This month's edition of the St Helier Parish magazine, the Town Crier, features an article about what I get up to on the job!
It's available in outlets across town, but here's a copy for those who miss it.
It's available in outlets across town, but here's a copy for those who miss it.
________________________________________________________________________________
So what is a typical day in the life of a States Member actually like? Well, the short answer is that there is no such thing!
I guess that is partly why I enjoy being a Deputy, because there is always a new challenge on the horizon or a new controversy brewing which must be dealt with, which keeps the job exciting and keeps me motivated.
But the one thing which is the same for me every day is that I get to start the morning by walking through the heart of St Helier No. 2 where I live, through the Millennium Park and get to stop and chat to constituents, often friendly words of support but also keeping me up to date on the local issues in the area.
The park is always packed with people enjoying the open space, playing football or taking their kids to the playground. I will continue to put pressure on the Council of Ministers to keep their promise to improve life in St Helier by purchasing the Gas Works site so we can extend the park and provide more open space in the most densely populated part of town.
The most important duty of a States Member is to attend debates in the States Assembly and represent our constituents. I think I’m a very active States Member in the chamber. I regularly bring propositions to try to achieve my manifesto pledges and ask more questions than most other States Members put together to hold the government to account. I think the majority of people in St Helier are dissatisfied with how the Council of Ministers is letting our Island down, so I try to give a voice to those people who want to see the government of Jersey deliver something much better than we are currently getting.
Sometimes it can feel like banging your head against a brick wall, but I feel optimistic that one day in the future we will have a proper States Assembly which will genuinely work in the interests of ordinary Islanders!
On a day when the States is not sitting, I’ll probably be out and about in town scurrying between different States departments trying to help people who are having difficulties, or working with the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel of which I’m a member.
I meet several times a week with my colleagues in Reform Jersey, Deputies Geoff Southern and Montfort Tadier. We work very closely together and I think we’re a great team and are much more effective than we would otherwise be if we were independent members.
Politics is serious business and it can easily grind you down if you don’t make sure you keep enough time free to enjoy yourself. So even though this job dominates my life (and I’m not complaining!) I keep sane by playing guitar in a band and spending time with my friends and family.
You appear to have missed out the time taken up fending off the on line abuse from the deranged anti-Progressive troll Jon Sharrock H Shoot to Thrill. Ensuring none of your family, friends or even landlord have been harassed by the unemployed one must take hours of your time. Just like other Progressives such as Stuart Syvret, the Pitmans, Monty Tadier and Mike Higgins before you. A mistake on your part I think because potential election candidates should be made aware how they will be stalked by this cowardly madman.
ReplyDeleteDeputy Mezec, don't people have a diplomatic right to be anti-Progressive, anti-Tory, anti-Liberal, anti-Communist or anti-anything they choose?????????????
ReplyDeleteThey have a right to be all those things.
DeleteAnd if they want to express their views in a diplomatic fashion, they can go for it. But it they do it in an undiplomatic way, then they should be prepared to face the consequences.
So what do you mean by facing the consequences?
DeleteI have seen some of your unpalatable exchanges in the news groups and you are hardly diplomatic yourself. Is it fair to say that you have it in for anybody who disagrees with you?
Have I ever:
Delete- Phoned up the landlord of someone I disagree with and threatened to kill their family?
- Made hours and hours worth of drunken phonecalls threatening to ruin the lives of bloggers I disagree with?
- Leaked private information about the family affairs of people I disagree with?
- Ran fake Facebook and Twitter accounts to harass and libel people I disagree with (usually victims of child abuse)?
- Lodged countless vexatious complaints to the employers of people I disagree with?
The answer to all of those is no.
I am asking why you argue with people on news groups like CTV and the JEP, I am not interested in your well documented hate campaign against a individual.
DeleteYou mean you're asking why I choose to engage with the public on the forums they feel most comfortable on? Strange criticism.
DeleteHate campaign? How is it a hate campaign to stand up to a vicious bully who goes out of his way to try to make people's lives miserable? I think more people should stand up to bullies like him.
Is this Jon Freemental cause he runs a group only about you full of stupid photoshop pictures and rhetoric about Reform Jersey destroying Jersey, blokes mental.
ReplyDeleteSam.
ReplyDeleteUnhappy Anniversary EIGHT.
To people like Tadier, Syvret and Pitman this topic was never about the children but the use of historic abuse rumors to try and gain political smears against the Establishment. So why still promote this nonsense about Graham Power on the eve of the Report unless you are scared of something.
DeleteAnd to people like you and "James Pearce", "Paul Holmes", "Lawrence Byrne" and all the other pseudonyms you've created, it was always about satisfying your disturbing desire to silence victims of abuse and anyone who dared stand for justice.
DeleteSam.
DeleteHe attempted (unsuccessfully) to get the exact same comment published on my Blog, indeed he attempts to get lots of comments published on my Blog of the same nature (and worse) but very few of them get published because I don't believe he deserves the attention he craves.
He is what some of us call; "a bunch of lunatic." He has that many pseudonyms it would be laughable if it wasn't so harmful to the Victims/Survivors of Child Abuse.
I have sent one of his pseudonyms (Paul Holmes) a Private message on Facebook in order to let him know he has my attention. How much more of it he wants is his call. He should (if he hasn't already) click on the link I sent him and decide if he really does want my attention. For my part I don't want to give him that attention but I do have a Blog Posting drafted, and ready to publish, using the link I sent him if he wants?
Sam Mezec this is an opinion of a former Chief Minister so your attacks on me are a waste of time. VFC your post is irrelevant to me.
DeleteHahahahahahahaha, yeah, because if there is one person whose opinion is respected and valued in Jersey it's our glorious former Chief Minister!
DeleteYou're priceless Jon.
Priceless Jon?
DeleteThis view is shared by a number of States Members especially on Syvret, so whatever you think about that analysis, it won't change their views.
If I wanted to attack the victims of child abuse they would know about it.
DeleteThey do know about it Jon.
DeleteThey do and they think you're even more pathetic than I do, and that's saying something.
DeleteWe don't have a connection.
ReplyDeleteNot caring about the views of other States Members is a Reform Jersey trait so glad to see you are finally opening up about it.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you commenting as Mike when your name is Jon?
DeleteAnd yes, Reform Jersey cares about the views of ordinary Islanders, not the views of out of touch politicians.
Jon mentioned 6 times.
ReplyDeleteIf its the same one who has resigned from all FB groups then you need help.
No it's the same one who posts these inane comments on my blog every two minutes.
DeleteDoes Reform Jersey want a Public Register of Beneficial Ownership?
ReplyDeleteOur view is that it is almost certainly an inevitability that it will happen at some point in the future and we should be prepared for it and be open to the discussion.
DeleteIf the international community does not want to progress on it, then we won't need to do anything. But not not be prepared for it if it is pushed upon us would be foolish.
Couldn't you or Reform use your many contacts to start a 'Fund Me' appeal here to try and raise the dosh to get Jon the help he needs? I'm sure loads of people would support it. Just all of his victims donating a pound would probably pay for it. Maybe even a holiday in Tenerfie to recover from the electro-shock treatement?
ReplyDeleteAs far as a Public Register of beneficial Companies goes though Deputy surely Reform should support this? It is about transparancy at the end of the day.
He's not even around anymore and came off PJWFS.
DeleteYes you are. You're still using your fake Paul Holmes account. We're not stupid Jon. We can see what's going on.
DeleteI give up putting comment on here.
DeleteI sincerely hope that's true Jon.
DeleteWhat is your feelings on your Reform colleague Monty's dual role proposition? We all know the dual role must end but do enough States Members have the cojonnes to vote the Bailiff out of a job?
ReplyDeleteEven some of the States Members who support ending the dual role didn't vote for it! Some of them just have no comprehension of what integrity means.
DeleteI agree the dual role will one day come to an end, however the proposition that I read before the vote was very light on touch. For a proposition to be successful, you can't just put a case forward to get rid of something, without having a replacement proposal that is workable.
ReplyDeleteThe suggestion for it to go to consultation so that an independent workable replacement solution to be found was the right one, but unfortunately was defeated. It was this, which would have resulted in the end of the dual role.
As a result, without a workable replacement model that is supported (Reform Jersey do have a habit of putting forward the CHANGE case to things, without having a supported workable solution), I fear it will not happen any time soon. This loss put the kybosh on that idea.
Reform Jersey have the opportunity to bring about change with increased voter support if only when they argue to change something, they actually have a sensible workable solution based in facts that the voters support. Currently you just want to change things, and without the planned outcome, voters will never support you in the majority.
The world is not just looking more and more to the right, they are running (not walking) there. This is just America, but look at the UK, Australia, New Zealand.... The left has had it's day, for you Mezec to be successful, the Reform Jersey part must reform.
There were some members who definitely shared the view that the proposition didn't have enough detail. But it also has to be said that there were other members who voted against because it contained too much detail.
DeleteThere were a handful of members who are happy to split the dual role of the Bailiff but want the Speaker of the States to be appointed from the general public, not to elect a States Member to do the job.
So I think there were a whole host of differing and contradictory reasons why members chose to vote against it.
I don't agree that the consultation would have led to the dual role being ended. Some members expressed the concern that we'd spend time and money consulting, then bring it to the States only for those members that never supported ending the dual role to have not changed their minds and just vote it down again.
I think we just need to keep having the vote every Assembly until there's a majority for it. Monty brought it because the Chief Minister was playing other members around on the subject, telling some he wasn't going to do anything and telling others he was. I think the failing is largely down to him (he didn't even bother to vote on it).
Sorry mate - the failing is on Monty for the proposition - he proposed it. Don't go blaming others because he didn't come up with a sound proposition. A well structured argument would always win. You blaming Gorst is just a cop-out frankly.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you need to start being professional, and not go blaming others when it is in fact the Reform Party "MP"'s who failed by not bringing forward something that will succeed.
By just bringing the same vote back day after day (or year after year), will not change the underlying issue.
I don't think you get this politics thing if that is your view - you need to work with your 'opposition' to get change to happen.
No sorry but you don't blame a proposition failing on those who supported it, you blame it on those who opposed it.
DeleteMonty attempted to work with the Chief Minister on this subject, they had meetings on it and it was Gorst who deliberately attempted to derail it because he didn't have the guts to enforce collective responsibility on it.
This proves the point: There can't be collective responsibility, because Monty isn't a Minister! Collective responsibility exists only for Minister's propositions. It is clear in the detail of the Collective Reponsibility law that was passed.
DeleteHilarious! You are in the States, and don't understand Collective Responsibility.
Again, my point stands - Monty didn't bring a thorough proposition to the table to get the support across the States. He had the opportunity, many support the concept, only with a sound alternative.
Monty couldn't provide a sound alternative.
Wrong. The Chief Minister can choose to apply collective responsibility to the Council of Minister's response to any backbench proposition and he regularly does. Probably a good idea to have checked that before phrasing your response in that petulant Tory-boy way, it's not a good look.
DeleteYour point doesn't stand. Several States Members voted against because they didn't want as much detail as he provided, they wanted a purely in principle debate on the dual role and any debates on the alternative to come after that. Again, you'd know that if you'd checked the record (all available on the States Assembly website).
There has never been a Collective Responsibility applied to a non-Minister's proposition. It is stated in the original debate - that Collective Responsibility applies to Ministerial Propositions on the agreement of the CM. NOT on any others. Check the law.
DeleteYou are wrong on that one Mezec - sompletely. You might not like it, but perhaps for once, deal in the facts.
As Mandela said: Facts is all that matters!
I'm not being funny, but I do this for a living and have lodged my own propositions and amendments in the States which the Council of Ministers has been collectively bound to either oppose or support.
DeleteThere isn't any point in debating some anonymous guy on the internet that point.
If ever the comment at 14.23 18th November wanted to pretend it wasn't trolling our friend really should have done a little homework to try and disguise his guff.
DeleteFor anyone to attack you for saying blame the people wwho didn't support the Monty proposition when they then make the ludicrous aand demonstrably untrue comment that 'a well structured argument will always win' is beyond laughable.
Anyone who listens to States debates over the years will appreciate that there have been countless 'well crafted arguments' in propositions brought from outside our 11 years of ministerial government by progressives.
They are voted down simply because who it is bringing them 99 times out of a 100. Or when relating to reforming the system, be it creating fair electoral representation or bringing about a proper separation of powers simply because it would undermine the establishment's power base.
I remember stumbling on perhaps the best ever exposure of this three or four years ago on former Deputy Trevor Pitman's blog. Here he pointed out that during a debate on a proposition brought by the former Deputy of St Mary two Constables had told him in the coffee room 'Yes, Wimberley's proposition is right. But we're not going to vote for it any way. Because he has spoken for too long'.
Make you proud to be a Jerseyman. Not.
When do you intend to come out?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what this means.
DeleteAnonymnous on the 19/11/2016. I don't think it matters about a persons sexuality at all. I though Mezec had, or was one of those generally accepted views. However even if Mezec hasn't, I don't think it matters about a person's sexuality, it is sort of out of order really to even bring it up.
DeletePerhaps our Jonnie, a well known homophobe and Leftie hater, suspects (hopes?) you might be a closet Tory?
DeleteSam.
ReplyDeleteChild Abuse Inquiry report DELAYED.
Bring back Big Trev Pitman and the BTR. https://youtu.be/hGk0P0T5e5w
ReplyDeleteHilary from St Brelade. Whoops.
I do miss the Bald Truth Review!
DeleteThe BTR was legendary and greatly missed. Would you consider doing something similar Sam if Big Trev has retired?
DeleteWe need serious Politicians to take us post Brexit and no more clowning around.
DeleteAnonymous@20.10.
DeleteWe need 'serious politicians to take us past Brexit and no more clowning about'.
Couldn't agree more. Trouble is what would you do when the Bailhache, Gorst and MacLean clowns who 'lead' our government have to resign under your serious politicians rule?
https://youtu.be/hGk0P0T5e5w?t=10m6s
ReplyDeleteBack to Politics and sensible discussion.
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts about the minimum wage rise to £7.50 an hour in the UK next April?
Jersey is lagging behind constantly with the minimum wage and this is be problematic for agriculture and hospitality, because why work here when you get more in the UK?
DeleteIsn't Reform Jersey tabling a proposition for £7.20 and will you review that figure again?
I'm only regretting that the Autumn Statement wasn't delivered earlier so I could have proposed raising our minimum wage to £7.50ph instead of £7.20ph.
DeleteReform Jersey won a proposition earlier this year to get a report produced to outline what the effect on the tax and benefits system would be if we increased the minimum wage significantly.
We are currently waiting for that report before bringing a proposition to change the rules on the minimum wage to emulate that of the UK where they are aiming for 60% of the median wage, as opposed to Jersey's aim of 45% of the mean wage.
Thought they were working towards a working wage in 2020 or around £9?
DeleteThis is going to have to be reviewed as a matter of urgency as next Summer Jersey even with £7.20 an hour will be behind the UK again. The working group who recommend rises in the hourly rate is no longer fit for purpose.
Has anybody worked out an hourly estimate that would take most people off Income support yet?
ReplyDeleteOh yes, the much missed Bald Truth was very much about serious political issues and discussion. But done in an innovative and dare I say it exciting way that engaged ordinary people far beyond the ken of most Jersey politicians. I hope it comes back in the not too distant future. I hope the ex-politician who was behind it comes back even more. This States Chamber is stacked to the rafters with people who make Donald Trump look bright!
ReplyDelete