hours on the 25% of employees reported in the Social Survey as expressing dissatisfaction, or the 50% of workers who complain about the reduction in benefits such as pension or sick pay attached to zero-hours jobs.

“After 18 months of waiting, workers have been let down by this shoddy and superficial report. We shall have to start from scratch to do some proper research and ask the right questions, if we are to make any progress in controlling this controversial element of employment law, says Deputy Southern.

Thursday, 23 April 2015

The young putting the old to shame - The Jersey Youth Parliament




Yesterday myself and Deputy Tadier attended the inaugural meeting of the Jersey Youth Parliament.

Jersey already has a Youth Assembly, which takes place once a year in the States Chamber and is organised by the Jersey branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which includes amongst it's alumni such fine politicians as myself and Deputy Jeremy Macon.

However thanks to the hard work of a few teenagers with a passion for politics and bucket loads of initiative (led by Amy Vatcher), a more permanent organisation has been formed to host regular debates amongst young people, encourage students to get politically active and provide a forum for the views of young people to be filtered through directly to the States.

Aside from this obviously being great for all the young people who get a chance to be involved, I am really optimistic that this will be good for the whole Island, for two main reasons -


Firstly, the actual model of parliament that these young people have opted to create is a pristine democratic model that puts the actual States format to shame.

They have accepted the principle that everyone deserves to have a vote worth exactly the same as anybody else, and so their voting system will be a proportional representation system.

The States of Jersey has so far sanctioned two referendums to hoodwink the public into voting to preserve our gerrymandered system where those in the conservative rural Parishes can arbitrarily outvote the more progressive urban Parishes no matter the overall democratic will of the Island is.

The purpose of elections are to produce a parliament which represents the democratic will of the public. The States of Jersey fails horrendously at this, where the Jersey Youth Parliament has committed to it on it's very first day.

But as well as accepting the principle of equal suffrage, they have also opted for party politics!

So far four parties have been formed -

The Rose Party - a liberal party named after the reformist party in Jersey during the 1800s, let by Constable Pierre Le Sueur.
The Socialist League - a coalition of democratic socialists from across the broad left.
The Green Party - an environmentalist party.
The Progressive Party - a conservative party, named after the right-wing party formed in 1945 by Cyril Le Marquand.



When I put it to the members of the Youth Parliament that it was a sensible decision to go for a party system, they responded by saying that it made so much more sense to group together on joint manifestos rather than every candidate (potentially more than 50) putting together their own manifesto that would make it a challenge for young voters to go through and decide which to vote for.

And therein lies the problem with the States system and, in my view, why we have landed ourselves in the mother of all disasters with an upcoming £125m financial black hole!

Our political system is designed to put off as many people so it remains as easy as possible for those in power to remain in place, no matter how badly out of touch with the public they become or how badly they mismanage our public finances.

Yet, on day one of it's existence, the Youth Parliament has adopted a model that has already shown itself to be far more captivating for those who take part and makes the job of the youth parliamentarians much easier.

I think that this this Youth Parliament is going to make our Council of Ministers look absolutely ridiculous.

When a group of teenagers are able to put the actual government to shame by so easily accepting basic principles of democracy so uncontroversially, then those who continue to bury their head in the sand will look more and more out of touch.


But the second thing that really impressed me about yesterday was the actual quality of the debate.

Each party (including the Progressive Party who I am most ideologically unaligned with) put forward their cases eloquently and in good spirit. With more and more practice the leading lights of each party will become public speakers with the skills to surpass many of our actual politicians (they'll certainly get more practice in their role than some of our States Members choose to get by their inactivity in their role...).

Ben Jehan of the Rose Party was able to explain his liberal ideology with such clarity and with an ability to portray himself as utterly genuine in every word he said, even when he was put under pressure from members of the audience who didn't agree with him.

Daniel Tremoceiro of the Progressive Party gave an explanation of his conservative values that showed his genuine commitment to real economic success and fiscal competence, without ever allowing himself to be diverted towards socially conservative values which are deeply unpopular amongst most young people.

Ella Blampied from the Green Party won the audience over so quickly with her charm by describing herself as an "environment nerd" and making it abundantly clear that she was not a political person, but rather someone who was motivated by a genuine passion to save the world from climate change.

Freddie Morley-Kirk from the Socialist League made an excellent case for democratic socialism, making clear his disdain for those historically who have dragged the good name of socialism through the mud, and showed his party to be a coalition of those who want to fight for a more equal society but without losing sight of the importance of pragmatism.

From the audience came some wonderful contributions from people who needed little prompting to put all of the parties (in equal measure) on the spot to justify what they had said and to challenge them when they believed what they had said didn't add up.

When I heard the group of girls from Hautlieu giving even the Socialists a hard time over their commitment to true equality, I knew that I was in a room full of people with genuine progressive views, something which is sorely lacking in the actual States Assembly which is conservative and reactionary in all the wrong ways. It is too enamoured by tradition that it shows contempt for positive change.

The more refined these people become with more political experience, the better our chances are of having a next generation that will save this Island from the incompetence of previous generations.


Some in politics believe that more political education is the panacea to all of our previous problems with trying to get young people engaged with politics. I have always believed this is utter nonsense and will actually put young people off politics.

Politics is the battle of values and fighting for a better world. A bunch of old fogies trying to be as balanced and uncontroversial in front of a whiteboard will not inspire young people.

Some young people believe the planet is being destroyed by multi-national companies who are usurping our natural resources to make a quick buck with no regard for future generations. Some young people believe inequality is keeping billions of people in poverty across the world. Some young people believe governments have attacked our hard-won civil liberties in the name of "security". Some young people believe that their economic prospects are harmed by governments who take an anti-enterprise stance and hold back aspiration.

The way you will inspire young people to get politically active is by encouraging them to take part in passionate debates on these subjects which leave them wanting to walk straight out of the room and do something to help their community.

The Youth Parliament has already shown what huge potential it has and I'm thoroughly glad it's happening!

Well done to everyone involved.


Check them out on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jersey-Youth-Parliament/1534433766803871?fref=ts

Wednesday, 8 April 2015

Register to vote in the UK election!

Press Release - For immediate release

Deputy Calls on Islanders to Register to Vote in Upcoming UK General Election




Deputy Sam Mézec of Reform Jersey is urging the hundreds of Islanders who are eligible to make sure they are registered to vote in the upcoming UK general election.

The election rules in the UK state that British citizens are still eligible to vote in the general election, despite no longer living in the UK, so long as they were registered to vote at some point in the past 15 years - http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register-to-vote/british-citizens-living-abroad

They will vote as if they still lived in the last constituency in which they were registered in.

There are likely to be hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people in Jersey who have no idea that they are actually still eligible to vote in the general election. These may be British citizens who moved to Jersey in the last 15 years, or even the hundreds of students who studied at university on the mainland” said Deputy Mézec.

This election is impossible to call, with the two main parties neck and neck in the polls and former fringe parties drawing more mainstream support. Every vote counts and any Islander who cares about the policies that will affect tens of millions of people across the UK, or may even affect Jersey and our relationship with the UK, should make sure they vote because it has never been more important.”

Deputy Mézec (who is still a member of the Labour Party) hopes Islanders will vote bearing in mind the important services Jersey residents get from the UK, particularly in health and education, where the NHS provides specialist services to Islanders when they are ill and the national curriculum that Jersey subscribes to. “Making sure we have a UK government that will protect those services will benefit Jersey. We also need to remember that jeopardising the UK’s position in the European Union, as some parties are intent on doing, will have serious implications for our finance industry.

Voters must have registered to vote by the 20th April, and must have applied for a postal vote by the 21st April. This can be done online at - https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote


Thursday, 2 April 2015

Reform Jersey - Free GPs press release


\\ois.gov.soj\sojdata\MSOJ_HomeDirs\MezecS\Desktop\Reform Jersey logo.png

Press Release - For immediate release
Reform Jersey maintains free GP visit policy despite Jersey Consumer Council findings
Jersey’s only political party has rejected claims recently made by the Jersey Consumer Council that the public do not want to see free access to GPs for all Islanders due to potential “abuse” of the system.
Reform Jersey party leader Deputy Sam Mézec said “I don't think that anyone can seriously claim that a forum where only 54 people took part can possibly give us any indication of what Island-wide opinion from all social groups is. The numbers alone give me cause to believe the findings are unrepresentative. We also were not given the questions those people were asked to examine if they were leading questions or if the full picture was given.
The council was right to identify that we would not want to promote people abusing the system, however we have to remember that the current system ends up forcing people to put off addressing their illnesses at an early stage, when it is cheaper to treat, because of worrying about paying to see a doctor. These people often end up using A&E instead, where it ultimately costs the taxpayer much more to see them than if they had been to see a GP in the first place.
“One's health is of paramount importance and whilst some sectors of society may be willing and able to pay, it is also true any charge to see a GP can act as a disincentive, especially for the increasing number of people who do not have the luxury of disposable income. And for them, seeing a doctor should not be a luxury, but a right” added fellow Reform Jersey member Deputy Montfort Tadier.
We welcome the progress that has been made with some surgeries now voluntarily offering free visits to certain age groups, but ultimately we want to see appointments free for all Islanders, funded by raising the social security cap on high earners.”
In the United Kingdom people have the ability to see a GP for free. It is often claimed that this leads to longer waiting lists, however this varies across the country, where the determining factor is actually how well funded the local scheme is and how many GPs they actually employ, rather than the principle of free GP appointments itself.


Notes to the editor

  • Reform Jersey party policy is to move towards scrapping fees for GP visits altogether, with immediate steps made towards abolishing fees for those on low incomes, pensioners, children and those with chronic illnesses.
  • Reform Jersey would pay for this by raising the social security cap on high earners, asking the well off to share the burden instead of forcing hardship on those who are struggling to get by.