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

31 comments:

  1. 10/10 well done
    I think you may have dropped a w on the web link though

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also dropped a "W" for Norton & Peter Mac!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good analysis Sam - we will take that up with the two members.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ex DJ Deputy Mclinton has disappointed a lot of people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Truscott - Pallet - Norton all voted against their St Brelade parishioners who voted unanimously to support Deputy Tadier's proposition at a parish assembly which should have been called by Connetable Pallet. All three of them are anti-democratic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good analysis. We definitely have a democratic deficit at the moment. Did Reform members stand in solidarity with their union comrades, in the light of austerity being imposed upon them, by refusing to accept pension scheme payments offered to greedy states members recently ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. States Members haven't been offered pensions. That story was the media causing mischief.

      Delete
    2. "Did Reform members stand in solidarity with their union comrades"

      Will the unions (whose public sector members have gold plated pensions) stand in solidarity with their States Members and support them having pensions?

      Delete
  7. Norton and mclinton faces fits better for the radio because they are tuning off already !

    ReplyDelete
  8. I understood that States members were sent a letter asking whether they would avail themselves of an offer of a pound for pound contribution from taxpayers up to a maximum of £ 4,000 if they were to open a pension scheme ? It doesn't surprise me to hear that the media have got something wrong however !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The States Members Remuneration Board (which is independent and not made up of politicians) made a recommendation at the end of last year that States Members should be offered a contributory pension scheme. On the basis of that recommendation States Members were asked how many of them would take it up if it was introduced, which is of course not quite the same as actually being offered it, which has yet to happen.

      I would be absolutely astounded if the States did go ahead and vote to introduce a pension scheme.

      Delete
    2. I bet the grabbing hands of the Jersey Tory party couldn't wait to get another £ 4K per year, whilst simultaneously voting to cut the pensions and working conditions of hard working States employees. Do you have a list of those that said they would take up the offer ?

      Delete
    3. 'I would be absolutely astounded if the States did go ahead and vote to introduce a pension scheme.'

      Great to hear you standing up for ordinary islanders again. I take it Reform would be leading the charge in voting against this ridiculous idea ?

      Delete
    4. We haven't spoken about it as a party yet, though I presume we will vote against it.

      Delete
    5. As a working man, that's great to hear. I know you haven't formally spoken to the other Reform members yet, but I take it nobody from the party wrote saying they would accept the payments ?

      Delete
    6. Hi Sam,

      I notice you still haven't answered the question confirming that no Reform members replied to say they would accept the pension payments should they be offered. I think it is worth confirming the party's position on this, given the presumption you would vote against it.

      Thanks

      Delete
    7. I don't know what the others said so can't comment.

      I don't believe that pensions will be passed. But if they do I would have to judge what the terms are to determine if I took one or not. I anticipate that if they do go ahead, they'll be accompanied by an equivalent pay cut so it ends up being cost neutral.

      It would be wrong for me to enrich myself with it, but also it would be a little bit pointless in rejecting something that all other public sector workers have if it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. It all depends on the terms.

      What I will say is that I don't bother keeping receipts for costs incurred as part of my States duties to get them deducted from tax, I don't claim the IT allowance and I don't claim the free parking space.

      I wrote back outlining that position but also slamming the ridiculous comments which were made by some very wealthy States Members about how "we can't take pensions when we're asking public sector workers to take cuts" to instead suggest that instead of their indignation at the possibility that some States Members from poor backgrounds might get pensions, how about they join me and my colleagues in opposing the cuts being forced on them and support decent pensions for every single Islander.

      A radical idea, but evidently one too complex for some of them to comprehend.

      Delete
  9. Good on you Sam, it must constantly feel like fighting against an old boys club. Hopefully people will soon start to realise how badly run things are with no accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well done Sam and the 16 others who voted against. It is interesting that the States spin machine is puttting out, that Scrutiny are already biased against the SoJDC. One wonders why they would do that ?

    One answer may be that they already know that the SoJDC profitability figures, are going to come crashing down, when scrutiny release their findings, and are trying to avoid a monster demonstration and head off calls for political resignations.






    ReplyDelete
  11. Good to see Reform getting their usual
    Level of backing in the states

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think your views are very one-eyed, particularly since you have a financial interest in ensuring you create the publicity for yourself to enable you to stay in the States, even with the paltry vote you get.

    I am interested in one thing though, talking of 'gerrymandering', which whilst is an incorrect term for what you are describing, ie: it is NOT manipulating electoral boundaries at all, as the boundaries in the country are set by the Parish, which is a Parish boundary not an election boundary, HOWEVER I get what you are trying to say.

    Explain then, why in St Ouen we have ONE Deputy, versus St Helier which has a lot more.

    Further, please explain how if you were to do it completely on per-head of population then you would end up having St Helier dominate and effectively make Parish Deputies non-existent in the States as their vote would be completely pointless.

    Finally I fail to see how you can criticise the COM when in fact the COM are elected based on the voting public - criticise the non-voting public. I voted, and all bar one is in the COM, now you will criticise me for that, and go ahead, but the fact is it isn't me who is at fault you haven't got your way, it is what you believe (though I think it is wrong) the non-voting public, who I believe incidently would proportionately vote for the incumbencies anyway, not giving you any additional representation, though we can debate that till the cows come home, we will NEVER know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think your views are very one-eyed, particularly since you have a financial interest in ensuring you create the publicity for yourself to enable you to stay in the States, even with the paltry vote you get."

      It'll be hard to recover from the emotional trauma that comment caused me, but I'll soldier on regardless.

      "I am interested in one thing though, talking of 'gerrymandering', which whilst is an incorrect term for what you are describing, ie: it is NOT manipulating electoral boundaries at all, as the boundaries in the country are set by the Parish, which is a Parish boundary not an election boundary"

      Wrong on all counts. The States Assembly can set Parish boundaries if it wants, the Parish can only set vingtaine boundaries. But even if it couldn't, the States Assembly does not have to legislate to use Parish boundaries as the basis for election constituencies if it doesn't want to (there is nothing stopping it creating new constituencies which do not correspond with Parishes/ vingtaines). It also has the power to allocate whichever number of deputies it likes to those constituencies. The States Assembly has also several times refused to pass legislation to re-apportion Deputies seats to get better proportionality. Therein lies where it is gerrymandering.

      "Explain then, why in St Ouen we have ONE Deputy, versus St Helier which has a lot more."

      Because St Helier has more people living in it.

      "Further, please explain how if you were to do it completely on per-head of population then you would end up having St Helier dominate and effectively make Parish Deputies non-existent in the States as their vote would be completely pointless."

      Even if we did have a proportional voting system St Helier would not make up even close to a majority of the States Assembly. The other Parishes would always be able to out vote it. And of course you are ignoring the impact that is caused by Jersey Tory Party members who get elected in St Helier (Scott Wickenden, Rod Bryans etc) who vote however the Chief Minister tells them, regardless of whether it is in St Helier's interests or not.

      If the other Parishes are scared of St Helier dominating a democratically composed States Assembly, then maybe they should volunteer for large housing estates to be built in them so they can increase their population and justify getting more Deputies to balance things out a bit. I look forward to seeing how that proposition goes down in the country Parishes.

      "Finally I fail to see how you can criticise the COM when in fact the COM are elected based on the voting public"

      There is this thing called democracy which means I, and anyone else, can criticise whoever we like. It's pretty ironic for you to complain about me criticising people who you say are elected right after you yourself have complained about me and my "paltry vote". At least try to be consistent.

      If you want to exercise self-flagellation and masochism by voting for people who have run the Island's finances into the ground and who are preparing to raise your taxes whilst cutting the services you might need to rely on, then that is entirely a matter for you. You're entitled to vote how you want to.

      Delete
    2. Also, that "paltry" number of votes I got was more than 18 States Members put together, including all 12 Constables. How did you vote in the referendum on keeping the Constables in the States?

      Delete
  13. Noticed how since PJFS got rid of the witch and her alias trolls they are friendly and haven't attacked a progressive in over a Month. Its better debate since she left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maureen has a chip on her shoulder about losing in 2 elections and because she was told to remove vile comments off her blog she had to set up fake Facebook accounts to keep her hate campaign going against winning progressive candidates.

      Delete
    2. You speak too soon.
      She's back on there stirring it up again.
      Only person doing it mind.

      Delete
    3. Having a go at Deputy Doublet again. Sourgrapes is the only way of describing that.

      It's just embarrassing.

      Delete
  14. Sam.

    Alleged rape victim attempted to take her own life after experiencing THE JERSEY WAY.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It says you have a new post up on links but when you click it says its removed????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I briefly published one but have had second thoughts on the format of it so am currently redrafting it. Should be up shortly.

      Delete